Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May 2023 was +0.37 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is up from the April 2023 anomaly of +0.18 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 17 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.06 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.12 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.50 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.28 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.22 | +0.74 | +0.02 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.27 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.25 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.17 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.60 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.46 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.56 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.32 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.50 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.24 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.04 | +0.16 | +0.93 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.14 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.08 | +0.17 | 0.00 | -0.11 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.12 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.16 | -0.13 | -1.44 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.25 | -0.03 | -0.38 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.39 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for May, 2023 should be available within the next several days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Whoever it was who bet with Richard (RLH) that we will have a monthly anomaly of +0.5 or greater this year looks to be on a pretty good wicket.
Who was that BTW?
Me.
Ah yes. I was thinking it might have been Bindidon.
No, I never predict anything.
I just follow (sometimes really bad) forecasts made by others.
Bindiklaun cannot even read the forecast correctly let alone predict something
We shall see won’t we.
Indeed.
Here are the probabilities my model are printing out for 0.5 or higher.
2023/06: 2%
2023/07: 4%
2023/08: 9%
2023/09: 16%
2023/10: 25%
2023/11: 37%
2023/12: 43%
The combined 2023/06 to 2023/12 probability of at least one 0.5 occurrence is 80%. However, that assumes the IRI ENSO ensemble forecast is close and the AMO does not change significantly.
My hunch says 80% is high, but experience tells me hunches are terrible predictors so I don’t know.
Which ENSO forecast?
The IRI ensemble mean.
There are 2 ENSO forecasts, the average statistical one and the average dynamic one. They are not the same. Neither is an actual weighting of their accuracy of previous forecasts.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso-sst_table
I know. Everyone knows there is a statical group and a dynamic group. When I say the IRI ensemble average I mean the entire ensemble including all ensemble members regardless of whether they are in the statistical or dynamic groups. Specifically I use the “Average, All models” line in the table.
Why do you average 2 different sources? Do you have a scientific reason for that?
“Note that the expected skills of the models, based on historical performance, are not equal to one another. The skills also generally decrease as the lead time increases. Thirdly, forecasts made at some times of the year generally have higher skill than forecasts made at other times of the year–namely, they are better when made between June and December than when they are made between February and May. Differences among the forecasts of the models reflect both differences in model design, and actual uncertainty in the forecast of the possible future SST scenario.”
Why do you cherry pick one source?
Do you have a scientific reason for that?
I’m not averaging 2 different sources. I’m averaging 24 different sources. There are 24 members in the ensemble. I definitely want a mix of dynamic and statistical members. And I definitely don’t want to cherry-pick or exclude any particular members since I know of no justifiable reason to do so.
I show both. I point out that one set is lower (much lower) than the other.
We will see later on this year which is the closest to the actual result.
“Im not averaging 2 different sources. Im averaging 24 different sources.”
Which, as the source page shows, is drawn from 2 different groups. One based on past statistics. One based on estimates of the underlying physics. Chalk and cheese.
Please note
“Thirdly, forecasts made at some times of the year generally have higher skill than forecasts made at other times of the yearnamely, they are better when made between June and December than when they are made between February and May”
Yes. I know one is lower. That is inevitability when you boil it down to only two options that aren’t equal. One will be higher. One will be lower. That seems like a statement of the obvious. Anyway, if I knew which option was going to be closer to the truth I’d obviously pick that option and ignore the other. But I don’t know.
RLH … And you choose to interpret that as “therefore any El Nino will not be as strong as projected”. What about the possibility that it is in fact stronger?
And the NOAA probabilities already factor in those uncertainties.
“the NOAA probabilities already factor in those uncertainties”
Really? What uncertainties are quoted by NOAA and how do they change from winter to summer?
“One will be higher. One will be lower.”
And one, over time, will be closer to what actually happens IRL. Why is it that the metric is not collected?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1493262
The dynamical model average was 87% accurate for October as predicted in May.
RLH
NOAA El Nino probabilities:
AMJ: 38%
MJJ: 82%
JJA: 89%
JAS: 91%
ASO: 93%
SON: 94%
OND: 94%
NDJ: 94%
DJF: 93%
You don’t think non-unit probabilities indicate uncertainties?
Oh dear.
The main models all predicting a strong El Nino in the Fall.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20230523.nino_summary_6.png
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Its been freezing since Saturday in the UK. I have to question what they are spraying in the air from planes, I have seen an official document claiming they do it to cool, whereas they maybe doing the opposite on purpose to push the CO2 warming nonsense.
An “official” document from what “official” source?
There is astory about a plane that loaded contaminated fuel. The source tank at the airport had been contaminated by salt water. The salt water caused the filter material to break down. As the plane flew the filter materials gummed up the fuel throttle. The engines shut down while the plane was over the sea. The pilot was able to restart one engine and get just enough power out of the engine to get to land.
There is no way that any airline is going to risk the lives of passengers by allowing fuel to be mixed with chemicals for the purpose of spraying chemtrails.
So far, no one has shown any equipment or special tank for spraying chemicals.
The answer to ‘what they are spraying in the air from planes’ is NOTHING. You are observing contrails.
You can see photos from WW2 showing fleets of bomber aircraft spreading contrails. These planes flew at altitudes that made them near invisible to AA gunners. The contrails pinpointed their locations in the sky. You can bet those planes weren’t deliberatly trying to cool the skies over Germany with chemicals.
Yes, the contrails themselves do cause local cooling. In WW2 the difference was measurable as bombers grouped up over Britain.
I have found nothing to substantiate the conspiracy theory of chemtrails. Yes there is discussion about geo-engineering. Yes there are localized experiments. However, the contrails you are seeing are not chemtrails.
Please put an end to spreading false rumors.
A trippy thing . .
Following 9/11, the airspace over the US was shut down for a couple/few days. It is notable that a study, or two, were conducted finding that we cooled down by [I believe] about 1.5 – 2 F.
Might we call the norm, man-made global cooling?
Interesting indeed.
Who is “we”? The globe, or New York?
If the globe, then it is a nonsense claim.
If New York, then how significant do you believe those numbers are in relation to 2-day variability in WEATHER?
BTW – your memory is flawed. Those studies showed a warming, not a cooling. Nonsense analysis nevertheless.
Your belief isn’t good enough. Data matters; your beliefs do not.
Actually, the OPPOSITE happened. Warming increased most likely because contrails reflect solar radiation but they were absent in the days Fter 9/11. Paradoxically, the more we resort to clean energy, the faster we will warm.
As I said, such an analysis, over just a couple of days, against the background of daily variability of multiple degrees, is nonsense whether it shows warming or cooling.
Your final sentence is (partially) correct, but the 9/11 analysis does not justify it.
The reason it is only partially correct is that despite the fact we are employing more clean energy, this is not keeping up with the increased total demand for energy, so non-renewable energy demand is also increasing. It should be “the less we resort to non-renewable energy”.
It is also only correct for a relatively short time period. If we stopped burning fossil fuel overnight, there would be an “immediate” (within a couple of weeks) increase in forcing, which would then be moderated by the usual approximately 30 year lag between forcing and increased temperatures. There would be no second increase, other than the usual feedbacks.
Are we in the same UK? Northern Ireland has been pleasantly warm all week.
I think there’s been quite a sharp East West divide the last few days. There were naps showing temperatures into the mid 20s in the West, but about 10 degrees colder in the East.
So it is the Chem Trails after all..
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/27/world/meteorologists-conspiracy-harassment-abuse-climate-intl/index.html
Conspiracy theorists claim that “they” (insert secret society of choice) are running the world.
The terrifying reality is that nobody is running the world.
Horse Pucks. No one has ever run the world; the world has continued on swimmingly.
Assuming this a rational question, the answer is very simple. The “contrails” from a commercial airliner are an abbreviation for condensation trail. They contain anything and everything that is in the jet fuel, but primarily water vapor since CO2 is only slightly soluble. It turns out that modern jet fuel available from any industrialized country is very clean. The only impurities would be very slight traces of sulfur and nitrogen from the refining process. On the other hand, one of the consequences of increasing CO2 is cooling of the stratosphere which would make them possibly last longer as ice.
What is preventing you from sharing your “official” source?
Have fun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
“The most commonly used fuels for commercial aviation are Jet A and Jet A-1, which are produced to a standardized international specification. The only other jet fuel commonly used in civilian turbine-engine powered aviation is Jet B, which is used for its enhanced cold-weather performance.”
You referred to an OFFICIAL source. Do I need to tell you that Wikipedia is not an official source? I will take the time to read your link when you live up to your promise. If one of the links at the end of the article is your official source then tell me which one it is.
You have to read the content. The link is full of standards and specifications. Resourceful people who want to do the research and spend the money to unlock pay-walled sites can read the actual standards. Start here:
https://www.astm.org/d1655-22a.html
It will only cost you $82.00 (US currency). I can tell you that it will specify a boiling range of different hydrocarbons such as branched and linear alkanes. It will likely have limits on certain components such as sulfur, aromatics, alkenes, alkynes. and olefins. There will also be a cloud point specification that limits the wax content.
Let me repeat your comment:
“I have seen an official document claiming they do it to cool”.
This is a statement of POLICY, not science.
So link to this OFFICIAL document which indicate the intention to do this, also stating who “THEY” is.
If you can’t do this then you were BSing.
I don’t need your approval.
Rephrasing: “I am free to make any BS claim I wish without justification”.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Tim: chilly weather at the end of May in the UK is nothing unusual, as you’ll see here:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
A lot warmer than I expected.
The 4th warmest May in the UAH data set. The warmer Mays – 1998, 2016 and 2020 were all set during record breaking years, which 2023 definitely won’t be. 1998 and 2016 both followed major El Ninos. 2020 was in neutral conditions, whereas 2023 is following from a prolonged La Nina.
My simple prediction from the start of the year continues to look poor. My prediction now based on the first 5 months of the year is for 0.19 +/- 0.10. This is up from 0.15 last month. And has been growing steadily since the start of the year. The problems of starting with an unusually cold month.
Monckton’s pause now starts August 2014, which I think means it contracts by 1 month. Still meaningless.
I wouldn’t be surprised if your +0.19 end up falling about 0.1 short.
“ends”
What do you guys think? With the transition out of La Nina expected for June is it time to call all of those sub-zero predictions on the 1981-2010 baseline as failures?
RLH, you had one of the boldest predictions I’ve seen on here. Is it time to adjudicate it yet or do you want us to we wait a while longer?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-779484
Doh…I meant to post down below. Sorry about that.
I tend to follow what
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
says (as well as UAH).
FWIW my model is predicting 0.28 C for the annual mean UAH TLT for 2023. I don’t have a good feel for the uncertainty on that but a quick type A evaluation suggests it is probably on the order of +/- 0.1 C. That means my 0.28 C prediction is consistent with Bellman’s 0.19 C. However, as Bellman suggests it is possible (if not likely) that the 0.19 C figure is biased low due to the cool start to the year. Mine could be biased high due to either an over-estimation of ENSO or an over-reliance of its impact this year.
“I wouldnt be surprised if your +0.19 end up falling about 0.1 short.”
It wouldn’t surprise me if it was warmer than the current estimate. It’s been going up every month so far this year. It’s a very simple model, just the average temperature for the start of thee year, along with a linear warming rate. It doesn’t consider anything like changing ENSO conditions, nor does it give any weighting to more recent months. But I do usually find the final annual average is within most of the 95% prediction intervals.
It would be surprising if it was as much as 0.29. That would require an average temperature over the next 7 months of over 0.38C. This would set a record. So far the warmest June – December average has been 0.35C in 2019.
So basically you are saying that using the average temperature over the last 3 years is a good predictor of the future.
As global temperatures have been going down since 2016 that does not bode well for the future.
“So basically you are saying that using the average temperature over the last 3 years is a good predictor of the future.”
No. I’m looking at how the average temperature of the first 5 months predicts the annual average, over the whole range of UAH data.
It’s a surprisingly linear fit.
https://imgur.com/a/drVYiz9
The only refinement is to add the Year as an additional independent variable, which includes the assumption of a linear trend over time. This generally means I slightly warmer and more accurate prediction.
Here’s a graph showing the prediction in context
https://imgur.com/a/HVkLO7B
Red line represents the 95% prediction interval.
“Im looking at how the average temperature of the first 5 months predicts the annual average, over the whole range of UAH data.”
So it will be a sine wave projection of the yearly data in the first 5 months. That is normally done by anomalies. There will be a range applied to that (I just show the centers).
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
The 5 pass S-G is the standard way of doing that work and is supported by many other disciplines. I expect that individual future months will fall either side of that center line. I accept your premise that it will cover +-0.25C approximately.
He’s saying that the 95% CI is +-0.10 C. That’s what his graphic shows.
“So it will be a sine wave projection of the yearly data in the first 5 months.”
No.
The Hunga Tunga volcano put a lot of water into the stratosphere.
Someone suggested that would cause warming.
Its dust and SO4 from volcanoes that cause cooling.
NASA said in a press release last August that it might cause warming, which wouldn’t be noticeable for three years. They also said that there is a good chance that it wouldn’t be noticeable above the statistical noise.
Clint has taken that “maybe in three years” and turned it into a “definitely now”. In doing so he has ignored the balloon data I provided which shows that there has been no noticeable change in stratospheric water vapour since the eruption.
Yes. the H-T continues to amaze. Ive been trying to take its effect into account, but still learning. The effect appears to be quite *lumpy*, as May UAH results indicate. That would make balloon data somewhat useless.
Further research will require appropriate funding.
Because of course the water vapour knows how to avoid any attempt to detect it over a 16-month period.
And of course excess water vapour can disappear from the stratosphere and then suddenly return from …. where?
Who do you think is going to support a non-scientist like you with funding? What do you mean by “further” research? You have yet to do anything which remotely resembles research. Saying “the temperature rose, therefore I am right” is not science.
Ant, the H-T effect is more than just water vapor. You also have to consider the disruptions to upper level air flows, even somewhat into the Stratosphere. And that can lead to considerations involving the Polar Vortex. There are a lot of unknowns there.
But, we also know a lot. We know CO2 can NOT warm the planet. We know Earth is NOT an imaginary sphere. We know ice cubes can NOT boil water. And we know you can NOT use radiative fluxes for a “energy balance”.
Clint R
“We know CO2 can NOT warm the planet.”
You BELIEVE CO2 can not warm the planet. Not quite the same thing.
Well Ent, you’re allowed to submit your nonsense as to how CO2 can “heat Earth”.
Maybe you can also prove passenger jets fly backward.
I won’t hold my breath —
CO2 absorbs longwave radiation bouncing back off the earth and then re-radiates some of that energy back to the earth as heat.
Very well understood phenomenon. It is the double bonds on the molecule that do it.
“The effect appears to be”
“Further research”
Just a suggestion, if you want to do science, you can’t assume cause and effect and ignore all confounding variables. Several are present here.
Troll Nate, you appear to be skeptical of the H-T effect. Nothing wrong with skepticism. You should apply it to your cult AGW nonsense. As Ant tells you “the temperature rose, therefore I am right” is not science.
Anyone saying about their pet ’cause’ “The effect appears to be” aint doing science.
Thanks for enlarging the chart
Good morning, Dr. Spencer, I’ve been working with the new NOAA STAR v5 products. I found that there was some data missing from their TMT gridded data after 2018, which I found to be curious. The missing data was not random, but appeared repeatedly at 5 specific grid locations. Not that a few missing data points would be a big deal when monthly averages are calculated, but the fact that the same locations appeared repeatedly was troubling. One can only speculate as to the cause of the missing data. I have contacted NOAA STAR and I understand that they are looking at the situation.
Since you use the data supplied by NOAA STAR, does your data also exhibit similar missing data points after 2018?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
2023/05 came in warmer than was I expecting. My statical model was saying 0.24 +/- 0.24 C. My hybrid statistical/dynamic model was saying 0.20 +/- 0.20 C.
The 4 month lagged ONI is -0.7 so this month came with a bit of La Nina influence. The 3 higher Mays had 4 month lagged ONIs of +2.2 (1998), +2.5 (2016), and +0.5 (2020) respectively.
I have the Monckton Pause at 106 months starting in 2014/08.
Assuming 2023 plays out as I’m expecting at the 2023/12 update the Monckton Pause would be 107 months starting in 2015/02. The big disclaimer here is that ENSO transition into an El Nino with a magnitude of ONI = 1.2. It’s certainly possible that ENSO does not go that high or that some other confounding factor causes observed UAH TLT anomalies to come in lower than my expectations thus causing a longer pause.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
What do you guys think? With the transition out of La Nina expected for June is it time to call all of those sub-zero predictions on the 1981-2010 baseline as failures?
RLH, you had one of the boldest predictions Ive seen on here. Is it time to adjudicate it yet or do you want us to we wait a while longer?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-779484
Not quite as bold as Salvatore’s predictions from 5+ years ago.
But when his predictions didn’t eventuate at least he had the good grace to admit he was wrong and disappear.
I suspect RLH will be making no such admission. He will either invent an excuse or pretend it didn’t happen. He can’t even be honest to himself.
-0.3 on the 13m centered average is pretty bold. We got no where close to that even during a triple dip La Nina. The last time it happened was in 1993 as we were coming out of the cooling influence of Pinatubo.
And just people understand. My intent here is not denigrate or put anyone down for their failed predictions. I have to at least commend them for doing so since making and testing predictions is one of the tenants of science. My intent is to get them to reevaluate their priors and make predictions that cannot be falsified the next time.
Liar. I support all that I say.
RLH
I said nothing about whether or not you support what you say (although there is a lot I could have said about that if I had chosen to).
I was commenting on whether or not you are capable of admitting when you are wrong.
You have just confirmed that you are not.
You have this habit of pretending that someone is talking about something they are not, as a way of escaping from a hole. THAT is the only form of lying here.
Yes I admit when I am wrong.
Yet you have still not managed to admit here that you were wrong about UAH plummeting to -0.3 by mid 2022. How about an unconditional admission right here and now. (I won’t hold my breath.)
Recall that your comment referred to “Roy’s 13 month line” and not individual months. At the time of your comment it was +0.18, and by mid 2022 it had plummeted all the way to +0.14.
(Interesting BTW that you decry the use of running averages, yet see no issue with “Roy’s 13 month line”.)
You keep saying “we will see”, but never revisit your claims when we do in fact see that they were wrong.
I was optimistic/pesimistic about the actual data, -0.3c was my low end projection. The 3 year La Nina did not manage to move things that far as we have seen. We will see how warm this years El Nino is actually.
I use a 12 month VP LP rather than Roy’s 13 month SRM. I have always done that.
Here is your comment again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-779484
Point out where you said that this was a low-end prediction.
Why is it so hard to just say “I was wrong”?
We didn’t get a drop to your levels during La Nina because NO La Nina of ANY strength has resulted in such a drop to more than 0.5C below the trend. The furthest ANY La Nina has taken us below the trend (measured annually) less than half of that. And there was NO other reason for a fall.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso-sst_table
It all depends on if you believe in the average statistical model or the average dynamic one.
I don’t think that’s going to matter. Even taking the lower statistical modeling average of ENSO peaking the ONI at +0.5 would still be significantly higher than the peak of -1.0 for the last La Nina or -1.3 if going back to Nov. 2020. A transition from La Nina to at least neutral ENSO conditions isn’t going to encourage sub-zero anomalies on the old 1981-2010 baseline nevermind a -0.3 13m centered average on the current baseline. I doubt that a VEI 6 eruption simultaneous with a strong La Nina would get us that low at this point.
But barely scraping an EL Nino (+0.5c) would not be what the warmistas have been heavily promoting for this year.
I’m not seeing the relevance here. My point is that a -0.3 13m centered average isn’t a realistic outcome regardless of the expectation of the magnitude of the potential El Nino. It’s not even realistic given a quad-dip La Nina. I even have doubts about whether a significant volcanic eruption could get us there.
I don’t use a 13 month running mean as my summary of the data just because it produces too much distortion in the output.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
April data as May is not out in the form needed yet.
We’re not talking about your summary of the data. We’re talking about your prediction that the 13m centered mean would drop to -0.3 before it rises again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-779484
RLH
It’s like you have these ideas in your head, and you are going to promote them regardless of them having no connection to the topic at hand. Try to expand your knowledge base.
bdgwx
I think I disagree with you about the combined effects of VEI6 eruption and a strong La Nina. The 13-month average fell to as low as +0.07 during 2021, and that was for only a low-end-moderate La Nina. If we had a repeat of 1973-74, which is the closest we have gone to a ‘very strong’ La Nina, I think that would get close to -0.1. Add another Pinatubo on top of that and we would get close. Also, Pinatubo was only a low-end VEI6, about half as strong as Krakatoa (another VEI6).
But one thing is certain – we are never going to get sustained values that low – certainly not a five-year average or greater. Unless we get a VEI8 eruption, in which case the debate here will be moot.
AQ, yeah it could. I’m certainly not going to eliminate the possibility. I show a 13m centered peak -0.35 C effect from Pinatubo. And I get a 13m centered peak -0.18 C effect from the strong La Nina in 1988. If those two occurred simultaneously you might expect a combined -0.53 C effect on a 13m centered mean. If you subtract that off the current 0.19 C 13m centered mean you get -0.34 C. So yeah, it is possible at least according to that analysis. My doubt lies with the validity of the magnitude of the combined effect of two extreme events. Would they really combine linearly? I’m not convinced.
“But barely scraping an EL Nino (+0.5c) would not be what the warmistas have been heavily promoting for this year.”
RLH, could you point to an example of what “warmistas have been heavily promoting for this year”? I haven’t seen any kind of notion promoted, heavily or otherwise, and assume you’re making this up.
The gold star goes to Nate. He said 0.1 in 2021 a bit over 0.1 in 2022 for the 13m centered mean. The 2021 minimum was 0.12 and the 2022 minimum was 0.16. Job well done!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-783071
Thanks, forgot about that. Some luck involved.
My advice to RLH then, and now is
” follow science and logic with your prediction, rather than just hope for cooling that has no rationale.”
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Here is a graph of detrended UAH vs ONI:
https://tinyurl.com/Detrended-UAH-vs-ONI
The years run from July to June, representing the ENSO season.
The obvious outliers are marked with a triangle and a comment.
The last 7 years are marked with a red circle. All but one are above the trend.
The open circle is 2022/23, which is not yet over. It doesn’t include May because the ONI is not yet out. It clearly also doesn’t include June.
The trend line slope of 0.0761 means that (excluding the outliers) the full range of annual ONIs accounts for an average variation of 0.165C in the annual UAH anomalies.
The trend line intercept of 0.0013 shows that neutral ENSO conditions do indeed almost correspond on average to the current trended value of the anomaly.
I wasn’t clear when I said “all but one are above the trend”, as there are two trends going on here.
The trend I was referring to is the one represented by the trend line shown in the graph. Then there is the positive UAH time-series trend, which has been removed here from the UAH data, and points which are above the horizontal axis are above THAT trend (though not in chronological order).
Nice. Maybe could plot vs lagged ONI, 4 or 5 months?
Interesting. I think that is consistent with my analysis. My model says that there is a 0.14 C per unit of ONI effect. This causes a variation of 0.12 C on the monthly values. I’m probably getting a slightly lower value because my model has contributions of variation due to the AMO, solar irradiance, and volcanic activity.
Which do you think is more likely to be accurate on the future of ENSO, the average statistics model or the average dynamic one (and why).
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso-sst_table
There is nothing here which would suggest an attempt to predict the future. I leave such predictions to the experts, a group you do not belong to.
If you do not count months that have not happened yet as the future….
So you are claiming that leaving out two months of ONE year voids the entire trend? How much do you believe the trend will change two months from now?
When I include the May UAH and what I roughly expect the May ENSO3.4 to be, the trend changes from 0.0761 to 0.0763. Do you believe that changes the interpretation of the graph?
And you mistakenly confuse truncating one year with an attempt to extrapolate from the data, which I have not done. There is no time variable here. That would require a third axis.
RLH
I guess this one was too hard even for your apologetics.
I always use the average of statistical+dynamic. The skill of statistical models is close to dynamic, but statistical does edge out dynamic a little bit. A blend of both together is better than either one alone. When I do my own UAH TLT forecasting I use the average of statistical+dynamic.
I’m trying to find actively updated AI/ML models. They have superior skill over both statistical and dynamic modeling, but are not widely used yet at least for near real-time forecasting that I can see.
AI is probably the future. The problem appears to be that its results do not match what people are expecting/wanting. Either that or it is not trained properly yet to produce the desired results.
Now if we were to rank models and predictions (including AI) on which were closer to the actual outcomes then that would be a start.
Agreed. AI/ML is showing a lot of promise in a variety related domains including but not limited to tropical cyclone track and intensity forecasts, precipitation forecast, severe thunderstorm forecasts, etc. I noticed that the roadmaps for some of the global circulation models include the incorporation of AI/ML techniques.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
I suspect most people have figured out why their posts sometimes appear in the wrong thread. But in case you haven’t, it happens when you start to make a post in a thread, then change your mind and cancel. If you then want to post elsewhere you should refresh the page first, otherwise it seems to remember where you were about to post despite the cancellation, and stick your comment there.
The 8 y mean is 0.234, a new record. The mean of the previous 8 y was -0.03.
The 10 y mean is 0.195, a new record. The mean of the previous 10 y was -0.03.
Or better still, a 10-year running mean:
https://tinyurl.com/UAH-10-year-Running-Mean
AQ, as RLH will scream at you, a 10 year running mean (or moving average) is a very poor smoothing function. It shifts the dates for the data and introduces a spurious signal. As a result, the filtered series provides nothing particularly useful.
Yes, it is 5 years off because I used a right-aligned mean instead of a centred mean. But what is this “spurious signal”? It precisely answers the question “what is the average anomaly for the last 10 years” at any moment in time, and that is the only only question I was trying to answer.
What do you think happens when you mix square wave sampling (Simple Running Mean) with a continuous signal (see Vaughn Pratt and the various discussions that have occurred).
Please read my comment again, and tell me precisely how the graph doesn’t answer the question I was dealing with. How does it not answer the question “what is the average temperature for the last 120 months” for any month in the data?
One aspect of the moving average is phase inversion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_average
Do you understand what distortions are added by Simple Running Means?
Richard’s love for stats might have been short lived.
Willard is just an idiot.
AQ’s point is that a moving average gives you the mean for the period averaged. For example, the December 12 month average is the mean for that year or the 10 yr average at the end of a decade is the mean for that decade. It’s not a statement that it acts as a better smoother or filter than the alternatives.
AQ is free to argue with Vaughn Pratt about which produces less distortions but for me I’ll go with VP.
“Its not a statement that it acts as a better smoother or filter than the alternatives”
Any averaging you do on a signal is a low pass filter of some sort. Science dictates that you try and use one that does not add unnecessary distortions.
“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.”
> Science dictates
So now Richard is Science herself.
RLH
Why do you avoid my question? If all I want is to illustrate the average of the previous 10 years at all moments in time, how does it not do that accurately?
If I look back at 2008, where I read off the CORRECT average for 1999-2008, in what sense is that average “distorted”?
If you want to introduce the concept of distortions, please explain PRECISELY how these distortions affect the average of any 10-year period, instead of asking another avoidance-enabling question.
“how does it not do that accurately?”
Because it lets through high frequency components of the data both in and out of the window as my quote above shows.
It is simple I’ll give you that, but it is wrong at many outcomes.
How can the average of 12 months ending on a December not be the correct average for a calendar year? Same question for a 10 yr or any other period.
“How can the average of 12 months ending on a December not be the correct average for a calendar year?”
How you construct that ‘average’ (do you mean mean?) will produce different results depending on which method you choose. Some will allow for distortions to appear in your calculations. Others will not.
Basing it on (min+max)/2 will produce different figures that using a true ‘average’ daily calculation. That is an undisputed fact (other then by Blinny) that depends on time/date and latitude.
Why are you avoiding answering the question of what distortion appears in “the average for the last 10 years” when you actually average the last 10 years?
Are you saying that if I want to average my last 10 pay packets I can’t simply average my last 10 pay packets? If not, what exactly are you saying?
The “goodness” of a a filter really depends upon the criteria one wants to optimize. If one is optimizing for conceptual simplicity, it’s hard to beat a simple moving average.
But if you study anything to do with distortions then the effects of Simple Running Mean/Average are very well known.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/dsp-book/dsp_book_ch15.pdf
Do you dispute that a moving average filter will produce distortions in the output?
“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.”
Do you dispute that a simple moving average is optimal for reducing random white noise while keeping the sharpest step response?
Yes.
It produces distortion to generate that fast step response by letting through too much high frequency signals in the data window.
> Yes.
Then you might want to have a word with that author of The Scientist and Engineer’s Guide to Digital Signal Processing:
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/dsp-book/dsp_book_ch15.pdf
It produces distortion to generate that fast step response.
Optimal. Best or most favorable. Optimum.
“The ‘goodness’ of a a filter really depends upon the criteria one wants to optimize.”
There are statistical tests one can perform to determine the “goodness of fit” for a particular filter/model.
Eg,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion
Using April data (May is not available yet)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
All averages are low pass filters of one sort or another. Simple Running Means are often used, but the distortions they bring are often not well understood.
What happens is that you mix a square wave sampling method with a continuous signal and that produces distortions. These can be minimized as Vaughan Pratt showed by cascading using a Cascading Triple Running Mean (CTRM) with the appropriate factors of 1, 1.2067 and then 1.5478.
See his comments to https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/
I look forward to seeing this chart each month. There is an obvious upward trend. However, the chart only covers 44 years, which in the geological context is weather.
What is the best proxy to determine whether there truly is a human impact (CO2) on climate? I look back at the previous interglacials and see no scientific means to prove we are living in an anamoly.
warmest in a year, here comes El Nino? ONI teasing us with slight positive
given the shortwave budget dominance since 2000, the unexpectedly burgeoning sunspot cycle and its alleged effect on clouds might become of interest before 2030
td…here in Vancouver, Canada, we were cursed 2 years ago with a heat wave in June. This year, we got one in May. Both were very unusual for that time of year. In between, in winter, we were besotted by extra cold temperatures as the Arctic vortex seemed to have gone haywire, dumping inordinate amounts of cold air on us.
We were under La Nina conditions and we still are. I think we are dealing with something that is unexplained. It may have something to do with the theory offered by Tsonis that oscillations throughout the planet work in phase at times and out of phase at other times.
There is no rhyme or reason for current weather and anyone who thinks it is caused by anthropogenic gases is kidding himself/herself.
some interesting graphs and claims here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/06/the-sun-in-june-2023/
It follows that there is a scary conjecture from this interpretation of the data. When the PDO finally turns negative it will hyper-accelerate the solar-driven cooling evident from 2016. The warming that took all of the second half of the 20th century to achieve will be wiped out in what will feel like just an instant and we will be back to the Little Ice Age conditions of the 19th century.
if nothing else it certainly makes for an interesting natural experiment
of course there would be immense institutional resistance to the idea we wasted tens of trillions of dollars on solutions that wouldn’t address a problem that turned out to be nonexistent, but even with today’s vast censorship networks a multi-decade cooling trend in the 21st would be hard to ignore or massage away
and as the alarmists will finally have something serious to worry about, seems unlikely many advocates will go hungry even if crop yields collapse
“When the PDO finally turns negative”
It has already been mostly negative since 2000. So we did that natural experiment.
Oh well.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/pdo/
You should see the BoM map of Twelve-monthly mean temperature anomaly for Australia (thats an average of daytine & night-time temperatures) looks to me to be saying that the wide brown land has cooled slightly over the 12 months to 31May23
Go to last comment at http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=7135
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri16/Tugg-equal-record-cold28May23.jpg
Contrails obviously effect climate. Ive seen a dripping snow covered roof stop dripping once contrails block the sun. And clouds effects on uah are well established. One of the most common citations of why uah is faulty by debating partners is cloud interference. One only need look at the difference following 9-11 when air travel stopped for 3 days to see it. And jet travel has only gotten more common in the last 20 years. My only question is do contrails block more uv coming or going. I doubt its an intentional weather modification although it could be. I know a 747 pilot who laughs at the suggestion. Theyre likely more noticeable now because jets triangulate by airports and cities where they can land if need be. Also, they could be hiding troop movements from spy satellites. Ive read contrails can be mitigated by slight altitude changes. I know Im sick of seeing a beautiful blue sky littered by them.
Most of the UV is abso**ed by the ozone layer in the middle stratosphere, well above the aircraft. What gets past the ozone layer is reduced by contrails, which are similar in most respects to cirrus clouds.
Aircraft use a hydrocarbon, kerosene, as fuel. This contains carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. When burned it produces an exhaust of carbon dioxide and water. The CO2 spreads out and the water forms ice crystals which stay where they were released.
Subject to air traffic control constraints modern airliners travel at the altitude which gives them the best fuel economy. Contrails are irrelevant to their operation.
During WW2 the big bomber formations flew as high as possible to make them harder to hit with anti-aircraft fire. Contrails made them more visible, but it wasn’t as if the Germans could not see them coming already.
The only aircraft who actively tried to avoid contrails were high altitude reconnaissance aircraft. A contrail would be an obvious arrow pointing at them. I read one Spitfire pilot’s account of climbing until he started to leave a contrail and then descending until it stopped. That was his altitude for the rest of the mission.
Recon are about 50,000 ft, higher ones: 70,000 feet {21 km]
“The Earth’s ozone layer. The ozone layer lies approximately 15-40 kilometers (10-25 miles) above the Earth’s surface”
Contrails are human-induced clouds that only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km – about 26,000 ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40C).
cruising altitude, 747:
35,105 feet
Why you talk about UV?!?
Anyway, here is some basic education..
https://greenhousedefect.com/contrails/contrails-the-basic-physics
https://greenhousedefect.com/contrails-a-forcing-to-be-reckoned-with
Contrails don’t affect climate. There might be a local effect similar to Urban Heat Island. Further, there might be a lot of planes flying on established routes from places like New York, but not so many from places like Ushuaia; so coverage is not global enough to influence climate.
darwin…calculate the rough area of a contrail and apply it to the immensity of the atmosphere. Not even a spit in the ocean.
I am a global warming/climate change skeptic and I can’t see the exhaust of airliners making much of a difference globally. Of course, I’ll keep my mind open to scientific explanations.
Sea ice in the southern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/yh7XXJ4/gfs-spole-sat-seaice-snowc-d1.png
Could we please get the average picture for this date as a comparison.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Sea ice in the northern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/bgn1rpr/gfs-npole-sat-seaice-snowc-d1.png
The temperature of the Peruvian Current is falling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_samer_1.png
But that shows that it is likely that this year will be the ‘warmish eva’ so it can’t be true. /sarc
A concentration of water vapor is seen over the Caribbean Sea, which can generate tropical storms.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/natl/mimictpw_natl_latest.gif
I’d have a question on what causes the tropospheric hot spot in the models.
So far I thought it was due to an increase of WV transporting more latent heat up the troposphere. In this way the lapse rate would decrease and relative to the surface, the troposphere would warm faster. As logical as it seems, that is also the explanation you would find at many ressources.
However, what models actually do is not always well understood by the modellers. So you could also take it as their interpretation as to why models behave like they do, and not necessarilly as a fact.
What struck me recently, while reading through Myrrhe et al 1997 and Hansen et al 1997, is that the CO2 forcing as they calculate it, coincides very well with the hot spot. It is all about this idea of adding changes in “radiative fluxes” at the tropopause level.
As you increase the CO2 level, there is less upwelling- and more downwelling radiation. Adding both deltas (as absolute figures) would then define the forcing, as it would be “a good indicator”..
“As discussed in the SAR, the change in the net irradiance at the tropopause, as defined in Section 6.1.1, is, to a first order, a good indicator of the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change” (IPCC)
If in another step you allow the stratosphere to cool, this approach necessarilly will leave the upper tropical troposphere as a hot spot of CO2 forcing, that may be even enhanced by changes in the lapse rate.
In this way however, the hot spot would be a direct consequence of how CO2 forcing is considered. And the lack of the hot spot would be an indication this not so intuitive approach might be flawed in its core.
Sorry.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
E Schaffer,
You wrote –
“As you increase the CO2 level, there is less upwelling- and more downwelling radiation. Adding both deltas (as absolute figures) would then define the forcing, as it would be “a good indicator””.
The “radiation intensity” is quite irrelevant. Ice can emit 300 W/m2, but 100 gazillion watts emitted by ice will not warm up one microgram of water, no matter how much you concentrate the radiation.
So forget about radiation from CO2, unless it is hotter than the object on which it impinges, which in the case of the surface, is generally not the case during the day.
At night, given clear conditions, the CO2 in the atmosphere can actually be hotter than the surface (low level temperature inversion, well known to meteorologists), but the surface cools anyway. Why? For the same reason that a 1400 C candle flame cannot keep a bucket of hot water boiling in winter! Not enough heat.
No GHE. Just nonsense based on ignorance and wishful thinking.
“As you increase the CO2 level, there is less upwelling- and more downwelling radiation. Adding both deltas (as absolute figures) would then define the forcing, as it would be a good indicator..”
The CO2 Absor@tion spectrum is saturated. The only result of increasing CO2 concentrations is that the all of the spectrum radiation is absorbed closer to the surface.
“The CO2 Absor@tion spectrum is saturated. The only result of increasing CO2 concentrations is that the all of the spectrum radiation is absorbed closer to the surface.”
That turns out not to be the case.
The spot wavelength at 15 micrometres is saturated. However CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs between 13 micrometres and 17 micrometres. This band is not saturated and continues to abs**b more radiation as CO2 concentration increases.
e schaffer…”What struck me recently, while reading through Myrrhe et al 1997 and Hansen et al 1997, is that the CO2 forcing as they calculate it, coincides very well with the hot spot”.
***
Never mind that rubbish. Read John Christy on it from UAH. John revealed they have not found the mythical hot spot in sat data.
“As you increase the CO2 level, there is less upwelling- and more downwelling radiation. Adding both deltas (as absolute figures) would then define the forcing, as it would be a good indicator..”
First of all, this statement does not provide a true picture of what happens as CO2 increases, In general, the concentration of CO2 does not affect upwelling. There is no significant downwelling IR through the atmosphere. But, you need to understand the next level of complexity.
More CO2 does absorb more IR that would escape through the atmospheric window. Only in this sense is up welling IR reduced and this could produce warming.
The only significant downwelling IR from CO2 comes from within the atmospheric boundary layer. The ABL and the surface exist in near thermodynamic equilibrium. As such, no energy transfers between the two entities can cause any temperature change. This is why increases in downwelling IR have no warming effect.
The downwelling IR can cause increased evaporation. A certain amount of the energy from the created water vapor will be transported above the ABL by convection which means the ABL/surface is cooled.
The warming and cooling effects balance out. All you get in the end is more precipitation.
“More CO2 does absorb more IR that would escape through the atmospheric window. Only in this sense is up welling IR reduced and this could produce warming.”
Indeed it does produce warming. And that affects the T profile of the entire atmosphere.
Just as if you have 12 inches of fiberglass insulation in your attic, and add another 2 inches on top of it.
The total insulation (R) factor has increased. And as a result the T difference from bottom to top of insulation layer (now 14 inches) will be higher, given the same heat input. The house would be warmer in winter.
Greenhouse Effect doesn’t correlate with house insulation. There is no ‘R’ factor in the atmosphere.
The GHE is doing exactly what insulation does, reducing heat flow from a warm surface to a cold environment. We know this from the emission spectrum of Earth as measured from space.
Increasing CO2 reduces the outgoing long wave radiation, thus increasing the insulating effect of the atmosphere, as we can see, for example with Modtran.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot
Antonin Qwerty, E. Swanson, Nate, bdgwx and other interested persons
Antonin Qwerty proposed upthread a 10 year (aka 120 month) running mean:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ripN1rMLz_KsFQJAs5_3t4wRNtFh7zvb/view
E. Swanson answered that such a simple moving average would be a poor smoothing function.
In theory, this is obviously correct.
In practice, this might eventually depend on the data to be smoothed.
*
Here is a chart combining, for UAH 6.0 LT from Dec 1978 till Dec 2022
– the source data
– a simple 120 month running mean (SRM)
– a 120/100/78 month cascaded triple running mean (CTRM) following Vaughan Pratt’s cascade specification
– a Savitzky-Golay (S-G) smoothing:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AZOods1vubTddSvewjGlPv6Z7a5vAPp1/view
*
1. The very first impression is that the CTRM isn’t of much help for observation, as its active window is extremely short.
If you need its output to replace the source as a whole, it’s of no use at all.
2. The claim that in comparison to the CTRM, SRM and S-G show too much high frequency leakage is, to say the least, spurious, and manifestly based on bare ideology, discarding the real example posted above.
If we compare the three within the CTRM’s active window, we obtain the following estimates in C / decade:
– source: 0.144 +- 0.02
– SRM: 0.107 +- 0.004
– CTRM: 0.115 +- 0.002
– S-G: 0.102 +- 0.005
*
I’ll post tomorrow a further comment describing how SRM, CTRM and S-G compare when used in a bigger example (two complementary GHCN daily time series), with a comparison based on third order polynomials.
***
3. For those who need a filter working ‘from start till end’ like does for example Savitzky-Golay, it should be evident that this filter is the best option.
*
There are of course other tools like LOESS/LOWESS but I couldn’t find a good C or C++ implementation for Linux until now.
Sure: all this exists in MATLAB, R, Python… but I’m too lazy to switch.
To be sure I’m understood with regard to leakage, here is an extract of Vaughan Pratt’s specification for cascaded running means:
double: 1.3937 Leakage 2.5% or -31.9 dB
triple: 1.2067, 1.5478 Leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB
quadruple: 1.1252, 1.3440, 1.6275 Leakage 0.039% or -68.3 dB
quintuple: 1.0832, 1.2343, 1.4352, 1.6757 Leakage 0.0047% or -86.5 dB
The relevant point is here: how much high frequency noise does exist in e.g. temperature or precipitation time series?
There are 2 obvious orbital series of 24 hours and 365.25 days that are prominent in the data. Then there are ones associated with pressure, humidity, fronts, and other weather (frost, dew, ice, etc.).
All of these later ones produce high frequency noise/uncertainty in the data. Also the lowest 2-5km of the atmosphere is mainly chaotic over 24 hours so that will introduce some noise as well.
CTRM will only reduce/remove the orbital components (which are probably some 90% of the signal).
P.S. Single stage S-G passes way too much high frequency leak-through as is evidenced in your graphs. LOWESS is a much better option. It produces results that are much closer to a 5 pass cascaded S-G just as Nate Drake suggested.
For UAH temperature time series, there is some noise… but it’s not enough to worry about. Some of the noise is just the fact that we’re looking at an average based anomaly, which creates its own noise.
skeptikal
You’d better have a look at Roy Spencer’s head post on anomalies vs. absolute temperatures.
Anomalies reduce the noise because they no longer contain the annual cycle present in absolute data.
Who thinks s/he can get rid of the annual cycle by merely averaging monthly data over the year, or by applying any kind of 12 month running mean on it, is plain wrong: the annual cycle still is kept in the result.
Bindidon,
I never said anything about the annual cycle. I said an “average based anomaly”. It’s the “average” which creates the problem, not the fact that it’s an anomaly. What do El Nino years do to a given month’s average?
skeptikal
” It’s the “average” which creates the problem, not the fact that it’s an anomaly. ”
Anomalies are departures from a mean (with – mostly ignored by specialists posting here – annual cycle removal).
On what else than an average should anomalies be built?
Do you mean the reference period chosen for the average?
That I would understand, as I know how many e.g. GHCN daily stations give worldwide data for say 1951-1980 or 1991-2020.
But for a satellite-borne time series, with nearly homogeneously constructed grid cells?
I don’t know what you mean.
We don’t know the ‘true’ base temperature, so an anomaly based on averaging is the best we can get. My point is just that by averaging temperatures to get a base for the anomaly, we can (and do) create noise in the data. Small variations are effectively squashed by a 30 year average, but the larger excursions like El Nino push the average by a meaningful amount… creating noise.
I am not considering it as a “smoothing function”. I just want to be able to answer the question “what was the average temperature for the last 10 years?” I’m not sure why people want to complicate that very simple idea. If there is something wrong with that idea, then surely there would also be something wrong with comparing the 2010s to the 2000s, as this is merely sampling the running average function.
All simple running means/averages produce distortions. For those who do not wish to consider it important then good luck with claiming what you do is science.
“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.”
P.S. What you mostly see used is a (min+max)/2 which is a poor approximation of the true temperature value for any day which differs considerably as the equinoxes approach.
Given that we are interested in CHANGES in average temperatures over time, and not average temperatures themselves, what significant distortion are you claiming that averaging max and min introduces into those CHANGES?
AQ,
You wrote –
“Given that we are interested in CHANGES in average temperatures over time, . . . ”
Why is that? What is your INTEREST likely to achieve? Precisely nothing, that’s what.
Go on, try and say what looking at historical temperature achieves.
Some idiots believe they can predict future “climate change” by looking into the past!
You are one such, are you?
Are you saying that (min+max)/2 is accurate over the whole year regardless of time/date and latitude?
RLH
Test out your comprehension skills by reading my comment again.
Then comment on what I actually said, and answer my question.
AQ: So you are claiming that different seasons will show the same results but comparing seasons is not possible.
You really need to hone those comprehension skills.
How about you try to read it word for word, without inventing a hidden meaning, then answer the question.
Well only same season to season comparison is possible given the seasonal differences in (min+max)/2 I noted.
(min+max)/2 assumes (at the very least) 12 hour days and 12 hour nights. Which is only true at the equinox.
I see you are still struggling with your comprehension. Try focusing on the word CHANGE.
And have you noticed that your last statement about only being true at the equinox directly contradicts your earlier statement about the calculation getting WORSE as you approach the equinox?
I drew your attention to the differences that the seasons make to (min+max)/2. You just ignored that difference.
Any artifacts introduced into the 13 mo. running mean above appear to be minimal. The red line appears to be well centered in the noise of the unsmoothed monthly data.
I drew your attention to the fact that you are not considering year-to-year changes in the data. Annual averages (or more appropriately, decadal averages) are not affected by seasons. You continue to ignore that consideration.
what was the average temperature for the last 10 years?
15C +/-1C. It has not changed much.
I get -8.85 C. I’m not sure what the uncertainty on that is though. UAH does not provide enough information to quantify it easily.
Antonin Qwerty
Don’t trust the guy nicknamed ‘RLH’ who at best deserves the much better nickname ‘Blindsley H00d’ I gave him (derived from his real name ‘Richard Linsley Hood’ he published so many times).
RLH doesn’t have a clue of what he claims.
He NEVER did WORLDWIDE comparisons of (tmin+tmax)/2 to the true 24h average (or, in the time he considered it be the only valuable mean: the 24h median).
RLH solely evaluated absolute averages of the USCRN station data set:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
I compared (tmin+tmax)/2, the 24h average and the 24h median for USCRN in a monthly anomaly time series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b4RCt-RkYqO8bRqHXzyswglC5M1z9pOt/view
from which it is evident, when looking at the data sources which led to the graph above, that the differences between the three mean methods are more due to spatial and temporal biases than to anything else (the main source for differences was the number of USCRN stations before 2011).
This was also visible when looking at the differences between
– 24h average versus (tmin+tmax)/2
and
– 24h average versus medians
existing in the data reported by stations located at very different latitudes (Alaska versus Florida, for example).
RLH never admitted anything of all that and stalked me during months about my allegedly wrong use of hourly instead of subhourly data (imagine the huge difference in a monthly averaging).
I did similar comparisons leading to similar results when using worldwide METEOSTAT data RLH was never able to process.
Blinny is wrong, as he was about VPs CTRMs.
(min+max)/2 is only accurate if you assume that there are 12 hour days and nights and the rise during the day is the same as the fall at night.
” source: 0.144 +- 0.02
SRM: 0.107 +- 0.004″
I am not finding this trend difference. I find both are ~ 0.13.
Arctic sea ice extent is still very high for end of May:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zduPq2XEOZgj6X3CLezp2OZvEPgVAhac/view
but Antarctic’s isn’t at all:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vapu5ep4spJG6t-pRtlS6ZXtjOFpv0X9/view
*
For those who intuitively expect a strong correlation between Arctic sea ice and Greenland’s surface mass balance, this below might be a bit disappointing:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hp59N2gopJ_0DYEcgH-XNWM0LsYO8b6E/view
Russian icebreakers have to go via the Suez Canal as the ice at the North Pole is so thick this year.
There seem to be some differences of opinion:
https://nsid*c.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_iqr_timeseries.png
Or, maybe a difference in definitions. Remove ‘*’ from …d*c
https://legionmagazine.com/en/heavy-ice-forces-new-russian-icebreaker-on-long-southward-voyage/
RLH, Note that LEGION is “Canadia’s Military History Magazine”.
I think the article is actually about:
Not to forget the wonderful resources available around their Arctic coast.
Not mentioned the fact that the ice breaker traveled around the western flank of NATO and that Russia is involved in a war with Ukraine, a conflict which is being supported by NATO. Rather like those Russian “trawlers” loaded with antennas which occasionally appeared around US waters during the Cold War.
“but Antarctics isnt at all:”
***
Duh!!! Antarctica is a solid landmass whereas the Arctic is largely an ocean.
E. Swanson
I’m wondering about your reply because the two pictures show exactly the same stuff.
No wonder: they are based on the very same data.
https://tinyurl.com/G02135-north-daily
Mar 1: 14.529 (Mkm^2)
Apr 1: 14.177
May 1: 13.388
Jun 1: 11.907
Should you prefer the anomaly-based view, here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
*
Amazing indeed:
https://legionmagazine.com/en/heavy-ice-forces-new-russian-icebreaker-on-long-southward-voyage/
But the always advancing Coolistas should be careful with their predictions, by first looking at how 2012 behaved over the year in the Arctic.
“Canada’s federal auditor general reported in November 2022 that average summer sea-ice coverage in the Canadian Arctic had dropped by about 40 per cent in the last 50 years due to climate change, but lately it has been longstanding sea ice, not the seasonal variety that comes and goes, that has impeded Arctic traffic”
Longstanding versa coverage. We appear to be talking about different things.
Whatever is being discussed, you are always talking about something different.
I am just reporting what others are saying. You can ignore that if you want.
Then report it in a relevant thread.
And don’t pretend I am talking about this thread. I am talking generally.
AQ I think you assume you have said something relevant.
You seem to devised a new stock phrase for unthinking regurgitation.
Bindidon, If you compare the two graphs, you will see that the reported coverage is different. The graph I posted includes statistics for the entire period of data, whereas yours posts mostly data for those after 2017. Over the years of available data, the most striking finding has been a reduction in the fraction of multi-year ice, but there are year-to year variations. Also, the multi-year ice moves around the Arctic Ocean, depending on surface winds, so their locations change from year to year. As usual, cherry picking a year of data out of that available can produce misleading conclusions.
https://nsid*c.org/arcticseaicenews/
(Remove ‘*’ from ‘…d*c’ to view)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvEhfYZbiKM
E. Swanson
Oh Noes! Does E. Swanson suddenly start being as superficial as Robertson?
Look at this chart again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zduPq2XEOZgj6X3CLezp2OZvEPgVAhac/view
or at this one again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Don’t you see the mean of 1981-2010 (thick grey) or the 2012 data (indigo)?
In the anomaly-based chart, the mean of 1981-2010 is of course the straight line at 0.0!
[ I see no reason to show interquartile or interdecile ranges. ]
Bindidon wrote:
Climate is the statistics of weather. That includes the mean of the data AND the variation. You are insisting on cherry picking a few recent years and drawing some conclusion form that while ignoring the previous 35 years of data.
Here’s a longer animation of the Arctic sea-ice data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVXOC6a3ME
I repeat for the stubborn, opinionated poster:
” But the always advancing Coolistas should be careful with their predictions, by first looking at how 2012 behaved over the year in the Arctic. “
Blinny just insults people who were correct when he was wrong.
Richard speaks from experience.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The result for May has very little significance since month to month variation is normal. A stock market analyst would say that we are in a trading range and we are up against a resistance level. An industrial engineer would say that the atmosphere is out of control, but currently not trending.
No one is claiming that a single month is significant in that respect.
The same cannot be said of comments back in early February about the January anomaly.
AQ,
Hopefully, nobody at all is claiming to be able to predict the future by looking at historical temperatures.
You aren’t that stupid, are you?
Only joking – you are, of course.
There is something going on that no one can identify. It has nothing to do with anthropogenic causes because anthropogenic forces could not act in such a way as to produce a heat wave in May in our part of the planet.
I gave up trying to predict a long time ago. It appears that both LNs and ENs can produce weird effects that contradict each other.
aquerty…”Not quite as bold as Salvatores predictions from 5+ years ago”.
***
I’d like to know why you found it necessary to change your nym? Dremt identified you the other day and I don’t know how. Apparently you’ve had at least 3 different nyms the past few years, and the proof is that you remember Salvatore.
I can think of one good reason only. You get your butt kicked so often you feel the need to disappear and reappear with a different nym. If you had anything worthwhile to contribute I could care less. However, you have nothing to contribute other than a nuisance factor.
I have pointed out each time who I am when asked, and explained my reasons this time around and before. I can’t help it if you don’t pay attention. You don’t need “proof” for something I freely speak of.
“… I COULD care less” …. Oh dear.
bs.
How about you look at last month’s thread. Than apologise.
The names have been changed to protect the stupid
Mike Flynn and g..e..r..a..n resent the implication.
Speak for yourself you Twerp
Now now … you’re not sounding very grown up there. I suggest you try to be a bit more creative with your insults while maintaining a hint of finesse.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Zonal circulation blocking in the North Pacific and Atlantic. Drought in Central Europe and very cold nights, with frosts near the ground.
Solar activity is declining.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/06/03/1200Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-93.22,63.09,490/loc=-16.296,58.250
June 2, 2022 and June 2, 2023 Antarctica, sea ice.
https://data.seaice.uni-bremen.de/amsr2/asi_daygrid_swath/s6250/2022/jun/Antarctic/asi-AMSR2-s6250-20220602-v5.4_visual.png
https://i.ibb.co/xHDqYbL/asi-AMSR2-s6250-20230602-v5-4-visual.jpg
So more in the SW, less in the NW and S. Net result, almost 1 million km^2 less this year.
Now – where is the long term average I asked for?
AQ,
You wrote –
“Now where is the long term average I asked for?”
Oooooh! That’s masterful, isn’t it?
And what if you don’t get what you demanded? Will you have a tantrum? Stamp your little foot and run to mummy?
You’re a real idiot, aren’t you?
I didnt know there was a Heckling for Dummies.
Although Ren’s native language is Polish, he has quickly caught on to hecklers like you who seem to have nothing better to do than harass a guy who minds his own business and simply posts weather data. He’ll likely just ignore you and forget your idiotic taunts re supplying data you could easily find for yourself.
If all he did was to post weather data, wouldn’t you expect an equal share of warm and cold reports?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
entropic…”During WW2 the big bomber formations flew as high as possible to make them harder to hit with anti-aircraft fire. Contrails made them more visible, but it wasnt as if the Germans could not see them coming already”.
***
The RAF flew only at night, it was the USAF flew daylight raids. In the early days, they got the crap beaten out of them for not following the RAF methodology. It was not till they had fighters that could accompany them all the way into Germany they had much success. I think it was the P-51 Mustang the Yanks developed for long range fighter escorts, however, it was powered by a Rolls Royce engine.
The Germans had radar later on and attempts were made to fool it. One method was tossing tinfoil out of a port, with the foil being cut to match the wavelength of the radar signals (chaffe). That bounced a signal back that was hard to detect as to direction, etc. It also made the planes appear as one huge mass.
Another method used by the RAF was to send 1000 bombers out at one time. There was simply no way to combat a force that large, even though the RAF accepted at least a 5% casualty number. That was 50 planes in a 1000 bomber raid and with a crew of 10 per plane, that was 500 aircrew lost. Most of them were young men in the 20 year old range.
Yet another method ws to send a large force of bombers in a certain direction then split them in at least two groups at the last minute. heading for different targets.
War certainly is ugly and its young people who fight it on behalf of much older, fat-assed politicians.
re noise in satellite data. We need to be careful when applying the word noise to temperature data points. Noise in analog circuits is an unwanted signal. It could be shot noise generated by electron movement, or EMI noise related to generated fields. Or it could just be a ‘noisy’ component adding unwanted signal.
How can one get noise from signals generated by oxygen in the microwave band? Roy explained there is an unwanted microwave signal generated by the surface but it seems they have taken steps to remove it. I fail to see how noise can be added to the microwave signals from oxygen.
Unfortunately, when you start messing with filters, which are based on analog circuit filters, like low pass, high pass, and bandpass, you could conceivably inject unwanted signal into the data. However, the sat signal itself that represents the microwave radiation from the telemetry, should not have noise that is of concern to us. Certainly, the amplifiers used in AMSU units could add noise but that noise is accounted for in the design.
So, where is this noise that posters are talking about?
All amplifiers add noise/uncertainty.
All filters add noise/uncertainty.
All averaging adds noise/uncertainty.
It is part of reality.
richard…I mentioned that in my post. The noise from the AMSU units has already been factored into the data points posted in the graph above. Why are we talking about additional noise?
So you are referring to uncertainty as noise? I call it an error margin and I think it is included in the UAH data statement. Roy does not mention it in the graph above but I am sure it is stated somewhere in the UAH data.
RLH
Anyone who has done any stats knows that averaging a set of n scores REDUCES the standard error inherent in each score by a factor of sqrt(n).
RLH said: All averaging adds noise/uncertainty.
That is patently false. The uncertainty of the average is less than the uncertainty of the individual elements upon which the average is based. For uncorrelated inputs the uncertainty of the average scales as 1/sqrt(N). Read JCGM 100:2008, JCGM 6:2020, NIST TN 1297, and NIST TN 1900. I recommend using the NIST uncertainty machine to verify this yourself.
https://uncertainty.nist.gov/
It may be of interest to know that Christy et al. 2003 assess the uncertainty of the UAH spatial average as being scaled 1/sqrt(26-1) wrt to spot measurements because there are 26 degrees of freedom associated with the satellite coverage.
Gordo, has no clue, as usual.
The MSU/AMSU data collects measurements over different ground locations each day and some locations may not see a repeat for several days. The measurements reflect the constantly changing state of the atmosphere below, (a.k.a. weather), so there’s lots of natural variation in those measurements. Calculating anomalies based on some average of a fixed sub-set of the data assumes that the yearly signal being removed is also representative of other periods of interest. Dividing the data stream into monthly tranches where the “months” have unequal numbers of days adds sampling noise.
Then too, there is the potential for noise in the actual measurements, which include random background radiation. This is supposedly removed by referencing a scan to deep space at one end of each swath, assigning that measurement a brightness temperature of the cosmic background radiation, ~2.7k. It’s assumed that this noise also appears in the measurement of the “warm target” which radiates at a temperature which is carefully measured by multiple temperature sensors. Not to forget, the multiple adjustments to the data for changes in LECT and altitude, etc.
Of course, the ultimate goal is to separate out longer term changes in climate form short term variations, which can only be accomplished by some form of filtering.
swannie…”Dividing the data stream into monthly tranches where the months have unequal numbers of days adds sampling noise”.
***
Once again, in his rush to feel superior, Swannie completely misreads the problem.
You are simply regurgitating the same noise argument as everyone else. Specify the noise.
With an analog signal, noise would be apparent on an oscilloscope as spikes of random signal riding on top of the signal. With audio, you could hear them. A pure sine wave would show up as normal with spikes of noise on it. With more complex signals it would be harder to see.
We used a trick to remove AC line noise from an AM radio signal. Since the noise is a much higher frequency than the line frequency of 60 hz, using a capacitor rated to the frequency from both sides of the line to ground, shorts out the higher frequency noise.
The capacitor is essentially acting as a high-pass filter to ground for the noise spikes. For 60 hz, a 0.001 mF capacitor offers 2.5 megohms to ground but much less as the frequency of noise increases, especially above 1000 hz.
With digital, the technique has to be different. However, much of the digital we apply is simply a conversion from analog to digital using an AD converter. There is noise introduced during quantization, for one.
If you have individual monthly data points, as in the UAH graph above,and you plot them on the graph, there is no noise available. It has already been taken care of in the instruments and there is no way you can get at it.
It’s not till you start applying filters to the data, like the red running average curve, that you can start talking about noise. To smooth discrete data points into a curve you obviously need to interpolate and homogenize. If that curve was intended to represent data, noise might be a concern but it is supplied by Roy only as a convenience to visualize a longer-term trend in the data. Therefore, it is a moot point talking about noise in such a curve.
Once again, Gordo wants to talk about the world from his EE analog electronics world view, writing:
He doesn’t see that there might be other causes for variation in the data produced by the MSU/AMSU instruments. Weather is chaotic, that is to say, “noisy”. In addition, the instruments see slightly different ground foot prints with each pass. Different scan positions have different area coverage wrt the ground. There are (roughly) 14 orbits a day and converting the data collected from each of those requires considerable calculation to determine where those data are allocated in individual grid boxes. All that’s before what happens within the instruments themselves which measure the radiance at each scan position across each swath along the orbital ground track.
Gordo’s last paragraph is gibberish. One applies filtering to analyze the data, not just to please the eye.
Using STAR, UAH, and RSS we can do a type A evaluation of uncertainty for the satellite measurements. Using the total tropospheric temperature (TTT) method in Zou et al. 2023 where TTT = 1.15*TMT – 0.15*TLS the result is +/- 0.15 C (2-sigma). The breakdown of that 0.15 C is 0.09 C arising from a random component (noise) and 0.06 C arising from a systematic component (bias). 0.09 C of noise is a lot when compared to the surface datasets.
Consider this from Zou et al., (2023), page 29:
That’s just one data set from one satellite. For the AMSU’s, there was a pre-launch measurement of the calibration curve. Funny that the warm target data appears to show a cyclic variation of some sort. I don’t recall seeing any information regarding pre-launch calibration for the MSU’s.
That assumes that the surface dataset of point of sampling a known chaotic boundary layer (different for day and night) converts easily into a seamless temperature result. There is quite a large uncertainty there IMHO.
The type A uncertainty of HCRUT, GISTEMP, and BEST is +/- 0.06 C. There is more noise in the satellite datasets than the total uncertainty in the surface datasets.
You have never done point sampling to determine the volume bulk figures. The uncertainty is well above 0.06c. That does not even cover the differences between surface and 2m let alone the chaotic first 2-5km of the boundary layer.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/712
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.meteo300/files/images/lesson11/2000px-Atmospheric_boundary_layer.svg.png
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-diurnal-cycle-of-the-planetary-boundary-layer-PBL-Figure-reprinted-from-Stull_fig2_263962720
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundary_layer
The type A method does not require “point sampling to determine the volume bulk figures” knowledge of the PBL, etc. Note that I’m following the procedure documented in JCGM 100:2008 or NIST TN 1297.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
” Roy explained there is an unwanted microwave signal generated by the surface but it seems they have taken steps to remove it. ”
No they didn’t.
I repeat for the opinionated ignoramus: the LT data no longer is the result of direct remote sensing of the LT layer.
It is the result of a computation following the ad hoc formula:
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS
How else do you explain that regardless the data you consider in the monthly LT report, or even in the 2.5 degree grid for LT, what is published or generated ALWAYS corresponds exactly to what is published or generated out of MT, TP and LS using the above formula, from the entire Globe down to any single grid cell located anywhere?
Are you really so thoroughly ignorant?
“It is the result of a computation following the ad hoc formula:
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS”
STAR/NOAA does something similar.
Are you saying that both of them are wrong?
As you turn a continuous ‘shades of grey’ concept into a binary right/wrong concept, deliberately making your question impossible to answer … as usual.
Well either the STAR/NOAA and UAH approach is right or wrong.
You don’t think it is possible that neither is fully correct and neither is completely wrong? Or even that both are entirely wrong? Why do you always think in black and white?
Of course there is a chance that neither approach is correct. One will be closer to the truth than the other for sure.
So the answer to your question “Are you saying that both of them are wrong?” is “perhaps”. Or better … “who knows?”
Why did you ask a question you knew the answer to?
AQ: Sure I suppose you think you have said something relevant.
I repeated your question then answered it. Perhaps consider making your questions satisfy your relevance requirements next time.
Either the STAR/NOAA and UAH approach is right or the RSS based one is. Which is it?
So now you are back to presenting your false dichotomy, despite previously stating that both could be wrong.
You certainly pride yourself on being deceptively slippery, don’t you. Dealing with you is like playing whack-a-mole.
” Are you saying that both of them are wrong? ”
Again, these disgusting, insidious, disingenuous, sissyish insinuations.
Nowhere did I write that anywhere, you perverse lying stalker!
I just take note that you were wrong in the past much the same as you are wrong now.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1493575
What exactly do you believe that you have proved by linking to your own comment at the top of the thread? Do you think that you making a claim is proof of the truth of your claim?
Yes.
But you of course disingenuously dissimulate how often YOU were wrong, you sissyish person.
Even today, you would still claim that a chart like
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/march/202303_Map.png
is 100 % correct just because it is a Mollweide representation, though I have proven so many times that it contains the same errors as
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L-MaBsaGBhEgMvFBLxoRtqzVzhrDOJIP/view
I wouldn’t wonder if you even today still wouldn’t understand why they are both wrong.
*
Moreover, you were never able to prove even only one of your claims about me having done anything wrong in domains we discussed, e.g.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b4RCt-RkYqO8bRqHXzyswglC5M1z9pOt/view
You never were able to engage a fair competition with me about my results. Never!
All you were able to do was to post a ridiculous, trivial schoolboy evaluation on your ‘climate’ blog:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
Pfffft.
Oh dear – you have appointed yourself as the resident expert.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1493613
QED
AQ is correct about everything. Perhaps in his own mind.
Heads up – throwing a comment back at someone is not clever.
Nor is speaking to someone in the third person.
I am not the one who has claimed that linking to one’s own comment provides proof of its veracity. Only you have done that. Care to retract that claim?
Nope.
Mollweide is a correct AREA representation. It distorts shapes.
Funnily enough temperature is area related, not shape related.
Yet again, you seem to be confused about the topic of this thread.
Nevertheless, what have I said which you believe would challenge what you just said?
AQ is puzzled by my thinking he is a prat.
AQ doesn’t realize that the Mollweide reference was directed at Blinny.
Heads up – if you don’t address your comment then it is directed to either the last commenter or the writer of the parent comment. The latter is you. Perhaps I was in error assuming that you would not talk to yourself.
AQ is an idiot if he thinks I talk to myself.
Wasn’t it you who said just a day ago “…. just insults people who were correct when he was wrong”.
Interesting that the only people on this page who have referred to others as an “idiot” or “idiotic” are Swenson, Clint, Flynn and YOU (twice), the very people who try to pretend that it is only them getting attacked. Not that it worries me in the slightest – just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy.
If I were someone to use that word unprovoked, do you think I might be justified in applying it to someone who:
(a) after explicitly stating that I had assumed you would **NOT** talk to yourself, somehow draws the conclusion that I think you talk to yourself;
(b) believes that an unaddressed post should be interpreted as a response to a post buried way back in the thread, despite previously avoiding making a response to that comment so that they could focus on trolling me.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
The 0.37 C anomaly for 2023/05 is the highest monthly anomaly under a La Nina influence. The 4 month lagged ONI corresponding to 2023/05 is from 2023/01 with a value of -0.7.
We have been in a La Nina for a few months now.
Sorry. Haven’t been….
https://www.climate.gov/media/15230
Funny how you people impose/forget the 5-month lag as convenience dictates.
AQ: So you are saying that coming out of La Nina effects everything for 5 months?
I have said what I have said. There should be no need for interpretation if you just read the words.
The five-month lag is agreed upon by both sides of the debate here. But only one side sticks to it unflinchingly.
AQ: If you say so.
I say only what I observe. But thanks for the empty debate-terminating concessional comment.
aq…”I say only what I observe”.
***
Through rose-coloured, alarmist glasses.
“I say only what I observe”
not backed by science but purely by feelings.
Gordon
Both “rose-coloured” AND “alarmist” ??
Which one of those terms do you not understand?
You DO see the conflict, right?
There are no “feelings” involved in noting that there is a 5-month lag which is agreed upon by both sides. YOU are the scientific isolate in relation to that fact.
UAH TLT response lags ONI by 4-5 months.
So why this months rise in global T then?
I don’t know. I will say that the expectation was 0.24 +/- 0.24 C so the reported 0.37 C value is within the 95% CI.
Well if we go back 4-5 months we are still well into La Nina so that doesn’t seem to add up.
Why do you pretend that there are not multiple factors which affect the monthly variability in global temperatures? (Factors which average out to approximately zero at the decadal time-scale.)
And if you ignore the magnitude of the increase and simply note that there was an increase, that correlates with the fact that there was an increase in the ONI five months ago.
BTW – although the NOAA data won’t be out for another week and a half, daily reanalysis data sets suggest that May was pretty much the same as April. So UAH is picking up a signal not shown by surface data. Perhaps the question of WHY is the one you should be asking.
I’m not seeing anything that deviates from my expectations right now. It sounds like what you are saying is that UAH TLT is deviating from your expectations again. I say again because you expected that the 13m centered average would get down to -0.3 C before rising and that didn’t happen either. If I may suggest…if something isn’t behaving the way you expect then perhaps it is time to reevaluate your expectations. That’s what I do anyway.
bdgwx
I forgot to address my post to RLH, so just making sure you understood it was not directed at you, because I am also not sure if yours was directed at him or me.
My post immediately above was meant for RLH. I understood that your’s was as well.
Antonin Qwerty talks to himself.
AQ: Why do you pretend that there are not multiple factors which affect the monthly variability in global temperatures?
Thanks for bringing back my question for you. Care to answer it this time?
AQ: You are the one who cannot do his own research.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-tropics.jpeg
“Perhaps the question of WHY is the one you should be asking.”
Because the surface record is not as accurate as is claimed?
You do understand that I am saving all your graphs to throw back at you in 12 months time, right?
The 0.37 C anomaly for 2023/05 is the highest monthly anomaly under a La Nina influence.
Any guess as to how long the Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE} will last?
As long as you are alive.
Wow Ant, you flung your nonsense within 2 minutes of my comment!
You really are trying for “top troll”, aren’t you?
You will forever stay beyond my reach.
Flynn will forever stay beyond yours.
AQ will go off on his own path. Research not included.
I do try to avoid the path beaten out by all the sheep ahead of me.
10 years?
Will we have another Hunga-Tonga Effect within 10 years?
How often do we get Hunga-Tonga Effects, ie how many have
we had in last 100 years?
What kind of effect does it have- and does it affect the global
climate?
I’ve been watching the Polar Vortex. Last winter, it never was able to get properly organized in the NP, and is barely hanging together now at the SP. This time of year (close to the solstice), it should be tight and tidy.
My thinking is that when we see a strong PV again, the HTE will be over.
clint…so you think WV from HT was messing with the polar vortex? Interesting POV. The PV was certainly wacky in our region in Vancouver, Canada.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1493181
The Saturn V and Shuttle emitted H20 up there. As will the Starship and New Glenn and both are trying to be reusable rockets.
The only way reusable rockets “work” is to have a lot rocket launches.
The falcon 9 has a lot rocket launches per year and it’s partial reusable- it’s launching about 50 times per year- and there little doubt about it working. Same applied to Space Shuttle- partially reusable with plans to becoming more reusable. But reality was Space Shuttle never got beyond an experimental rocket, and everyone wrongly assumed it was an operational rocket.
But one could call falcon-9 an operational partially reusable rocket- the plan is to get New Glenn and Starship “fully reusable” and it will take a few more years before this can happen. It took years for falcon 9 to become the partially reusable operational rocket, it is today.
But point is, if Musk and/or Bezos can make a reusable rocket, the world will make reusable rockets, and we have a lot rocket launches per year and cost rocket launches will drop, and have even more rocket launches per year, and it could be bigger effect than the “Hunga-Tonga Effect”.
Clint R are you trying to start another cargo cult?
No cults for me, gb.
Im too much into reality.
Some say more than 80% of volcanic activity occurs in the Ocean.
Considering more than 70% of Earth surface is ocean and ocean floor is very volcanic active, it seems more reasonable than more the 70%.
We seen a lot land volcanic activity- and it’s sort of hard to ignore it. And we seen some ocean volcanic activity- and it has been easier to ignore.
And you could say we only saw the Hunga-Tonga Effect because we had satellites in orbit. We have had military satellite in orbit for fair amount of time. Once upon time, Russia use to launch the most amount of satellites. And currently in terms of governmental/State satellites, China launches the most- or more military satellites than any other country.
Satellites are a military requirement, far more than aircraft carriers or submarines or nuclear weapons.
But we getting ever increasing amount of civilian type satellites, they have been mostly communication satellite- how you could have global news and how you could have global internet. But we also have some looking at Earth surface- and these are effecting the war in Ukraine and have been affecting other recent wars- theyu also took picture of the Hunga-Tonga Effect.
But point is we going to get a lot more civilian satellites in the future.
“The Tonga Hunga volcanic eruption sent a tsunami across the Pacific. Air pressure disturbances from the tsunami distorted GPS signals. GOES imagery courtesy NOAA,NESDIS. ”
https://www.universetoday.com/161742/you-can-detect-tsunamis-as-they-push-the-atmosphere-around/
–You Can Detect Tsunamis as They Push the Atmosphere Around
Anyone whos ever lived along a coastline or been at sea knows the effects of tsunamis. And, they appreciate all the early warning they can get if ones on the way. Now, NASAs GNSS Upper Atmospheric Real-time Disaster and Alert Network (GUARDIAN) is using global navigation systems to measure the effect these ocean disturbances have on our atmosphere. The systems measurements could provide a very effective early warning tool for people to get to higher ground in the path of a tsunami.
Earthquakes and undersea volcanic eruptions often trigger tsunamis. Essentially, those tectonic events displace huge amounts of ocean water. During the resulting tsunami, huge areas of the oceans surface rise and fall. As they do, the ocean movement displaces the overlying column of air. That sets off ripples in the atmosphere. Think of it as if the air is responding by creating its own tsunami. It actually does that in response to fast-moving storms and their squall lines. Meteorologists call those reactions meteotsunamis. They can push water around into dangerous waves, which then cause flooding and other damage. Thats very similar to tsunamis generated by earthquakes.–
..
“Normally navigational systems would correct for the distorted signals because they arent useful to their users, according to Lo Martire, who works on the GUARDIAN project. Instead of correcting for this as an error, we use it as data to find natural hazards, he said.”
Interesting to see how people manage to conveniently switch between Climate.gov, NCEP and MEI – according to their egomaniacal narrative.
MEI
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
At the end of April, the MEI index had just barely managed to pass the La Nina threshold.
We are switching from La Nina to La Bindigolina
Oh the little dachshund has just left his kennel and quickly comes to bark a little bit before biting into his favorite bone.
You are wonderful, dachshund.
Meiv2 certainly hasn’t.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/meiv2-1.jpeg
Of course a 12-month average has not yet responded – DUH.
Meiv2 reports monthly.
If you are using the monthly value, then there is no difference between your value and the value you were attempting to “correct”.
Sure Aq. See if you can get your research right this time.
P.S. there is a difference between mei and meiv2. I wonder if the version change has anything to do with it.
The mei value for March-April in Bindidon’s link is -0.41.
Tell me – what is the value for the red dot in your graph? Any different to the above?
AFAIK the value always quoted is meiv2, Mei is depreciated.
AQ doesn’t get that Blinny was inaccurate in saying that he was quoting mei when he was actually quoting meiv2 (check the url).
And here you use “depreciated” again instead of “deprecated”, proving that it wasn’t just a typo. A bit of education is called for.
RLH, that is a level of pedantry that is unjustified. It is always assumed unless otherwise noted that the latest iteration of a product is being referenced. For example, when I say HCRUT I mean HCRUT v5.0.1.0. Or when I say NOAAGlobalTemp I mean NOAAGlobalTemp v5.1.0. Or when I say UAH I mean UAH v6. Likewise when Bindidon says MEI you should assume MEI v2.
AQ is the language police.
bdgwx: Blinny always lacks precision.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/depreciate
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/deprecate
RLH
Thanks for providing evidence that ‘depreciated’ was the wrong word.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
You can clearly see the extent of dry Arctic air in Europe and storms on the border of cold air from the north and warm air from the south.
https://i.ibb.co/zSHVsxJ/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-06-03-191658.png
Temperature is determined by a measure of thermal energy exhibited by molecules. A simple thermometer measures this thermal energy by being in contact, i.e., conduction. The molecules in “something” are vibrating and/or moving. When in contact, this motion transfers through the glass tube of a simple thermometer, and the thermometer liquid rises with an increase of thermal energy, or falls with a decrease of thermal energy.
Actually it’s simple and clear cut, at the macro level. But what is NOT clear is that the thermal energy MUST increase the vibrations/motions of the molecules to raise the temperature.
For example, consider the simplistic case of two molecules. One molecule has a motion of 30. The second molecule has a motion of 60. (For simplicity, units are omitted and the motion is a combination of translational and rotational.)
So a thermometer would read the AVERAGE thermal energy (rotation and translation energy) as (30 + 60)/2 = 45. The “45” would show up on a calibrated scale as some value related to the temperature scale.
Now, add a third molecule, with a motion of 30. The average now becomes (30 + 30 + 60)/3 = 40. Note energy was added, but the “temperature” drops.
This demonstrates one of the recurring mistakes in the GHE nonsense. Adding more energy does NOT always mean an increase in temperature. We see this in our everyday lives as adding more ice to a drink does NOT increase the temperature. The added ice contains more energy, but it is NOT the “right kind” of energy.
Adding more 15μ photons to the atmosphere has NO effect on a surface temperature of 288K. Even if the photons could be absorbed by the surface, a REDUCTION in temperature would occur.
(The cult idiots will now bring out their lasers and microwave ovens, demonstrating once again their ignorance of physics. That’s why this is so much fun.)
clint…”Adding more 15μ photons to the atmosphere has NO effect on a surface temperature of 288K”.
***
I agree with what you are saying. Whether you call them photons or quanta of EM, they contain no heat. No heat will be produced until such a quantum of energy is absorbed and absorp-tion requires that the source be hotter than the surface.
Come on, say it…thermal energy = heat. ☺ ☺
–clintAdding more 15μ photons to the atmosphere has NO effect on a surface temperature of 288K.
***–
15μ photons don’t do much.
Related issue what happens when cold air at 5 km elevation meets colder air at 5 km elevation.
Does it affect surface air temperature?
So, to be clear, millions of tons of warmer air meeting millions of tons of colder air.
gb…you are being generous. They don’t do anything unless they encounter objects at colder temperatures than the air emitting them. Even then, there are not enough of them to create a significant warming.
As is evident by global average surface temperature still being about 15 C. And 15 C is cold.
We were promised that higher CO2 would cause warming, but I think it’s fair to say, higher CO2 levels, don’t cause cooling.
I was wondering if there is is agreement about the tropical ocean heating the whole planet, and how it causes a greenhouse effect.
Slowly making progress these are crews clearing snow on Tioga Road that goes across the Sierra-Nevada Mtn range through Yosemite Natl Park.
They hope to have it open by July 4th.
https://i.ibb.co/BzftMPZ/349883319-777601777151045-5244339693693567445-n.jpg
binny…” Roy explained there is an unwanted microwave signal generated by the surface but it seems they have taken steps to remove it.
No they didnt.
I repeat for the opinionated ignoramus: the LT data no longer is the result of direct remote sensing of the LT layer.
It is the result of a computation following the ad hoc formula:
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS”
***
I’ll forgive your lack of comprehension due to the fact English is not your first language.
I am not talking about the LT signal employed, I am talking about the reason UAH does not use channel 5 data right to the surface. There is microwave spectrum interference generated by the surface and UAH has limited the altitude from which channel 5 data is used for that reason.
Once again, for the brain-dead, the terms MT, TP, and LS are derived from real data from AMSU channels 5, 7, and 9. The formula is not ad hoc, it was intentionally applied to make up for problems with look-ahead scans from the AMSU units. As the units scan ahead, the length of the scan changes and that required the use of different weighting functions per scan.
And, as predictable: Robertson the stubborn opinionated ignoramus still did not understand what I wrote.
Doesn’t matter much.
Are you wrong here as well?
And just as equally predictable, Binny fails to explain his rebuttal, resorting to ad homs and insults. That is often the MO of someone proved wrong.
Gordo wandered aimlessly again, writing:
The MSU2/AMSU5 channel includes input from IR radiation emitted at various altitudes combined in the output signal. There’s no way to separate the surface effects from the output as it is contained in the MT channel data. It’s only possible later, using theoretical models, that some of the effects of higher (not lower) altitudes could be compensated for. The LT equation is one such theoretical adjustment, the result is no longer a single channel’s output, but the combination of data from three channels. The MT signal collects data at a single frequency, there’s no “microwave spectrum interference generated by the surface”, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
Blindsley H00d
” Are you wrong here as well? ”
*
Again, these disgusting, insidious, disingenuous, sissyish insinuations.
Why don’t you simply admit that until now, YOU were never able to do what I did?
Otherwise you’d have been able to challenge me, instead of insinuating I’m wrong.
Even the simplest job you weren’t able to do – though it needs no more than to download Roy Spencer’s monthly resumees for LT, MT, TP and LS into a spreadsheet calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
Let alone these two, which need UAH’s 2.5 degree grid processing, a corner you don’t know anything about:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c1tQQ-XuYa6ddJ705uOgg4K6-_f7qIg-/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18bSH3pQeQeOkIb09XzSLgDHWPIAn_NVJ/view
*
All what you blathering boaster are able to do is to rant against SRM’s high frequency leakage, by the way allowing you to carefully hide your technical incompetence.
I enjoy how boasters like Robertson and you support each other.
And I wouldn’t wonder if one day you butt-kiss Robertson by supporting his dumb ideas about the lunar spin.
Blinny having been grossly wrong in the past just blames others for his lack of understanding,
“SRM’s high frequency leakage”
and other distortions.
Blindsley H00d
Stop distorting and misrepresenting, start working instead, and prove me wrong in anything I did (except what I myself OF COURSE admitted: to have been wrong in my PRATT 60/50/39 CTRM spreadsheet).
But you, on the other hand, never admitted having been wrong, though you were often enough, I have shown you that many times.
C’mon, try to prove me wrong, you Blindlsey H00d coward, e.g. in my work on PSMSL tide gauge data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YkJvOTEqJbecLFHUBpGpjChWnzA-u5xX/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dvz115qfZXH95nkoIXF091JJsaasaAEn/view
*
But you’ll never do because you lack the technical skill to perform such work.
Of course I lack the technical skill. I only did a Masters Degree in IT. /sarc
Still stuck with SRMs even though they are acknowledged to be distorted. Blinny thinks that Excel is the peak of sophistication.
“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.”
If you had that technical skill, Blindsley H00d, you would of course have challenged me.
You prefer to comfortably keep discrediting running means with simple hints on Wiki stuff and Goodman’s old post you gullibly refer to, instead of really comparing simple means to cascaded means in a real example.
By the way, Blindsley H00d: I keep /sarc’ing as well :–)
Because I only have a university degree in computer science (as you probably know, something very different from your “IT”, where you certainly didn’t learn anything 4-5 decades ago about e.g. automata theory, operating system design or compiler engineering).
Measurements at Mauna Loa & by NASA/RSS show that water vapor molecules have been increasing about 7 times faster than CO2 molecules.
Still a trace gas, Dan, with an insignificant warming effect.
If you removed all WV and CO2 from a real greenhouse, it would warm to the same degree.
Please link to this data, or at least a recent NASA report on their findings (not just a media report).
And how would you propose that water vapour would continue to increase at such a rate once the eruption is over? Where is it coming from if it is no longer being blasted into the atmosphere by an eruption?
(Also I note that you have not said “since the eruption”. I would hope that any report states that this is a phenomenon beginning 2022.)
Measurements of Stratospheric Water Vapor at Mauna Loa and the Effect of the Hunga Tonga Eruption
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JD038100
“As noted by Millan et al. (2022) the eruption of Hunga Tonga at 20.5S in January 2022 injected unprecedented amounts of H2O into the stratosphere”
The Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Hydration of the Stratosphere
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL099381
“In comparison with those from previous eruptions, the SO2 and HCl mass injections were unexceptional, although they reached higher altitudes. In contrast, the H2O injection was unprecedented in both magnitude (far exceeding any previous values in the 17-year MLS record) and altitude (penetrating into the mesosphere). We estimate the mass of H2O injected into the stratosphere to be 146 5 Tg, or ∼10% of the stratospheric burden. It may take several years for the H2O plume to dissipate. This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.”
Might I suggest that you actually pay attention to the DETAILS of comments before responding.
We are already aware that the eruption itself injected much water vapour into the atmosphere. So your links are not news and provide no useful purpose.
But the comment I was responding to stated that “water vapor molecules HAVE BEEN INCREASING about 7 times faster than CO2 molecules”.
That is, PAST CONTINUOUS TENSE, with a strong implication that it is still happening. This is in direct contradiction to your link which says that the eruption emittED (past tense at one moment in time) blah amount of H2O into the atmosphere.
So if you want to be useful, link to a NASA which shows that H2O levels have been increasing **globally** EVER SINCE THE ERUPTION.
THAT is the only claim I am challenging.
And note – it takes months for ejected material to envelop the earth, so noting that just one site experienced a rise for a few months after the eruption says only that previously ejected H2O was gradually migrating to that site, not that global concentrations were rising.
Water vapor in the stratosphere cannot warm the troposphere, and neither can stratospheric ozone. Conversely, just as ozone absorbs some UV radiation, water vapor can absorb some solar radiation. The energy escapes into space. The average temperature of the tropopause remains constant at 100 hPa. Water vapor can only warm the troposphere by increasing its volume (increasing the height of the tropopause), due to the smaller vertical temperature gradient. Therefore, the increase in water vapor over the oceans during El Nino results in an average increase in global temperature.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-
trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/
Not correct. But feel free to debate Clint R on that one.
AQ: IYHO right?
Yep – I’m Young, Hood’s Old.
AQ now does ageism.
Yeah – and I suppose that correctly noting that the sun is white and Mars is red is promoting colourism.
Unless stating an irrelevant fact always implies something, it can’t imply anything.
You were the one mentioning age/old.
Not that In Your Humble Opinion means anything to you.
Yes, mentioning. Not judging. Glad you finally got that right.
“In comparison with those from previous eruptions, the SO2 and HCl mass injections were unexceptional, although they reached higher altitudes. In contrast, the H2O injection was unprecedented in both magnitude (far exceeding any previous values in the 17-year MLS record) and altitude (penetrating into the mesosphere). We estimate the mass of H2O injected into the stratosphere to be 146 5 Tg, or ∼10% of the stratospheric burden. It may take several years for the H2O plume to dissipate. This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.”
There is a widely known MATHEMATICAL CONSTRAINT.
For identical spheres emitting the same exactly amount of IR EM energy, for those with higher differentiated surface temperatures, the average surface temperature (Tmean) will be lower.
Thus, the higher the spheres’ differentiated surface temperatures, the lower their average surface temperature.
So, consequently, the spheres with UNIFORM (not differentiated) surface temperatures will have the highest (the maximum) AVERAGE surface temperature.
For them,
Tuniform = Tmean(maximum)
–
It is true for identical spheres emitting the same exactly amount of IR EM energy.
–
We should mention here, that those spheres emit the same exactly amount of IR EM energy, but the source (or sources) of that emitted energy are originated from the spheres’ inner layers. That energy comes from the inside of the spheres.
But, for planets and moons, the source of emitted IR EM energy is very much different: for planets and moons, the source of emitted IR EM energy originates from the INTERACTION with SOLAR IRRADIATION.
The above MATHEMATICAL CONSTRAINT cannot be applied, as it is, when we consider for real planets and moons the actual emission behavior.
The planet (or moon) EFFECTIVE TEMPERATURE, which is a pure theoretical SIMPLIFICATION, cannot be accepted as the planets’ (or moons’) Mathematical CONSTRAINT
Teffective = Tmean(maximum),
which mistakenly led to the very much confusing conclusion, that planet (or moon) without-atmosphere, the average surface temperature (Tmean) would be constrained to be less than or equal to the Teffective:
Tmean < Teffective
*********
Of course, (everything else equals) the less the surface temperatures differentiated planets and moons have, the higher their average surface temperatures are.
But the theoretical Teffective does not pose any Mathematical CONSTRAINT to planets' and moons' the average surface temperatures (Tmean).
***
The real subject matter is the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1.362 W/m from one direction.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correction:
The
“Of course, (everything else equals) the less the surface temperatures differentiated planets and moons have, the higher their average surface temperatures are.”
Should be read:
“Of course, (everything else equals), for planets and moons, the less their surface temperatures are differentiated, the higher their average surface temperatures are.”
–
Sorry,
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Even in our cold icehouse global climate, the not as warm water makes Earth have a more uniform global temperature.
But with warmer H20, we get more global warming or a more uniform global surface air temperature.
Thank you, gbaikie.
Yes, exactly, the water makes Earth have a more uniform global temperature, when compared to, par example, when compared to Moon, which has a dry regolith covered lunar surface.
–
The faster rotation, than Moon, also makes Earth to have a more uniform global temperature.
–
Now, the combination of both, that is what makes Earth having average surface temperature Tmean = 288K vs the Moon’s Tmean = 220K.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
But with earth’s albedo, earth’s surface emissivity, and earth distance from the sun, the sun cannot raise the average surface temperature above ~ 255 K.
If you spin the moon even slower, its average temperature would be lower than 220 K.
If you spin the moon faster, its average temperature would be higher than 220 K. But never higher than 255K.
No amount of spinning can break that theoretical barrier. Something ELSE (like the greenhouse effect) is necessary.
Thank you, Tim, for your respond.
–
We discuss here a very important issue, of whether or not there is a theoretical barrier, and if we succeed overcoming the theoretical barrier’s theory, as a theoretical mistake it is, then we would be freed from a great burden.
–
YOU: “But with earths albedo, earths surface emissivity, and earth distance from the sun, the sun cannot raise the average surface temperature above ~ 255 K.”
–
Earth’s average surface temperature is Tmean = 288 K.
If you spin the Earth faster, its average temperature would be higher than 288 K.
You agree with that, right?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“If you spin the Earth faster, its average temperature would be higher than 288 K.
You agree with that, right?”
Yes, if the earth spun in 20 hr instead of 24 hr, that would make temperatures more uniform and that would make the average temperature higher slightly higher than they are now.
Just as I stated for the moon.
“… of whether or not there is a theoretical barrier”.
If the atmosphere is transparent to thermal IR (or if there is no atmosphere like the moon), then absolutely there is a theoretical barrier for surface temperature. There is a fixed amount of energy that is absorbed each second, based on the strength of incoming sunlight and albedo. The surface will settle into a temperature (or more accurately, a distribution of temperatures) where is emits this same amount of energy each second. You can’t emit any more or any less energy by spinning faster!
“Yes, if the earth spun in 20 hr instead of 24 hr, that would make temperatures more uniform and that would make the average temperature higher slightly higher than they are now.”
Only if the daytime was warmer and the outgoing during the nighttime was cooler, overall.
It is a balance between a nearly half sine wave input and a steady state nearly linear output (doesn’t really hold for areas near the poles with any inclination relative to the orbit over the whole year, such as here on Earth).
If the atmosphere is transparent to thermal IR (or if there is no atmosphere like the moon), then absolutely there is a theoretical barrier for surface temperature. There is a fixed amount of energy that is absorbed each second, based on the strength of incoming sunlight and albedo. The surface will settle into a temperature (or more accurately, a distribution of temperatures) where is emits this same amount of energy each second. You cant emit any more or any less energy by spinning faster!
–
You cant emit any more or any less energy by spinning faster!
–
Yes, exactly, and: The surface will settle into a temperature (or more accurately, a distribution of temperatures) where is emits this same amount of energy each second.
I agree with that.
–
There is a NEW distribution of temperatures when a planet rotates faster, or when a planet rotates slower.
And planet would emit this same amount of energy each second.
–
The ~ 255 K is a uniform temperature of a sphere emitting the same amount IR EM energy as Earth. That amount of IR EM energy is calculated: it is a fixed amount of energy that is absorbed each second, based on the strength of incoming sunlight and albedo.
–
The definition of planet effective temperature is based on the mistaken believe that Stefan-Boltzmann emission law can be used wise-versa, as an absorp-tion law.
–
Quote:
If there is something very slightly wrong in our definition of the theories, then the full mathematical rigor may convert these errors into ridiculous conclusions.
Richard Feynman
–
***
The theoretical barrier of planet effective temperature haunts us for forty plus years now.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Only if the daytime was warmer and the outgoing during the nighttime was cooler, overall.”
No, I was right and you have it backwards. The faster spin makes the sunny side less warm and the night side less cool and makes the average higher. For a given power input, MORE uniform is WARMER. A perfectly uniform temperature everywhere produces the highest possible average temperature. The less uniform the temperature, the cooler the average temperature.
“A perfectly uniform temperature everywhere produces the highest possible average temperature. The less uniform the temperature, the cooler the average temperature.”
–
Yes, of course, it is agreed by me.
–
The theoretical effective temperature is the problem.
–
The effective temperature ~ 255 K is for Earth without-atmosphere and somehow having a uniform surface temperature.
–
Lets start from Moon’s average surface temperature 220 K. Earth having higher Albedo, would have average surface temperature 210 K.
–
288 K – 210 K = 78 oC
How much of the Δ78 oC is due to the rotational warming phenomenon, and how much is due to the atmospheric greenhouse warming effect?
–
Notice, Earth would still emit the same amount of IR EM energy, as it does at
Tmean = 288 K.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos says: “The effective temperature ~ 255 K is for Earth without-atmosphere and somehow having a uniform surface temperature.”
255 K is the effective temperature under current conditions: 1 AU from from the sun and albedo = 0.7. The earth with its atmosphere has an effective temperature of 255 K. If you painted the moon to have an albedo of 0.7, it would also have an effective temperature 0f 255 K.
The presence or absences of atmosphere does not (directly) impact the effective temperature.
Otherwise, I pretty much agree with what you wrote. And I can’t directly quantify how much of the ~ 78 K difference is rotational and how much is GHE (and how much is ocean currents … ). Basic physics tells us rotation is a warming effect. Basic physics tells us IR active gases are a warming effect. But quantifying how much to assign to various causes (rotation, GHGs, clouds, ocean currents, heat capacity …) is a COMPLEX question. I won’t even venture a guess.
Good morning May 5 from Greece! It is 7:45 AM in Athens now and sun is shining happily. How about you?
I think till my comment reaches you it still will be very late at night the place you are situated.
–
Tim:
“255 K is the effective temperature under current conditions: 1 AU from from the sun and albedo = 0.7. The earth with its atmosphere has an effective temperature of 255 K. If you painted the moon to have an albedo of 0.7, it would also have an effective temperature 0f 255 K.”
–
Agreed…
A small correction: the Earth’s Albedo is a =0,306.
Tim:
“The presence or absences of atmosphere does not (directly) impact the effective temperature.”
–
Rotation does not impact either.
–
Tim:
“Otherwise, I pretty much agree with what you wrote. And I cant directly quantify how much of the ~ 78 K difference is rotational and how much is GHE (and how much is ocean currents ). Basic physics tells us rotation is a warming effect. Basic physics tells us IR active gases are a warming effect. But quantifying how much to assign to various causes (rotation, GHGs, clouds, ocean currents, heat capacity ) is a COMPLEX question. I wont even venture a guess.”
–
I am very glad we have an understanding here:
“Basic physics tells us rotation is a warming effect. Basic physics tells us IR active gases are a warming effect.”
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim, it is still too early in the morning in Athens.
Shall we continue our discussion later in the day?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is a powerful Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
The existence of liquid water and the water vapor in the atmosphere is not possible at the planetary temperature below ~255 K on average surface temperature.
–
If not for Rotational Warming, there would not be the vapor in the atmosphere – which is the most abundant and, therefore, the most important greenhouse gas.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Some little help for Coolistas unable to do the job:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17RBeTrCw6bTcvnUOI3Sxvr_-jXx81VvS/view
Of course the price is high: the 60 month SRMs are full of high frequency noise.
But the Coolistas will forgive this blatant misrepresentation because the SRMs indicate pretty much sea ice increase, won’t they :–)
“SRMs are full of high frequency noise”
and other artifacts.
“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.”
“the 60 month SRMs are full of high frequency noise”.
***
Only because we are applying non-linear filters to the data. We are introducing the noise to data points which have no noise.
If you run an alternating current through a device like a diode or a transistor junction, both of them having degrees of non-linearity, distortion is introduced. That distortion can be called noise because it is an undesired signal.
If you have a set of data points from sat data, representing monthly averages, where is the noise? The data points are presented with any noise built in to the average. You can see it on a scope as a thickening of the peaks, in this case, harmonic distortion.
If you want to talk about noise, you need to go back to a point well before the data point are derived. That would mean taking daily data points and averaging them. Again, where is the noise? It depends on the averaging method you use, therefore you are introducing the noise.
Take the old-fashioned approach. Graph the data points and draw a straight-line fitted average through them. Al you have is the original set of data points with an estimated average through them. You may have errors in the estimation but that is hardly noise, which would be an unwanted set of data points.
Error margins are not noise.
Orbital factors, which are by far the majority of the data signal (think daily and yearly periods), can be removed by an accurate filter.
swannie…”Canada has no such ships as the Arktika. With its Arctic sovereignty at stake, the issue of Arctic-capable patrol ships has been front-and-centre in Ottawa”.
***
Who needs them, no ice-breaker, including the Russian vessel can break through 10 foot thick Arctic ice?
We, in Canada, have what we need…
https://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/icebreaking-deglacage/fleet-flotte-eng.html
Note the two heavy ice-breakers and the CCGS Henry Larsen. Larsen was captain of the RCMP vessel, St. Roch, the first ship to sail the NW passage in both directions. It took them two years, in the 1940s, going west to east (Vancouver to Halifax) and only 87 days going east to west.
Larsen explained the two year event. He claimed the Arctic ice flow is so variable and unpredictable that it cannot be forecast. The St. Roch got hemmed in on the northern Canadian coast and had to wait till the ice broke up before moving on.
Even the big Russian ship was not stupid enough to try breaking through the ice at its current thickness.
So much for the idiotic myth about Arctic ice being gone anytime soon. Unless the Earths orbit changes drastically and/or the axial tilt changes drastically, there will be no ice-free Arctic Ocean.
Gordo, please do try to understand the video I posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVXOC6a3ME
While you’re at it, please understand that the potential for loss of sea-ice at the end of the melt season is not the same as claiming no sea-ice in mid winter. There’s a cycle, as you might have noticed by now, which is quite clear in the video. Nobody I’m aware of has claimed things could warm enough in the near term to stop the formation of sea-ice in winter.
Actually the likes of Guy McPherson and Paul Beckwith have made that claim. But I don’t believe there is anyone here who believes their nonsense. Except perhaps Arkady Ivanovich – he seems to be pretty kooky.
No-one believes what AQ has to say.
So you don’t believe that there are people who believe that all the sea ice will disappear year round very quickly? You’re not very consistent are you.
You really should quit when you’re only 5 runs behind.
AQ can’t even do his own research and get the answers that everyone else can find in a few minutes.
Looks like it’s time to impose the mercy rule.
Use the lost game time to get in some practice.
No-one should believe what AQ has to say.
Thanks for believing in me, No One.
BTW – Your name has two words. There is no such thing as “no-one”.
Most people learn this by age 5.
AQ, please stop trolling.
AQ: Sure.
https://www.scribbr.co.uk/common-errors/noone-vs-no-one
“No one is an indefinite pronoun meaning nobody. No-one, with a hyphen, is also considered acceptable in UK English (though its less common than no one).”
Boy you took that bait all too easily. I knew you wouldn’t respond if I simply asked if you were a Pom. How’s the Ashes?
I am from a nation that invented English.
Old Saxony?
France?
Close, but not quite correct,
“English has its roots in the Germanic languages, from which German and Dutch also developed, as well as having many influences from romance languages such as French. (Romance languages are so called because they are derived from Latin which was the language spoken in ancient Rome.)”
“English originated in England and is the dominant language of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, and various island nations in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. It is also an official language of India, the Philippines, Singapore, and many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, including South Africa. English is the first choice of foreign language in most other countries of the world, and it is that status that has given it the position of a global lingua franca. It is estimated that about a third of the worlds population, some two billion persons, now use English.”
AQ and Willard should get along well with each other.
Richard ought to know that modern English is 50% French and 50% Shakespearean, and that Modern English is far from being depreciated or deprecated (both are fine) as a a New Wave band.
Willard does not understand the difference between roots and language.
“English is a West Germanic language”
English has roots that are based in what is now Germany. Mind you it also contains roots from what is now France and Italy.
“English has developed over the course of more than 1,400 years.”
“English is not mutually intelligible with any continental Germanic language, differing in vocabulary, syntax, and phonology, “
> it also contains roots from what is now France
Perhaps you’re referring to Belgium and above, since that’s where French comes from. But actually my joke was alluding to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest
Actually Richard, it seems that neither of you know what roots are. “Roots” refer to the ultimate origin. Of course that concept is vague because you could go back to the Indo-European source, but here we are referring to the beginnings of the English language itself.
The roots of English are Germanic only. French is an influence, albeit a strong influence, not a root. For the most part it didn’t infiltrate the language for about 600 years after the origins of the language in Britain. Look at Beowulf for a sense of the roots of the language. Its vocabulary and grammar are almost all Germanic in origin.
(Roy – no need to approve my previous post here. I must have typed my name wrong.)
I don’t think either understands what “roots” are. It refers to origins. Assuming we don’t go back before the Germanic tribes who invaded Britain, the origins of English are almost exclusively Germanic.
Any contributions which came after are only influences (albeit a very strong influence in the case of French/Latin), not roots. The main influx of French/Latin words didn’t arrive until many centuries after the Germanic invasion.
I recall that something like 98 out of our 100 most commonly used words are Germanic origin. They are the roots of the language – ‘the’, ‘one’, ‘me’, etc. The one exception I recall is “street” which was one of the few Latin-based words to enter English when the Germanic tribes invaded. However I think I also recall reading that even ‘street’ might have originally been Germanic, before being passed to the Romans and then back to the Germanic tribes in a new form.
One thing is certain – the various languages of the world are not “god’s” doing, as claimed in the buybull.
Little Willy, Antonin, please stop trolling.
DREMT
Your unthinking troll comment continues.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
SpaceX Starship: Mega Pad Upgrade to Tame the Thrust, Boeing Starliner Delayed Indefinitely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP7c0KQHQsc
Don’t worry starliner will eventually, but Boeing won’t make much money from it, even though NASA paying them twice price per trip to ISS, then they paying SpaceX.
But it’s good NASA has a back up way to get crew to ISS. Meanwhile
SpaceX is also flying private crews to ISS and unlikely Boeing will get any of that business. And SpaceX working with making private space station which will have artificial gravity.
It seems to me, private space stations with artificial gravity will liked more by the general public.
The New Pause Feels the Influence Of The Coming El Nino
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/03/the-new-pause-feels-the-influence-of-the-coming-el-nino/
“The uptick in the UAH global lower-troposphere anomalies from the previous 0.18 K to the current 0.37 K is enough to shorten the New Pause by 1 month from 8 years 11 months to 8 years 10 months”
Anyone think it’s due the “Coming El Nino”?
It seems to me the warming effect of El Nino is delayed effect.
I don’t have any reason for uptick, just as don’t one for down ticks- it’s weather.
Why does the ice in the Chukchi Sea grow in June? Is it an extended La Nina effect?
https://i.ibb.co/ngsPRzy/r02-Chukchi-Sea-ts-4km.png
https://i.ibb.co/L01Bg4Q/masie-all-r02-4km.png
Where did you get your data specific to the Chukchi Sea?
NSDIC by the look of it.
Yes – I can see that. But it is not clear where on their site the data can be found. Feel free to show me up by linking to it.
Do your own research.
Unless you ae trying to suggest that the image was made up.
So you can’t find it either. Thanks for the admission.
And no – it was an honest question. You really should stop looking for motive. You’re not very good at it.
Try https://nsid*c.org/data/masie/explore-region, Chukchi Sea (Region 2)
“So you cant find it either.”
No I found it. It is just that it has d*c in the url so it is a problem to post it here.
https://imgur.com/a/yurLtVm image from using that url.
AQ is just crap at everything.
Why thank you. See how easy it is to be helpful. Perhaps next time cut the BS. And you should try tinyurl.
AQ needs to be spoon fed.
You mean like https://tinyurl.com/5n9xdn7n AQ obviously thinks he invented the Internet.
Or particularly https://tinyurl.com/5d5myhxj
It is childish comments like those which indicate precisely who here is fed by spoon. The saddest part is that you believe that type of comment has any effect, other than to artificially boost your flagging self-esteem.
AQ fails around having failed at simple use of the Internet.
Could I have the English version please.
AQ fails to understand simple English.
Are you sure you want to claim your sentence as proper English?
You literally said that I failed at failing.
I know I have you scared when you can’t address me directly and constantly refer to me in the third person. It’s just like someone who doesn’t have the balls to look you in the eye. I don’t bite …. much …. haha.
Or the Internet
https://tinyurl.com/ynfs7w48 is a version of https://i.ibb.co/ngsPRzy/r02-Chukchi-Sea-ts-4km.png isn’t it?
Tinyurl and its ik are often blocked by firewalls for a very good reason.
“Are you sure you want to claim your sentence as proper English?”
With autocorrect, sure.
AQ flails around having failed a simple use of the Internet.
AQ, please stop trolling.
Firstly you demand I add AQ: to every post and then you post
“I know I have you scared when you can’t address me directly”. Some people are just delusional.
“With autocorrect, sure.”
And of course I was supposed to guess your intended sentence.
But thanks for finally admitting that you did not write “simple English”.
I have not demanded anything – there lies the delusion.
And if I had, I certainly wouldn’t demand you use an abbreviation.
You live in an alternate reality.
AQ is off in a world of his own.
I see you could only hold that stare for one comment.
Sorted out yet why shortening urls is often depreciated?
“Depreciated” instead of “deprecated” – oh dear, it just gets worse.
The English police strike again.
To satisfy AQ, Sorted out yet why shortening urls is often deprecated?
AQ:
Which would you use
https://tinyurl.com/ynfs7w48
or
https://i.ibb.co/ngsPRzy/r02-Chukchi-Sea-ts-4km.png
and why?
How about you choose a descriptive tinyurl name up to the 30 character max instead of the random 8 character name it throws at you and then ask the question again.
And …. Rick Astley …. Bluurrgghhhh
And if I am behind a firewall that blocks shortened urls?
“The security risk with a shortened URL is you cannot tell where you are going when you click the link, you have to trust the sender. As a result, some organizations teach their employees not to trust shortened URLs, or simply block them at their network gateway.”
You just proved you’re perfectly capable of creating one, which was the entire purpose behind this discussion.
Good to see you quickly abandoned your last ruse.
How about
https://tinyurl.com/r02-Chukchi-Sea-ts-4km
Are you saying I shouldn’t trust you? Probably good advice.
I am just proving you should not trust shortened urls. With good reason. If you believe in Internet Security then you shouldn’t either.
Yet I know that you have clicked on a hyperlinked name from one of the posters here, just as the one in this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1493951
Why do you trust them?
“… such as …”
AQ: Now you are just fishing. Who says on click on random urls or trust them either?
edit: Who says I click on…
> Tinyurl and its ik
Like imgur and ib dot co?
Imgur (and its ilk) are rarely blocked by firewalls. Shortened urls are. Do you not understand why?
You realize that you’re being paranoid about injection instead of focusing on the problem with anonymized link, Richard?
It’s your web filter that should block URL phishing, BTW:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-your-firewall-shouldnt-web-filter-neel-lukka
The difference is because it is the browser that interprets urls but just displays images. Mind you, both are considered bad distractions at work, so often both are blocked there.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-abandon-url-shorteners-michele-bartram/
Willard does not keep up. “Back in 2016….”
Richard is the brilliant computer engineer cycle nuts needed for so long:
https://cybersecurity.att.com/blogs/security-essentials/url-filtering-explained-what-is-web-filtering
“enforce URL filtering policies”
Many business places will block url shorteners. Some will also block imgur, etc. The exact mechanism will depend on a lot of things, the exact hardware employed, the exact software used, the establishments policies, etc.
Home based systems rarely block either of the above.
Some will even employ cloud based systems. It all depends on the budget and local experience really.
Nowadays firewalls have other things to do than act as outsourced web filters, Richard. Institutions that can’t protect their own gateway internally become sitting ducks. Which they often are, sadly.
It all depends on the budget, training and local experience really.
I see it in a simpler manner than that, Richard – it all depends if you want your gamers to have a smooth experience or if you want their games to crash every week.
How does a firewall affect gamers?
By altering some of their functionalities, e.g.:
https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/7842
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“In comparison with those from previous eruptions, the SO2 and HCl mass injections were unexceptional, although they reached higher altitudes. In contrast, the H2O injection was unprecedented in both magnitude (far exceeding any previous values in the 17-year MLS record) and altitude (penetrating into the mesosphere). We estimate the mass of H2O injected into the stratosphere to be 146 5 Tg, or ∼10% of the stratospheric burden. It may take several years for the H2O plume to dissipate. This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.”
For anyone demanding “proof” of any speculation, they obviously disagree with Albert Einstein, who wrote “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Delusional SkyDragon cultists cannot describe the GHE in any testable way. They cannot even say whether this supposed effect causes warming or cooling!
Some science! About as idiotic as claiming that the statistics of historical weather observations (climate) can have any effect at all on future weather. Even more idiotic is any notion that intense examination of the past can predict the future state of a chaotic system such as the atmosphere.
Richard Feynman wrote “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Delusional SkyDragon cultists don’t even have a testable hypothesis – they would first have to be able to describe the GHE in some testable way, which they can’t.
Anybody want to try to describe the “greenhouse effect”? What was its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? No answers?
No surprises there!
That’s because this has nothing to do with science. It is about advancing their leftist agenda.
I am always amused how the rabid social Darwinists of the extreme Republican Right call anyone less extreme than themselves Leftist.
By international standards both Democrats and Republicans are Rightist parties.
What an imperceptive observation.
The Democrats are still left of centre, but to the right of most international parties of the left.
I have no issue with people using the terms Left and Right in a relative sense, provided they make clear it is not absolute usage. Most from the far right do not have the language skills or the desire to do that.
What I have issue with is people doing the same with terms that are only absolute, ie. communist. The insistence of the far right on calling everyone to their left communists could be called intellectual dishonesty – IF there was any intellect there in the first place.
Spoken like a true leftist. Leftists believe that government owns the fruits of man’s labor and consider themselves the masterminds who know better than the free market. Conservatives believe that man owns the fruits of his labor and that the free market decides the value of that labor. Those ideas haven’t changed since Lincoln. Lincoln said Democrats believe that “you work, I eat.” Nothing has changed.
AQ,
You wrote –
“I have no issue with people using the terms Left and Right in a relative sense, provided they make clear it is not absolute usage.”
Can you name one person who cares whether you have an “issue” with something, or not?
All of your opinions, plus $5, will buy you a $5 cup of coffee. Others can work out the value of your opinions for themselves.
Carry on.
A rock with earth’s albedo earth’s surface emissivity and earth’s distance from the sun, but no atmosphere, cannot have an average surface temperature above about 255 K.
But earth DOES have an average surface temperature way above 255K. That is the experimental fact that needs to be explained.
One simply theoretical explanation for that discrepancy is the IR properties of the atmosphere.
What is your ‘speculation’ for earth’s observed ~ 288K mean surface temperature when the sun cannot warm it that high?
GHE makes a lot of sense. Its a really good explanation for why surface is 288K when theory says it should be 255K.
The part where I go off the rails is AGW due to GHE. There is no way an additional reduction of direct thermal radiation to space of some 3Wm-2 due to a doubling of CO2 is going to have any deleterious effect on climate.
“GHE makes a lot of sense. Its a really good explanation …”
Glad we agree with the basic theory.
“The part where I go off the rails is AGW due to GHE.”
Actually you seem to be perfectly fine with ‘AGW due to GHE’. Reducing thermal radiation to space will naturally cause warming — a ‘really good explanation’.
All you really seem to disagree with is the word “deleterious”. That is a completely separate issue. The warming is real. The positive or negative impacts are debatable. I think that debate is important. But the warming is theoretically predicted and experimentally observed.
Tim,
You wrote –
“But the warming is theoretically predicted and experimentally observed.”
Apart from the past four and a half billion years, every night, in winter, during solar eclipses . . .
Are you stupid, or do you just believe everyone else is?
You’re an idiot either way.
What is your speculation’ for earth’s observed ~ 288K mean surface temperature when the sun cannot warm it that high?
The mistake here is the false belief that Sun can not warm Earth to 288K. Someone doesn’t understand the thermodynamics involved. They are being confused by comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere.
And, they cant learn —
Another genius shows up and announces his discovery of the idiotic flat earth energy budget model where the sun shines 24 hours a day evenly over the whole planet with 240 W/m^2 with supposed missing 33 degreas
Tim,
Accept reality. The Earth’s surface was molten. More than 99% of the Earth’s mass is still hot enough to glow.
The Earth has obviously cooled since its surface was molten. It has cooled to an average of 288 K or so. Still a lot of cooling to reach a state where it will be isothermal at 255 K beyond the influence of the Sun – maybe 30 m.
If you choose not to accept reality, that is your choice. In my view, someone who voluntarily chooses to reject reality for no good reason, is an idiot.
Before you take refuge in another of your fantasy “scenarios”, consider this – which requires more energy input : – raising the temperature of a body such as the Earth, from 0K to 255 K, or raising the temperature from 33 K to 288 K?
If you want to quibble about specific heat being dependent on temperature, by all means do so. Just change the 33 K to a number which makes the answer come out in accordance with the reality that a body with a glowing hot interior cannot have a surface at absolute zero.
No GHE. You are an idiot for believing in something you cannot even describe, and claiming you are being scientific.
Over to you.
“Richard Feynman wrote It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.
Why do the climate change denialists not think to apply Feynman’s quote to their own b*llsh*it notions?
What is theory and who is author of the theory.
Does anyone think the idea that 300 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere causes 33 C of global warming?
That is one idea which has an author, though it is not a clearly
stated theory.
One could also ask what Earth looks like if 33 C cooler and without any CO2.
As general note, it seems if Earth was 33 C cooler, any CO2 in the atmosphere would freeze out at the poles, and Earth could have fair amount water vapor in it’s tropical region.
Mars has 210 ppm of water vapor, and most amount sunlight reaching it’s surface is about 700 watts, and there not much water on the Mars
surface, called dry and cold desert planet which has average air temperature -60 to -50 C.
Whereas Earth has oceans of water and average temperature being -18 C.
So tropical 1/2 of Earth could have average around 15 C, and two polar halves making the other 50% of earth, and averaging -33 C
And portion of polar halves which in polar regions and getting less sunlight than Mars {they get far less sunlight than Mars gets currently, but will have no water clouds, though could have frozen CO2 clouds [as Mars has] but with no significant amount clouds, the region would get more sunlight than it does now.
And in winter one could be colder air than -120 C.
But polar halves next tropical half, may not get colder than -40 C in winter nights.
And this is not as cold as the mythical snowball Earth.
Earth currently gets about 1120 watts of sunlight when clear skies and sun is near zenith. If Earth average was -18 C, it should get a bit more sunlight- like, 1150+ watts per square meter and get more direct sunlight and less indirect sunlight. It’s currently 70 Watts
it could be 20 watts indirect and 1130 watts of direct sunlight when clear and sun near zenith and at sea level- could be 200 meter lower
than it is now.
Having more direct sunlight effect land surface temperatures. So ground surface could reach 80 C or more, whereas highest it does not
is about 70 C. And land areas would be very dry. And would get more sunlight at noon and more sunlight the rest of daylight hours.
Now our ocean average surface is 17 C and land is about 10 C, giving global average of about 15 C.
In world which was -18 C, the ocean controls global air because it’s mere larger area [70%] but the ocean control land temperature less
because it’s colder.
Or if Earth was warmer and had ocean average of 20 C, instead 17 C-
that increase average, but also the warmer ocean warms the land “more”. And with global temperature of -18 C, the colder ocean warms land less.
So, spitballing say instead of ocean of 17 C, it was ocean of 5 C.
So ocean with average of 5 C, has very weak tropical heat engine, and outside tropical ocean surface could average around 0 C. And when got
sea ice on it, it’s not warming land’s average temperature, it all.
And when there is sea ice and the air above it could be colder than -20 C.
Of course we have lot’s polar sea ice, permanent winter and summer sea ice, say anywhere above 50 degrees North or South, and winter sea ice getting below 40 degree.
Europe which averages 9 C, would somewhere around -30 C and be similar to Canada and Russia, or they would go from average of -3 C to about -30 C. Greenland would be much colder than our current Antarctia, and Antarctica is colder, but maybe not a cold as arctic ocean which could have 1000 meters of frozen sea ice- and it’s isolated frozen sea, which has no rivers flowing into it, though could glacier flowing into it- though it could be flowing glaciers on on the land. And it should have the most amount of frozen CO2.
But this complicated and wrong because not using correct control
knob. Earth’s control knob is average temperature of all of the
oceans- which is currently 3.5 C.
And NASA and NOAA agree [but they might not know they agree, when they say more than 90% of all global warming is warming this ocean with average temperature of 3.5 C.
So, model an Earth with average ocean of 2.5 C or 4.5 C.
Since ocean has 1000 times the heat content compared to the sky, a 1 C cooling or warming of ocean average temperature causes a huge change in global air average temperature.
1 C added to ocean adds about 5 C to global average temperature and
1 C less to ocean removes 10 C to global average temperature.
And ocean with average of about 2 C or less is an Earth of -18 C or minus 33 C, though there is variables, so might say gets as cold as -18 C and as warm as -10 C.
And Earth has never had ocean which had average temperature of 2 C, and snowball is average ocean of about 1 C
EM,
What bullshit notions are you referring to?
The fact that you cannot describe your GHE? The fact that “climate” is the statistics of historical weather observations, and cannot change anything?
You can’t even name a single person who does not accept that the weather changes, can you?
That’s because you are an idiotic delusional SkyDragon cultist. Probably idiotic enough to support other idiots who run around waving “Stop Climate Change” placards!
Stop the weather (and hence the climate) from changing? Good luck with that, idiot.
” No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
I hate to say it, but Einstein was wrong about that. Recently there was a single experiment that found relativity’s speed limit was exceeded, seemingly proving Einstein wrong, as reported widely in the media.
However few physicists considered this single experiment to be proof. It would need to be replicated.
In the end it wasn’t, because they failed to account for a loose optical cable. The experiment was wrong. And physicists were correct to have demanded further evidence.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single {replicated} experiment can prove me wrong.”
“The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges.”
But there is no ‘single experiment that proves the GHE wrong’. Perhaps someone would care to present an experiment that they think would qualify.
Indeed, the GHE is merely the application of basic thermal heat transfer ideas. Granted, the details are complicated for a the case of an actual earth with day/night, seasons, swirling currents in the oceans and atmosphere, a continuous distribution of GHG, etc. But the fundamental ideas are rock-solid.
“Granted, the details are complicated for a the case of an actual earth with day/night, seasons, swirling currents in the oceans and atmosphere, a {non} continuous distribution of GHG, etc.”
Don’t forget the chaotic surface boundary layer.
Folkerts, your cult can’t even come up with a description/definition of the GHE that will hold up.
Why do you think that is?
How about the “single experiment” you look at the sky at night and there is no sun shining with 240 W/m^2.
It’s not that complicated
Years of trolling to misunderstand the concept of energy balance.
More than a decade in the case of Pup.
Decided what will happen if the planes fly North and South rather than East and West with atomic clocks on them Willard?
Tim,
Go on then, describe the GHE.
What is its effect? Cooling, or heating? Where may it be observed, measured, and documented?
You are an idiot if you want others to share your belief in something which cannot be described – unless you accept that your beliefs are religious in nature.
Off you go, try describing the GHE. Every other scientific effect at least has a description. Why is the GHE different?
For Swenson: Here is Happer and Wijngaarden paper describing GHE. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341997882_Dependence_of_Earth's_Thermal_Radiation_on_Five_Most_Abundant_Greenhouse_Gases
Have you found another meaning for “optimal” that would support your earlier claim, Richard? How about what you said about the English language? Or perhaps you succeeded to troll Physics Exchange since the last time you tried?
Ken, like most cult idiots, you’ve found a link you can’t understand.
In simple terms, it’s “if, then”. It’s a lot of blah-blah to say “if, then”. “If” the GHE nonsense is valid, “then” —
The problem is, the GHE nonsense is NOT valid.
I don’t agree with Happer’s technique here, as it obviously confuses people that don’t understand the science. He’s trying to show even if the nonsense were true, it would have little effect. I would have preferred he just stated it’s NOT true.
But, then we’d miss all this fun.
Ken,
That would be “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases.”, would it?
It’s a great pity it doesn’t actually have a description of the greenhouse effect in it.
Go on, prove me wrong – quote the authors giving a description of the “greenhouse effect”. Maybe you need to regroup and rethink – tell everyone that the authors were “thinking” about a “greenhouse effect”, without actually describing it!
Quite apart from that, fantasy models and wishful are no substitute for reality. The surface cools every night, you idiot!
Maybe you missed this paper from the same site –
“How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica”.
Which fantasy do you support? Or does CO2 perform the miracle of heating or cooling, depending on the wishes of the experimenter?
Try again.
Have you decided what will happen if the planes fly North and South rather than East and West with atomic clocks on them, Willard, yet?
Do you still dispute that the moving average filter is optimal for
reducing random noise while retaining a sharp step response even if you have been proven wrong about that, Richard?
Do you dispute that a sharp step response (read overshoot) will introduce distortions?
Do you dispute that a moving average filter will produce distortions in the output?
“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”
“How about the “single experiment” you look at the sky at night and there is no sun shining with 240 W/m^2.”
The GHE does not predict 240 W/m^2 of sunlight at night. The GHE does not require 240 W/m^2 of sunlight at night.
Simple models to explain the concept to beginners often use average values, but those are not “the greenhouse effect”. A diagram showing “240 W/m^2” is not saying there is 240 W/m^2 24/7 over the whole earth.
Have you found how the boundary layer could become so chaotic as to reverse seasons, Richard?
Averaging the past by any method does not make the future predictable.
A complete waste of time, effort, and money.
You might just as well cast around for opinions based on your own perceptions, and then make your own assumptions. Or be like the US administration – listen to the “experts”, and end up owing in excess of $30 trillion, and showing many of the characteristics of a “failed state”.
Maybe somebody didn’t “dissect the past” as diligently as some of the “experts” here.
Life goes on.
Tim,
You wrote –
“The GHE does not predict 240 W/m^2 of sunlight at night. The GHE does not require 240 W/m^2 of sunlight at night.
Simple models to explain the concept to beginners often use average values, but those are not “the greenhouse effect”.”
You appear to know what the GHE is not, without being able to describe what it is!
I do hope you aren’t going to claim that the GHE is just another name for sunlight, or something equally stupid.
How is your GHE description going? Have you figured out whether the GHE warms or cools the Earth, yet?
Keep at it.
“Averaging the past by any method does not make the future predictable”
An accurate filter will remove any orbital factors. Such as daily or yearly items. Such things are very, very, repeatable.
Willard: How chaotic do you think that the Earth’s surface boundary layer is and over what distance?
Willard: Have you decided what will happen if the planes fly North and South rather than East and West with atomic clocks on them yet?
Richard: do you believe in seasons?
Richard: when will you cite your trolling question on Physics Exchange, and should I do it for you?
ken…Happer defeats his own paper with the opening statement.
“The atmospheric temperatures and concentrations of Earths five most important, greenhouse gases, H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4 control the cloud-free, thermal radiative flux from the Earth to outer space”.
***
This statement is nonsense and even if it has some truth, so what? Neither surface temperature nor the rate of surface cooling is affected by atmospheric gases other than oxygen and nitrogen. The idea that only trace gases can radiate energy to space is far too cute to be taken seriously.
“definition of the GHE that will hold up.”
It holds just fine for people using real, as opposed to completely made up, physics.
“far too cute to be taken seriously.”
Nature doesnt care one whit if you are incredulous of what it does Gordon.
BTW, Happer is well known for developing adaptive optics that astronomers use to see better through the atmosphere. When it comes to atmospheric optics, Happer knows what he is talking about. While you do not.
Science will keep calm and carry on without you.
“”I dont agree with Happers technique here, as it obviously confuses people that dont understand the science. Hes trying to show even if the nonsense were true, it would have little effect. I would have preferred he just stated its NOT true.”
Yes Clint would prefer that skeptical scientists, like Happer, just lie about the science.
Nate,
A single experiment didn’t prove him, wrong then. That means he’s still right?
Until you can find a single experiment which proves him wrong, he isn’t!
Maybe you are missing the point. GHE cultists refuse to actually describe the GHE, and then cry loudly “Prove me wrong!”.
Richard Feynman said “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.”. Delusional SkyDragon cultists don’t have a GHE theory, because you can’t formulate a definite, testable, theory for an “effect” which you cannot describe.
Go on, try. Is the “greenhouse effect” supposed to make the Earth’s surface hotter or colder?
Easy question – you have two choices – or you could say “I don’t know”, I suppose.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for your answer.
“Maybe you are missing the point. GHE cultists refuse to actually describe the GHE, and then cry loudly ‘Prove me wrong!'”
Or, more likely, we have one dimwit-toll, Swenson, who keeps ‘missing’ the many explanations of the GHE presented here.
Here’s yet another one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1493724
Nate,
You are an idiot who is trying to explain something you can’t even describe!
You won’t even say whether the “greenhouse effect” is supposed to have a “warming” or “cooling” effect will you?
Some idiots, like Raymond Pierrehumbert, claim that “Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation”, as do some other delusional SkyDragon cultists, whilst implying this causes “heating”!
Of course, these idiots refuse to accept the reality that the Earth cools at night, and that the Earth has progressively cooled for four and a half billion years! Obviously, the SkyDragon “planetary insulation” acted as it should. Wrapping a corpse in insulation won’t increase its temperature, and the Earth is cooling – just like a very large corpse.
You have no description of the GHE, do you? If you did, you could at least count how many words it contains (unless you are too ignorant to count words). But you can’t count the words of a description you dont have, can you?
Carry on with your idiotic attempts to explain something that you can’t even describe.
Literally nothing out of the ordinary is happening at all.
True. We gt a few tenths of a degree warming ***on average*** and the alarmists begin cheering. No one could detect this warming in a living room.
We don’t “cheer”. The future of climate change is not a cheerful prospect.
AQ,
You wrote –
“We dont “cheer”. The future of climate change is not a cheerful prospect.”
And you claim to know this future how? Casting runes? Reading portents? Maybe peering into bowls of chicken entrails, or reading tea leaves!
Even the IPCC grudgingly state that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Reality is not strongly attached to you, is it? That’s what makes you an idiot!
Carry on.
Orbital factors are very predictable. Things such as daily or yearly motions.
That’s why, if the Earth maintain its current orbit and its axial tilt, no amount of CO2 will ever warm the Arctic or the Antarctic to a significant degree, even if the dumbass AGW theory has any credence.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Orbital factors are very predictable. Things such as daily or yearly motions.”
A bit like “predicting” that the Sun will rise, based on past observations.
All orbits are chaotic, but we assume that tomorrow will much the same as today. I do, anyway, and so far so good.
However, there are many publications along the lines of “Planetary chaos and inverted climate phasing in the Late Triassic of Greenland.” For anyone who might think climate changes gradually – “Greenland ice core records suggest that the onset of the YD occurred rapidly in possibly as little as 3 years and that the termination occurred over ∼60 years” – Nature.
Chaos in action? Who knows, but predicting the future any better than a 12 year old is not easy. The future is unknowable – it hasn’t happened yet!
You might confidently “predict” that you will die. When? Where? How? This is the sort of useless “prediction” beloved of delusional SkyDragon cultists. Or using cunning methods to analyse historical records, and arguing about which method produces better “predictions”. The answer, of course, is that examining the past cannot predict the future.
Oh well.
swenson…I have taken it further, I don’t believe anything, especially that a tomorrow or yesterday exist. I have thrown out the concept of time. Oops, gotta go, Endeavour is on soon.
“All orbits are chaotic”
The rate at which on object spins around an axis and the path it takes around a barycenter is quite predictable in fact.
As the number of objects rises then the calculations become interesting but to the first few decimal places very predictable.
For instance 24 hours (plus or minus a few milliseconds) and 365.25 days (plus or minus a few seconds) will happen regardless of what you believe,
RLH,
My assumption, like yours, is that the length of next year will be very close to the current year. Hopefully.
However, hoping that next year’s weather (or next month’s, or next week’s) is as similar to the current situation, is an assumption too far.
I accept that it is impossible to predict the future states of chaotic systems in any useful way. Many don’t. If you believe you can predict the weather any better than a twelve year old using naive persistence forecasting techniques, good for you. You can’t. Well, unless you have some amazing super powers, and if you did, it is likely you would be off somewhere warm, swanning around with your vast fortune.
Only joking, financial markets are chaotic too.
That’s my reality. Your view may be different.
“hoping that next year’s weather (or next month’s, or next week’s) is as similar to the current situation, is an assumption too far.”
I was basing my ‘predictions’ on the fact that the 24 hour cycle and 365.25 day one are the major components in the data going forward. Weather, with all its complications, is unlikely to be a major, only minor, contributor to the outcome. YMMV.
Swenson sez “Chaos in action? Who knows, but predicting the future any better than a 12 year old is not easy. The future is unknowable it hasnt happened yet!”
Then contradicts himself by praising the QED predictions that were obviously not done by a 12 year olds.
To sum up, Swenson knows not what he is talking about.
It’s cheerful to me since nothing out of the ordinary will happen. Maybe you haven’t noticed yet, but there are an inordinate number of Doomsday prophets running around these days desperate for attention.
If you are referring to McPhersonists, that are a loud minority – and a very tiny minority. Only a tiny tiny fraction of climate scientists predict a “doomsday”.
Contrary to Swenson’s ill-logic, science can be used to predict the future, as Edmund Halley did for the return of his namesake comet in 1705.
Here are the solar and lunar eclipses for the next 10 y.
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html
Noice.
Not just 10 y of eclipses. It predicts them thru 2199!
Nate,
Now predict the wind speed and direction in a particular location.
Or when the next earthquake will hit LA.
Or the stock market.
You idiot, you are assuming that Halley will return in the future, based on the fact that it has in the past. Your assumption may prove to be correct, just as my assumption that the sun will rise tomorrow.
The problem with “predictions” is determining their degree of skill. Can you “predict” any better than a twelve year old, for example? Or me, if it comes to it!
Here’s an example of a real prediction –
“The QED prediction agrees with the experimentally measured value to more than 10 significant figures, making the magnetic moment of the electron the most accurately verified prediction in the history of physics. ” – Wikipedia.
Delusional SkyDragon cultists don’t seem to like QED. It’s real science, which accepts reality – bizarre though that reality is.
Keep denying reality. Stick with your GHE fantasy.
Does any of this prevent seasons from happening, Mike Flynn?
“You idiot, you are assuming that Halley will return in the future, based on the fact that it has in the past.”
Nah, as a science denier you just have to keep on denying.
Halley used Newton’s laws and observations of the comet’s path to find its elliptical orbit, and therefore predict its return in 1758.
Then others used physics to better calculate the effect of Saturn and Jupiter on its orbit, to correctly predict the delay in its closest approach to the sun in 1759.
“Now predict the wind speed and direction in a particular location.”
I will, next time a cyclone is headed to your town. I will give you 3 days warning.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Escalation Strategy & Aid in Ukraine – How the West manages Russian nuclear threats and ‘red lines’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWKGYnO0Jf4
Another long sober assessment from Perun.
gb…may be sober but it’s propaganda. The video is nothing more than an extension of the propaganda thatthe Ukraine is an innocent democratic nation being invaded by a nasty bully.
Here’s Witless Willard trying to act intelligent –
“Years of trolling to misunderstand the concept of energy balance.”
Willard can’t actually say what relationship “energy balance” has to anything in particular. Presumably, Willard is one of those idiots who loudly proclaim “conservation of energy”, trying to sound scientific, without understanding physical laws at all. The Earth, for example, has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. No “energy balance” there. The Earth has lost a quite prodigious amount of energy – millions of tons of matter converted to energy, and at e=mc2, that’s a lot of joules which have fled to space.
Even at present, there are estimated to be 4.3 x 10^12 kg of U238 in the oceans alone, which represents less than half the original quantity on Earth 4.5 billion years ago. Now, when one mole of U-238 atoms undergoes an alpha decay (approximately 238 g), a staggering amount of energy (4.12510^8 kJ) is released.
Energy balance? You’ve got to be kidding me!
Try to pin Willard down about his understanding of “energy balance”, and he will immediately attempt to lurch off in several different directions. Typical for a delusional, clueless, SkyDragon cultist. Idiot, in other words.
Mike Flynn,
Energy balance means energy in equals energy out.
Energy balance.
Have you found how the atmosphere of the Earth slows down cooling yet?
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Energy balance means energy in equals energy out.”
Well, that statement has no connection to any reality at all, except for an object at a constant temperature – getting neither hotter nor colder. Unfortunately, that situation is impossible to maintain.
Naturally, it generally occurs only twice a day, for an infinitely short time, at any given location on Earth. At maximum and minimum temperature inflection points.
You are an idiot, just tossing random nonsense out, hoping someone will think you are intelligent. Why not try saying “water is wet”? Just as true, and just as irrelevant.
By the way, you seem to have some obsessive/compulsive behavioral disorder. You keep asking “Have you found how the atmosphere of the Earth slows down cooling yet?”. Only an idiot like you would keep asking such a pointless question. If it’s a gotcha, it’s equally idiotic.
Try describing the GHE. See? You can’t, can you. That’s why you have to try idiotic tactics – trying to avoid looking like an idiot!
Idiot.
Moron Mike,
In reality, energy does not appear or disappear out of thin air. That means there’s an equilibrium point where energy balances. An energy balance equation represents such equilibrium point.
It easy to describe the greenhouse effect. Even you can do it. In fact you already did.
Deceitful cretin.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“In reality, energy does not appear or disappear out of thin air. That means theres an equilibrium point where energy balances. An energy balance equation represents such equilibrium point.”
Step into the sunlight, fool. The energy that warms you didn’t have to come out of thin air! It came from the photosphere of the sun. To get there, it came from the conversion of mass into energy. You really have no clue at all, do you?
You might be confused, and not understand the conservation laws. You don’t seem to understand much, so I wouldn’t be surprised, because you are an idiot.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. It has lost vast amounts of energy to the rest of the universe. You don’t have to accept the laws of physics, if you don’t want to. Be an idiot if you wish.
You burbled on “It easy to describe the greenhouse effect. Even you can do it. In fact you already did.”. Idiot – how many words are there in this “description”? Go on, try to convert your fantasy into fact. Yes, I’m sniggering at your idiocy. Can’t you count?
Keep it up.
Moron Mike,
If the energy warms you, it is because there is more in than out. At some point the energy in and out reaches equilibrium. You can calculate it using an energy balance equation.
The greenhouse effect explains why the atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.
Deceitful cretin.
You forgot “rats.” That’s what the Nazis called the Jews. “Deceitful Cretin Rats.”
Wiltard has a photo of Goebbels on his wall. Wiltard, do you pray to Goebbels?
Wait, Troglodyte –
Are you really whining that I am using the word “moron” while calling me “Wiltard”?
swenson…”Heres Witless Willard trying to act intelligent
Years of trolling to misunderstand the concept of energy balance.”
***
What is even more amusing is that no one knows what energy is. How does one balance an unknown entity?
Solar energy is input to the Earth’s surface in the form of electromagnetic energy. It is not measurable in that form for the simply reason it cannot be detected till it is absorbed by a mass. Then it produces heat, but are there losses in the process? Therefore EM is measured in terms of heat as w/m^2.
The problem is obvious. Is all of the EM converted to heat and is it all measured precisely? Who is measuring it?
We know the overall balance should be there between energy in and energy out but we cannot be trite and take that literally. There are obviously delays and we have no idea what the balance point should be. And we have absolutely no idea what role nitrogen and oxygen play in the balance or what heating delays exist between energy in and energy out.
We have no proof how much solar reaches the surface other than an educated guess. So, we have no idea how much to expect going out the way. In other words, we know very little about energy balance.
I grew up with cliches like ‘energy can be neither created nor destroyed’ and ‘energy in must equal energy out’. Never questioned either till recently, until I began to understand the parameters better. I grew up in hero-worship of Einstein and his e = mc^2 till I began questioning what the equation means and Einstein’s fallibility as a god of science.
> How does one balance an unknown entity?
You measure it, Bordo.
Come on. Try to deny that we can measure what comes in at the top of the atmosphere.
Ok, Mr. Rocketscientist, tell me how to measure energy directly. No one knows what energy is, but you want to measure it directly.
Come on, Bordo.
You are using an old Weird Trick that made philosophers doubt matter exists.
Or anything else, for that matter.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Google: “What is balloon type construction?”
“Balloon framing is a style of wood-house building that uses long, vertical 2” x 4″s for the exterior walls. These long “studs” extend uninterrupted, from the sill on top of the foundation, all the way up to the roof.”
The Problem With Balloon Frame Construction
“Legend has it that in 1832 George Snow of Chicago invented ballon frame construction when he erected a warehouse near the mouth of the Chicago River. This radically new form of building construction got this derogatory nickname from the appearance that the building was as light as a balloon due to the much smaller framing members used. Whether Mr. Snow invented this or it was a slow transition in each region by different builders coming to the same realization is unsure.”
Well that for housing and I am talking about rockets- Starship could be called balloon type construction. And one aspect/chararistic of
them is they need to be pressurized or they can collapse like a balloon. Or they are stronger if pressurized.
Aspect as way to define it, is if fill them with freshwater and pressurize the freshwater, they will float in the ocean.
Or I call it, a pipelauncher, something with dimension of wooden pencil, but a lot bigger. And you use this construction to make floating breakwaters which are cheap [very cheap].
So pipelauncher is vertical [and not filled with freshwater] and floating breakwater is horizontal and is filled with pressurized freshwater.
A way to make floating breakwater very cheap is mass production- you want miles of it and make make them only about 50 to 100 meters long, so many of them to make a breakwater per km.
And in terms of making pipelauncher, you make them is drydocks and float/tow them to oceanic location.
Which how Sea Dragon rockets were going to be made cheap so to lower launch costs.
And in terms of oceanic launch site, it could have floating breakwaters and pipelaunchers to launch rockets.
So Pipelaunchers use relatively low pressure air, generally less than 100 psig and pressurized air displaces the ocean water.
It’s said the rocket engine is one most simplest engines- as a basic concept, though to make them more efficient, they are very complicated. A pipelauncher is as simple of machine than a rocket engine, and they don’t have to made very efficent {though I consider what I call staged pipelaunchers, which I thought would be needed lift something as massive as the Starship- but it seems starting simpler seems better, so I am looking at pipelauncher with would launch the New Glenn rocket.
Now, a problem is do I have lift a launch tower and a rocket- cause launch tower could be quite massive, and not generally designed to be very low mass. Also there a lot other infrastructure which needed to launch a rocket other than launch tower. Also with starbase they plan on catch rockets with launch tower.
So, it seems pipelauncher without tower and without catching rockets,
could be quite simple and cheap- but all the rest of it, could cost
billions of dollars.
But making oceanic launch port with breakwaters and ship cargo transport could low operational cost and cheap real estate, with less
restriction due operating in state park and near a town.
So one could people living near it, but living near it because they want near a launch port.
Anyhow, pipelauncher for New Glenn {which would be a big rocket if not compared to Starship} would be about 180 meter tall and 12 meter in diameter.
And if filled it with freshwater, it would float in the ocean, but would be using air which floats a lot better.
Any thoughts about how thick we would need to make to base of a 180 meter tall pipe launcher? That is about 19 atmospheres (with a very small margin of error).
If push water down 10 meter below waterline and 12 meter diameter:
6 x 6 x 3.14159 = 113.09724 square meter times 10 meter is 1130.9724 tons of displacement and is 1 atm- 14.7 psig.
And 30 meters is 1130.9724 x 3 = 3392.9172 tons force pushing up and pipelauncher about 200 tons and rocket is about 1000 tons. So pipelauncher has to go up unless there is 3392.9172 tons.
so that is 3 atm above 1 atm or 44.1 psig.
And keep on add air [dump liquid air in sea water inside pipe, top pipe is accelerating up at more than 1 gee, water is kept 30 meters
below waterline with air added, and in about 4 seconds, bottom of pipe nears the surface and if not stopped flies out of the water.
So design it so when gets close to bottom jumping out water, you put brakes, and launch rocket sometime when it’s 120+ meter above waterline.
And your fuel is warm water and Liquid air. Liquid air about $100 per ton and tens of tons is used.
It doesn’t go very fast, it’s mainly cheap launch pad on the ocean or
one compare to floating platform [which doesn’t add any velocity and could have more than 2000 tons metal to make it.
And pipelauncher should be more stable, unless floating platform is directly on ocean floor- which limits it to shallow ocean waters. If include metal used by brakewater, it could thousands of tons of metal but is much bigger area of calm waters than any floating platform.
Though 180 tall means ocean must be at least 180 meter deep- so one also limited to only deeper waters.
Also you would probably limit acceleration to whatever rocket could handle- so, probably 1 gee [9.98 m/s/s] or less].
And due to the complexity move fast thru water, probably upper limit of speed added is around 300 mph, but start with about 100 mph or less.
Which may seem insignificant to rocket going +17,000 mph, but faster one starts off, the less gravity loss, or could 1/4 or 1/2 that loss
it’s around 1 km/sec [2232 mph] quartered or halved.
It’s way to have launch pad on ocean and one expect the technology to evolve and thereby reduced gravity by a significant amount.
“30 meters is 1130.9724 x 3 = 3392.9172 tons force pushing up”
and inwards. The walls of the launcher will have to be very thick and strong. Think like a submarine at least.
Well using titanium, which is rated at:
“Titanium Ti-6Al-4V (Grade 5), Annealed
Tensile Strength, Ultimate 950 MPa 138000 psi
Tensile Strength, Yield 880 MPa 128000 psi
https://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=mtp641
Density 4.43 g/cc”
And using this:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/barlow-d_1003.html
Calculator
With it’s 0.72 Total Design Factor
Which wouldn’t used on say bridges or building because they
use higher safety factor, but lower safety factor are used in aerospace applications.
One bottom section I am using thicker wall thickness, but mostly
due the braking system. One I am referring to is actually a pipe
within a pipe, also related to it’s braking system which involve
having about 3000 +_ tons of water enclosed and it will add that weight when it’s gets above the waterline. Anyhow
the 8 meter diameter pipe at 80 meter of bottom has wall thickness of
6 mm or since calculators uses inches:.236″
And 8 meter = 315″
Calculator:
Internal Pressure at Minimum Yield (psi): 192
Ultimate Burst Pressure (psi): 207
Maximum Allowable Pressure (psi): 138
And upper part is 3mm, .118″
Internal Pressure at Minimum Yield (psi): 95.9
Ultimate Burst Pressure (psi): 103
Maximum Allowable Pressure (psi): 69
The outer one of 12 meter [472.5″] diameter is 6 mm wall thickness.
Could use marine aluminum or stainless steel and various
ways it’s better, but they corrode in seawater, and
titanium doesn’t {within a century of time}.
The floating breakwater would 20 meter diameter thin wall filled with pressurize freshwater and would float horizontally about 1 meter above waterline.
And would create surfing waves.
And behind it, one could have a large flat floating structure with sand on it, to be public beach. And have small low income residential town which is few miles out from land urban areas.
The floating town could have freshwater lakes and parks {such a baseball field. The town small and dense enough that and everywhere is close enough to walk or bike to and has ferry to mainland.
The town need water processing and powerplants which can be about plus 1 mile from residential area. And powerplants could provide power and water processing to mainland in addition to the town.
And mainland can travel to it, and use surfing area and public beach.
So, breakwater doesn’t wreck surfing on mainland, it makes a very place to surf.
“Among greatest concerns about climate change are it’s impacts on extreme events such as floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes. However, there is little evidence that recent global warming has worsen such events (see Chapter seven and nine for a more thorough discussion).”
https://judithcurry.com/2023/06/06/publication-day/#more-30162
Probably right, but, would ocean settlement reduce such effects?
What effect of Cat 5 upon an ocean settlement and what about
water sprouts:
What is a waterspout?
A waterspout is a whirling column of air and water mist.
“According to NOAA’s National Weather Service, the best way to avoid a waterspout is to move at a 90-degree angle to its apparent movement. Never move closer to investigate a waterspout. Some can be just as dangerous as tornadoes. ”
“Waterspouts fall into two categories: fair weather waterspouts and tornadic waterspouts.
Tornadic waterspouts are tornadoes that form over water, or move from land to water. They have the same characteristics as a land tornado. They are associated with severe thunderstorms, and are often accompanied by high winds and seas, large hail, and frequent dangerous lightning.
Fair weather waterspouts usually form along the dark flat base of a line of developing cumulus clouds. This type of waterspout is generally not associated with thunderstorms. While tornadic waterspouts develop downward in a thunderstorm, a fair weather waterspout develops on the surface of the water and works its way upward. By the time the funnel is visible, a fair weather waterspout is near maturity. Fair weather waterspouts form in light wind conditions so they normally move very little.”
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/waterspout.html
No mention of them being in Hurricanes.
What is effect of waterspouts on shipping?
“Like many forces in nature, waterspouts can be both beautiful and dangerous. They’ve been known to overturn boats, damage large ships, and put lives in jeopardy. If you spot one, exercise extreme caution and keep your distance. Don’t leave your safety up in the air try to avoid these turbulent twisters.”
Up higher:
“The tornadic waterspouts may often begin as tornadoes over land and then move over water. They also form in severe thunderstorms over a body of water. They can wreak havoc with high winds, hail, and dangerous lightning.
Fair weather waterspouts develop in calmer weather. They form only over open water, developing at the surface and actually climbing skyward towards the clouds. The size of all waterspouts can range from just a few feet, to several hundred feet wide. Research shows that fair weather waterspouts exhibit a five-stage life cycle:
Stage 1 is the formation of a disk on the surface of the water, known as a dark spot;
Stage 2 is a spiral pattern on the water surface;
Stage 3 is a formation of a spray ring;
Stage 4 is where the waterspout becomes a visible funnel; and the lifecycle ends with
Stage 5 is where the waterspout decays.”
I thought they might form in hurricanes, and it seems more about severe thunderstorms- and tropical waters.
So what about a Cat 5 hurricane.
As general note, one should get out of the way of Cat 5.
And one could have a limited way of moving a ocean settlement out of the way.
gb…”What is balloon type construction?
Balloon framing is a style of wood-house building that uses long, vertical 2 x 4″s for the exterior walls. These long studs extend uninterrupted, from the sill on top of the foundation, all the way up to the roof.
***
The size of the stud could be 2″ x 6″ if the load demanded it. However, it’s not true that the studs extend from foundation to the roof in general. With a two story house, they extend only from the foundation sill plate to the first floor, where they are topped with a top plate. Places on the top plate, on end, are 2″ x 10″ studs, on end, as the base of the next floor. There are also inner walls to support the 2 x 10s.
Then we electricians come in and drill holes in the 2 x 10s to weaken their integrity, so we can run cabling through them.
tim…”But there is no single experiment that proves the GHE wrong. Perhaps someone would care to present an experiment that they think would qualify.
Indeed, the GHE is merely the application of basic thermal heat transfer ideas”.
***
Why would you want to prove the GHE wrong when it has never been proved right?
This is very simple, Tim. The GHE is based on a real greenhouse. Problem is, the alarmists got the theory wrong and it has never been revised. They initially thought a greenhouse warms because infrared energy emitted internally is blocked by the greenhouse glass.
R. W. Wood proved that theory wrong in 1909, revealing the greenhouse warms due to blocked convection. Heated air would normally rise but the glass blocks the heated air molecules.
The notion that blocked IR can warm the greenhouse came from a misunderstanding of the Tyndall experiment circa 1850. He proved CO2 and other gases can absorb IR but he never proved IR emitted by them can warm anything. Alarmists seem to have incorrectly presumed that.
There’s a reason for that. In the times of Tyndall, scientists believed heat traveled through air as heat rays. Therefore they mistakenly thought IR is heat and that blocking it is the blocking of heat. That was a serious mistake but the basis of the GHE theory is that incorrect belief. It has never been corrected.
Actually, in the times of Tyndall, IR/EM was an unknown entity. Faraday and Maxwell knew about it but had no idea what it was or how it was created. It was not till 1913 that Bohr put it together and got it that electrons in atoms produced EM/IR.
Modern scientists should know better, given that Bohr’s theory has been around since 1913, but many are ignorant of the science.
This is very simple, Gordon. The GHE is NOT based on a real greenhouse. Ten gallon hats do not hold 10 gallons. Koala bears are not bears. Panama hats do not come from Panama.
The fact that blocked convection is the primary reason real greenhouse are warm does not negate a radiative mechanism that works in the atmosphere (and other places).
[Also, gaps in knowledge from 100+ years ago does not mean such gaps still exist.]
Well Folkerts, if its so simple why not give us your description of the GHE?
You do have one that will hold up, dont you?
The graph shows a clear trend in the strength of the solar dynamo. I dont know why it ends on 08.07.2022.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
Similarly, the chart below also ends on 08.07.2022.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif
Maybe the world ended, and nobody noticed?
test
Circulation in the northeast Pacific is consistent with La Nia. Tropical storms are beginning to form west of Central America.
https://i.ibb.co/pKrnFkZ/8cc0d411-1b48-4d88-95cc-bfe88395df7a.jpg
Now make a list of what is NOT consistent with La Nina.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
HAHAHA – You are trying to pass off the weekly CHANGE as actual anomalies. Even so, the equator runs right through that band of warming water in the middle.
Now here are the actual anomalies:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
Jeez you people sly. And you believe you can get away with it.
Tell me – why have you stopped referring to this graph:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Is it not giving you what you want any more?
And how is the SOI going now?
AQ,
You wrote –
“Jeez you people sly.”
Do they really? Are you sloppy, or just incompetent?
In any case, you should realise that historical weather observations are just that. They influence nothing, and predict nothing.
Idiots believe otherwise – that’s what makes then idiots!
Hopefully, you are not stupid enough to believe that you can predict the future, are you?
[derisive laughter at idiot]
You want to bet that https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png is not going to feed into the nino 3.4 figures?
Some of us believe that the data shows that simple “it’s always getting warmer” predictions are wrong at least as often than they are correct. YMMV.
“how is the SOI going now?”
Pretty much on track thank you.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/soi.jpeg
“You are trying to pass off the weekly CHANGE as actual anomalies”
That is why it is so clearly labeled ‘7 day change’. Idiot.
The current 30 day SOI is -19. The 90 day SOI is -7.5.
swenson…”In any case, you should realise that historical weather observations are just that. They influence nothing, and predict nothing”.
***
Agreed. However, alarmists go back and modify the old records by lowering the temperatures and it serves them well when it comes to establishing phoney record temperatures.
It is well known that the 1930s in North America are still the hottest years in NA and have, by far the most heat waves. The alarmists have modded the records to cool off the 1930s, making current temperatures seem warmer.
We know the 1930s were hot based on well documented records kept by North Americans. No one really knows what happened in the rest of the planet since hardly anyone kept records back then.
AQ: And you think it will make these traces bend upwards?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/soi-2.jpeg
What’s the point you are trying to make? Were you unaware that SOI is oscillatory?
“Traces” ?? What is that supposed to mean?
Your red dot doesn’t even correspond with the NOAA SOI data for any month this year:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/soi
(NOAA for some reason uses values which are one-tenth those used by most other sources.)
And why would anything “bend upwards” as we move into El Nino?
12 months from now your 12-month average will be NEGATIVE.
ren’s stalker, aq, is still trying to get Ren to do his bidding. Guess it’s too hot in Perth to do his own dirty work.
I guess you must be referring to someone else who has actually been to Perth.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
DREMT – please come up with a new troll line.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
The unusually strong monsoon season in Southeast Asia is beginning.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/global2/mimictpw_global2_latest.gif
Not a good time to be climbing Mt. Everest. They usually climb in May to avoid the monsoons.
btw…here in Canada, the alarmists have taken to calling monsoon-like weather ‘atmospheric rivers’. I prefer the original term ‘Pineapple Express’.
The term is 30 years old.
Referring to an atmospheric river as a type of weather is like referring to a real river as a type of erosion. Or referring to a gun as a “murder”. Or referring to any CAUSE as the EFFECT.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
ENSO anomalies for week ending June 3:
ENSO 1.2: +2.3
ENSO 3: +1.1
ENSO 3.4: +0.8
ENSO 4: +0.6
There is a powerful Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
The existence of liquid water and the water vapor in the atmosphere is not possible at the planetary temperature below ~255 K on average surface temperature.
If not for Rotational Warming, there would not be the vapor in the atmosphere which is the most abundant and, therefore, the most important greenhouse gas.
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Except for three things.
1) There is still water vapor below freezing. At -20C (~255 K) the absolute humidity is still ~ 1% as much as on a warm day. Not much but enough to create some greenhouse effect.
2) The noon-time sun on a slowly rotating earth would produce temperatures higher than freezing, causing liquid water on the surface and water vapor in the air.
3) There would still be other GHGs like CO2 to cause some warming.
Even if the earth slowed to 1 rev per month, there would still be liquid water near the equator (at least during the day) and still be water vapor in the air.
Thank you, Tim, for your very detailed response.
Yes, I agree with 1), 2) and 3).
–
The difference is Δ78 oC (288K- 210 K = 78oC).
–
The average surface temperature up from 210 K, how much higher we get when assisted by the Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
–
What I have discovered in my research is that we go up all the way from 210 K to the 288 K. Very small greenhouse effect, because Earth’s atmosphere is very thin, and, therefore, the greenhouse effect is very much insignificant.
I have estimated the entire Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect on the average surface temperature as much as +0,4 oC.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A few people have asked, so briefly, understanding the principles of Greenhouse Effect *is* simple if you understand freshman university-level physics.
For initial discussions it is valuable to stick with idealizations — like blackbodies and uniform illumination and a single, thin, perfectly transparent shell . Only once such ‘freshman level’ problems are understood and agreed on should the discussion move on to include could more accurate, more complete information about the actual earth.
Some absolute basics as a starting point include:
1) The power emitted by a blackbody surface of area A at temperature T is:
P = (sigma)(T^4)A
2) Blackbodies absorb all radiation incident on them. (not just certain wave lengths or from hotter objects, but ALL incoming radiation.
3) A surface will warm/cool/stay the same when it absorbs more/less/the same as it emits.
Unfortunately, the discussion will probably falter here, with some saying this is all too obvious, and others saying something here is wrong.
“Some absolute basics as a starting point include:
1) The power emitted by a blackbody surface of area A at temperature T is:
P = (sigma)(T^4)A
2) Blackbodies absorb all radiation incident on them. (not just certain wave lengths or from hotter objects, but ALL incoming radiation.
3) A surface will warm/cool/stay the same when it absorbs more/less/the same as it emits.”
–
Yes, the 1) is the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
–
The 2) is from the definition of the blackbody. It is mentioned there to underline that the 1):
“1) The power emitted by a blackbody surface of area A at temperature T is:
P = (sigma)(T^4)A “
is only the emission energy depended solely on (T^4), thus excluding reflection of any kind incoming radiation.
By saying so it is not supposed the blackbody is warmed by that incident radiation.
The incident absorbed by the blackbody radiation of course plays a role in blackbody’s temperature level, but it is not said how it is happening.
–
Blackbody’s property is the spontaneous emission at temperature T^4.
It does not describe the mechanism of a body which spontaneously emits at temperature T^4, how it will rise its temperature when absorbing the incident radiation.
–
3) “A surface will warm/cool/stay the same when it absorbs more/less/the same as it emits.”
–
Of course it will. For planets and moons average surface temperatures there is a Universal Equation I have formulated in my site.
Please visit,
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I am not quite sure what you are trying to say in a couple place. I will try to reply based on what I understand.
“is only the emission energy depended solely on (T^4), thus excluding reflection of any kind incoming radiation.”
A blackbody absorbs all incoming radiation, so by definition, nothing is reflected.
“By saying so it is not supposed the blackbody is warmed by that incident radiation.”
We are only saying the energy is absorbed and added to the thermal energy of the object. Of course, it could be cooling down if it is loosing energy faster by other means.
“For planets and moons average surface temperatures there is a Universal Equation I have formulated in my site.”
But your Universal Equation says an object spinning faster and faster gets hotter and hotter. A small rock with an emissivity and heat capacity like the moon but rotating rotating in 36 s (ie 2^16 times faster than the moon) would be twice as hot at the moon. It would have an average temperature of 440 K! it would be emitting WAY more than it is absorbing, yet maintaining a constant temperature.
And an object not rotating at all would have N=0 and T=0! Again a fail.
At best, your rule gives a decent approximation for small range of rotation rates.
Thank you, Tim, for your respond.
–
I will come back in about two hours. I need to think.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim:
“At best, your rule gives a decent approximation for small range of rotation rates.”
Yes, that is what it does. It is limited in a small range of rotation rates.
–
Let’s see what we have:
We have an equation which theoretically calculates planet mean surface temperatures (without-atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere) very much close to those measured by spacecrafts.
–
Also we have the Rotational Warming Phenomenon, and all planets and moons, (including the gaseous giants Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune), all of them are subjected to that Rotational Warming Phenomenon, which is demonstrated in the site, and which could be considered as a confirmed observation.
–
And, for all planets and moons, (without-atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere), the theoretical effective temperatures (Te), when calculated, are always lower than the satellite measured mean surface temperatures (Tmean).
The only exception is the very slow rotating Mercury.
–
And there is the Mars with Tmean =210 K having dramatically less than our Moon (because of the distance from the sun) having dramatically less solar irradiation, vs Moon’s Tmean =220 K, and their Tmean proximity can only be explained by the Mars’ very fast, compared to Moon rotational spin.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
tim…none of the above explains the GHE.
The GHE is called the greenhouse effect because it is supposed to model a real greenhouse. Freshman physics tells me that is not the case.
I have explained, in detail, several times, that the explanation for a real greenhouse warming has nothing to do with trapping infrared energy. I explained how alarmists are using a 170 year old anachronism as the basis for the GHE and the anachronism was proved wrong by Bohr in 1913.
The basis of the GHE is either the alleged heat trapping by GHGs or the regulation of the rate of heat dissipation at the surface by GHGs. The former is based on the incorrect notion that IR trapped by glass in a greenhouse can warm the air. The mistake is founded in the 1850s notion that heat flowed through air as a radiation they called heat rays. Therefore, the notion was established that IR is heat, and if you trap it, you are trapping heat.
The truth is that IR radiated from a surface comes as the result of heat loss. That heat is gone…vanished. However, the GHG claims GHgs are trapping that heat.
The notion that GHGs can regulate the rate of heat dissipation at the surface is not based in science, freshman-level science or any other kind of science. It would appear the notion stems from a misunderstanding of the 2nd law wherein IR back-radiated to the surface can be absorbed by the surface to raise its temperature beyond the temperature it is warmed by solar energy.
Either way, the GHE is based on a misunderstanding of the properties of heat and of the 2nd law.
You can review freshman science all you want, until you can explain the above you are doing nothing more than waving your arms in the air. You certainly cannot explain the GHE using theories like blackbody radiation, the S-B equation, or the infamous energy budget.
Your step 3 is obviously aimed at the surface receiving back-radiated IR from GHGs that is claimed to ad heat to the surface. That theory is nonsense for two reasons: it is an alleged heat transfer from a colder body to a warmer body, and it represents perpetual motion in that heat is being recycles surface – GHG – surface to raise the temperature of the source.
“timnone of the above explains the GHE.”
Exactly! This is the science that you need to know BEFORE even attempting to describe the GHE.
“Your step 3 is obviously aimed at …”
No, Step three is aimed at reaching a mutual underatanding of physics; that Q = mc(Delta T). Do you disagree? Do you think an object could absorb more thermal energy than it emits and yet cool down?
[Note: I am ignoring things like combustion or phase change. I am ignoring things like a battery getting warm without any heat input. Just passive surfaces gaining an losing heat via radiation]
So … do you actually disagree with any of the three statements?
“I have explained, in detail, several times, that the explanation for a real greenhouse warming has nothing to do with trapping infrared energy. ”
And people have explained many times that that this DOES NOT MATTER. The earth’s radiative “greenhouse effect” is only tangentially related to the warming of buildings with glass walls and ceilings.
All of your arguments based on physical greenhouses are red herrinhgs.
Tim,
How many words does your greenhouse effect explanation contain? Are you going to insist that people have a BA with an English major, or possibly qualifications in Applied Mathematics before you consider them intelligent enough to cope with a word count?
Maybe you don’t have a description of the greenhouse effect at all, but don’t want to admit the truth.
You don’t have a description of the greenhouse effect at all, do you?
Pretending that you do, when you obviously don’t, makes you look like an idiot! Others may think it makes you look clever, of course,
tim…”The GHE is NOT based on a real greenhouse”.
***
Then why don’t they stop using the name greenhouse? Ten gallon hats, Koala bears, and Panama hats have nothing to do with science. Are you placing the GHE in the same superficial category?
Maintaining the name greenhouse effect scares people because the imagery suggests the atmosphere is warming much the same as in a real greenhouse. It can feel uncomfortable hot in a real greenhouse, especially in summer and that is the dishonest message being sent even though atmospheric warming is a small fraction of the heating in a greenhouse.
Most people have no idea what really heats a real greenhouse, so alarmists are playing on their fears to pass off pseudo-science about GHGs trapping heat.
Is that what you are defending, chicanery in the name of science?
How many times have you been corrected on this matter?
Where is this survey you have done on public opinion which suggests that use of the term “greenhouse” affects people’s understanding of the the magnitude of the effect? Or are you saying that because it sounds good?
AQ,
You wrote –
“How many times have you been corrected on this matter?”
Specify “this matter”, specify “corrected” (providing some supporting information), and then explain why you would compose such an idiotic gotcha?
You won’t? You can’t?
Why am I not surprised?
“Then why dont they stop using the name greenhouse? ”
Because people centuries ago {in Europe} were wondering what caused
what they called greenhouse effect.
Of course answer was the Gulf Stream.
And you think the stupid lefties invented the term “global warming”?
Joe Biden is a thief, proving he is a Lefty- or stupid old politician.
Lefties liked to called liberals- they weren’t liberal. Then they wanted to call themselves progressive- they are primitive caveman- though that insults cavemen.
nate…”far too cute to be taken seriously.
Nature doesnt care one whit if you are incredulous of what it does Gordon.
BTW, Happer is well known for developing adaptive optics that astronomers use to see better through the atmosphere. When it comes to atmospheric optics, Happer knows what he is talking about. While you do not.
Science will keep calm and carry on without you”.
***
Nate tunes in with several of his typical generalities and misuse of the word science.
I have no concerns about nature, my concern is the interpretation of nature by scientists. You are talking down your nose as if your version of science is the correct version and mine is wrong.
I have acknowledged Happer’s accomplishments in science but they had nothing to do with climate science. Rather than approach the problem from a fresh perspective, Happer has accepted the baseline alarmist position and tried to modify it. He has presumed CO2 has a warming effect in the atmosphere whereas two scientists who work in the field of thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, have proved that the effect of CO2 is negligible. And that was for a doubling of CO2 as Happer’s paper is claiming.
I have nothing against Happer, in fact, I admire his contribution to science. I think his paper is counter-productive to the skeptical view in that it obfuscates the real argument, that the alarmist version of science is based largely on models and consensus. By hammering away at radiative forcing related to CO2, Happer is simply playing into the hands of alarmists.
As far as science is concerned, I learned the scientific method is junior high school. It’s simplicity has remained with me and I see none of it in alarmist climate science. They seem more concerned with presenting consensus and claiming it as science based on agreement.
When I learned the scientific method, nothing was presented in relationship to it re peer review. When I did learn about peer review, it was presented as a means of preventing hackers from publishing papers in journals. Struck me as a decent idea until I learned it was being used to prevent legitimate scientists from publishing who disagreed with status quo science.
Both Roy, and John Christy, of UAH, have fallen prey to that abuse of peer review as well as Richard Lindzen. Before you go on braying about your version of science, perhaps you could explain why it’s OK in your version to prevent legitimate scientists from being heard.
Perhaps the main reason Happer got published was his willingness to embrace the pseudo-scientific, alarmist version of the GHE.
Tim Folkerts attempts to school people in the operation of a “greenhouse effect” that he cannot describe.
Delusional SkyDragon cultists like Tim cannot even bring themselves to state unambiguously whether the “greenhouse effect” is supposed to “warm” or “cool” the Earth’s surface!
Ask him how many words are in the GHE description, and he will immediately start babbling about his own cleverness.
What an idiot he is!
Same comment I made to Gordon…
This is the science that you need to know BEFORE even attempting to describe the GHE.
So … do you actually disagree with any of the three statements? Do you want to have a discussion or do you simply want to be argumentative?
WRONG, Folkerts. You don’t need to use an imaginary sphere to describe your GHE nonsense.
Let me help reduce your blah-blah. Here’s what your cult basically claims:
1) Sun heats Earth’s surface. (True)
2) Earth’s surface heats Earth’s atmosphere. (True)
(So far, this is nothing more than “It’s the Sun, Stupid.)
3) Earth’s atmosphere “traps heat” and that means it makes Earth’s surface warmer. (False)
So if you propose to present a description of the bogus GHE, that does NOT violate the laws of physics, you need to start with 3). Everyone agrees with 1) and 2). Show how CO2’s 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
“Everyone agrees with 1) and 2). ”
Well, that is a step in the right direction. I doubt everyone agrees, but at least you do.
“you need to start with 3)”
OK … I claimed “3) A surface will warm/cool/stay the same when it absorbs more/less/the same as it emits.” If a surface absorbs more thermal energy than is emits, what else could it possibly do than warm up? Do you disagree with Q = mc(delta(T))?
[Note: for our freshman level discussion, we are discussing passive surfaces here: no electric heaters or latent heat or chemical reactions, etc.]
A surface temperature will NOT increase if the entropy does not decrease.
IOW, you can NOT boil water with ice cubes no matter how many ice cubes you have. You can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface with 15μ photons, no matter how much CO2 you have.
“A surface temperature will NOT increase if the entropy does not decrease.”
We weren’t talking about entropy and we don’t need to talk about entropy, but we can go off on your tangent for a moment and talk about entropy. First we would need to know if you mean “the entropy of the surface” or “the entropy of the universe” (or maybe you mean something else all together???). You are wrong in either case — just a different sort of wrong. Maybe you tripped yourself up with your convoluted sentence, but you are wrong.
* If you mean the entropy of the surface, well the entropy of any system INCREASES when heat flows into the system and it gets warmer. So when there is a flow of heat into a system, then the entropy “does not decrease” but the temperature WILL increase. You have it backwards.
* If you mean the entropy of the universe, well the entropy of the universe never decreases. Then by your statement, no surface anywhere can ever increase in temperature!
————————–
Back to the original issue, I claim
1) If some system gains heat, it warms up
2) If some system loses heat, it cools down
3) If some system neither gains nor loses heat, it remains the same temperature.
Do you actually take issue with this? I actually just threw this in as an after though, thinking this was so obvious it almost didn’t need to be stated.
Blackbodies are tricky, but everyone (but Clint anyway) seems to agree with Q = mc(Delta(T)).
I know you don’t understand entropy Folkerts. That’s why I gave you a clear example of what I was talking about, IOW, you can NOT boil water with ice cubes no matter how many ice cubes you have.
And your statements like “If some system gains heat, it warms up” indicate you don’t understand thermodynamics either. You’re using “heat” when you should be using “energy”. “Heat” is the TRANSFER of thermal energy from hot to cold. But again, a system can gain energy WITHOUT increasing temperature.
So quit all your usual blah-blah and deal with the issue: Show how CO2’s 15&mu’ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
I won’t hold my breath.
Tim’s an idiot.
He can’t describe the greenhouse effect, so he’s trying to save face by demonstrating how clever he is at veering off at a tangent.
I have no doubt that Tim is such an idiot that he believes that all photons impinging on a body are absorbed by that body. If he claims to understand physics without realising that putting ice cubes containing energy, into your hot soup, temporarily increases the energy content of the mixture, without increasing the temperature – rather the exact opposite.
He probably refuses to believe that Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, despite the Sun providing continuous sunlight (more than 50% IR) for that length of time!
All irrelevant – Tim can’t even describe the greenhouse effect, and he can’t name anybody at all volunteering to be taught physics by Tim. He probably can’t find anybody stupid and ignorant enough.
“Thats why I gave you a clear example of what I was talking about”
No. You gave an incorrect description of entropy (that was a tangent to begin with).
You claimed that if entropy of a system increases, then the system’s temperature will not increase. Not “might not” but “will not”. If I heat a block of copper, the entropy increases and the temperature increases.
You are simply wrong about entropy. And saying your “clear example
in next paragraph is just the same idea expressed “in other words” means that either you don’t understand what you are saying, or that the second paragraph is just a wrong as the first!
************************************
The point of (3) is simple. If I have a rock and add thermal energy, (ie heat it, ie Q is positive into the rock), will it warm up? Is Q = mc(Delta(T)) a valid equation here?
“He can’t describe the greenhouse effect”
I can explain the Greenhouse Effect easily to people who understand freshman physics and can listen with an open mind.
Rather than imagining (quite incorrectly) what I think, maybe you could simply reply what I have actually written. Do you disagree with any of the three statements above that are currently under discussion?
If you disagree with either of the first two, I will let you hash it out with Clint.
If you disagree with the third, then tell me what is wrong with Q = mc(Delta(T)).
If you just want to ramble about strawmen, I feel no need to reply further.
Tim,
No Tim, neither I nor anybody else presumably, is at all interested in you “explaining” an
“effect” which you manifestly can’t describe!
If you can’t describe the GHE, why not just say so?
You won’t even state whether this mysterious “greenhouse effect” is supposed to “warm” the planet or not!
If you consider the “greenhouse effect” to be a “strawman”, then that indicates that you are a delusional SkyDragon cultist, desperately trying to frame your religion as science. You dont need to reply at all – if you don’t want to look like a desperate idiot, not replying might be your best course of action.
Your decision.
grammie clone, it’s easy to boil water with ice. Place the ice in a vacuum chamber, remove the air and the ice (frozen water) will vaporize (boil) and be pumped out of the chamber. Keep heating the walls of the chamber at 0 C, providing the IR thermal energy to replace that lost by the ice during vaporization.
Of course, you will object that this scenario isn’t what you keep ranting about. Your objection will be denied.
SWENSON: “Tim, Go on then, describe the GHE.”
ALSO SWENSON: “neither I nor anybody else presumably, is at all interested in you “explaining” [the GHE]”
Folkerts, you’re drifting off course again. I’m not going to argue semantics with you. That’s why I purposely “Keep It Simple”.
Your job is to Show how CO2’s 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
You can’t do that. The GHE is a hoax. It’s FRAUD. It’s as fraudulent as claiming ice cubes can boil water, as E. Swanson attempts. Your cult will try ANY deception to protect the false beliefs.
Put up or shut up.
grammie clone keeps insisting that we play his game by his bogus rules of physics. Lets try to correct his delusions again.
He has agreed that surrounding a heated body with a reflective shell (a Dewar, for example) would warm the body. Physics tells us that using a shell with high emissivity instead would also warm the heated body due to the IR radiation returned to the heated body. I demonstrated that effect using 2 glass plates. Does grammie clone agree that the back radiation from the surrounding shell would cause the the heated body to exhibit a higher temperature than otherwise?
Clint R laughably demonstrates doesn’t understand the reality of basic physics to answer correctly, E. Swanson, Clint won’t ever put up OR shut up.
Clint R has been told countless times that Dr. Spencer already reported with experimental results how to raise the temperature of surface water with added ice at night thus it has already been shown experimentally added 15μ photons CAN raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
Clint, like Gordon, just doesn’t understand the basic experimental science supporting the earthen GHE. Even Clint’s engine off car will get warmer rolling up the windows in the noontime sun.
E. Swanson, you’re rambling again. That’s what happens when your role models are worthless trolls.
When you grow up, get back to me. I’ll be happy to help you understand the science.
You can’t boil water with ice cubes, passenger jets don’t fly backward, and 15μ photons can’t raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
All 3 of Clint’s 9:08 am examples have been disproven experimentally. Clint R, an entertainment specialist, just likes to make up assertions on science stuff.
Clint can’t understand science reality.
“I’m not going to argue semantics with you. “
You being exactly wrong about entropy is not “semantics”.
Accepting Q = mc(Delta(t)) as a starting point for a discussion is not “semantics”.
“Your job is to Show how CO2’s 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.”
That is down the road. My current ‘job’ is to explain the fundamental physics principles of “the greenhouse effect”. If you can accept the two non-semantic points above [or even just the2nd point], we can proceed.
[Only after you understand the principles will we apply “the greenhouse effect” to the actual earth.]
Folkerts, youre delaying answering. That’s because you don’t have an answer. You can’t describe your GHE without violating the laws of physics. If you could, you would be “shouting it from the rooftops”.
I’ve already handled the intro for you — Sun warms surface, surface warms atmosphere. Your remaining job is to show how CO2’s 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
You can’t do that. The GHE is a hoax. It’s FRAUD. It’s as fraudulent as claiming ice cubes can boil water, as E. Swanson attempts. Your cult will try ANY deception to protect the false beliefs.
Put up or shut up.
It’s not a claim Clint R; it’s supported by experimental evidence that Clint doesn’t understand.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Its not a claim Clint R; its supported by experimental evidence that Clint doesnt understand.” – and, of course, which you can’t produce!
Well, I suppose you’ve proved who is dumbest.
Keep it up.
The experimental evidence can be found right on this blog! The blog has a search engine which Swenson is too inept to use. Pity.
But then Swenson, and Mike Flynn previously, have not shown any ability to understand the experimental results anyway. Laughable, so keep up the entertainment: Swenson and Clint R competing for the title of blog laughing stock. Who will win? It may be a tie game!
To delusional SkyDragon cultists, the “evidence” is always somewhere else, and they are going to be totally unhelpful by not revealing it.
Just like the “description” of the GHE, which everyone else has – just not the idiot who claims it exists.
Ball4, being an idiot, claims there is experimental “evidence” for a GHE which he can’t even describe!
What a reality denying fool he is!
“totally unhelpful”
Yes, remember Swenson is like a baby, he needs to be spoon fed. And he gives as crap in return. Every 4 hours.
Many have correctly described an earthen GHE; Swenson is just too inept to correctly do so.
Ball4,
Like a typical delusional SkyDragon cultist who refuses to describe the object of his worship, you claim that everybody else has a description – but not you!
How many words does this description have? Can’t say? Won’t say?
You are obviously deranged, and living in a fantasy world.
There is no GHE, idiot. That’s why you can’t produce a description. You don’t even know whether the mythical GHE is supposed to make something hotter or colder!
Carry on.
I can say how many words since many have produced a correct earthen GHE description. Swenson is the commenter too inept & befuddled to count the words needed which is great blog entertainment.
Do carry on.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Cant say? Wont say?”
Nah, Google it yourself.
Again, Swenson blames all others for not continuously spoon feeding him information that he could easily find on his own.
…please stop trolling.
Earlier, Willard the idiot put his foot in his mouth, and then shot himself in the foot – no mean feat (pardon the pun), even for an idiot of Wee Willy’s calibre.
Although Willard won’t actually say so, he believes that some sort of mysterious “greenhouse effect” is making the world, or surface, or the oceans – or something, somewhere – hotter, or warmer, or something similar.
Unfortunately, he wrote –
“Moron Mike,
[ . . . ]
The greenhouse effect explains why the atmosphere slows down the cooling of the Earth.”
Willard the idiot invents a fictitious “greenhouse effect” – to cool the Earth!
Well, yes, Willard, the Earth has cooled. That’s fairly obvious – the surface is no longer molten. The surface also cools at night, losing all the heat of the day, during winter, solar eclipses, and so on.
In some places, the diurnal variation is greater than others – no “greenhouse effect” noted. As a matter of fact, the greatest diurnal variations in places which by definition have the least amount of so-called “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere – arid desert regions! Maybe you prefer deserts with their “faster cooling”? Although if you are experiencing -40 C temperatures in a Siberian forest, you might not be worrying that it cooled more slowly than the desert!
Delusional SkyDragon cultists like Willard now claim that the “greenhouse effect” causes cooling, or slows cooling, or causes heating or slows heating,, or causes hemorrhoids, or something, but they can’t quite figure out how to describe this effect!
Not terribly bright, are idiots like Willard and his ilk. Facts are not their friends, and even their attempts at “gotchas” are pathetic.
Life goes on.
Mike Flynn,
I recite your limerick about the atmosphere and you say that I put my foot in my mouth?
I would rather say that I put your foot in yours.
If you slow down your expenses while you keep receiving the same weekly salary, your bank account should get bigger. Same for the greenhouse effect.
Cheers.
Whiffling Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“If you slow down your expenses while you keep receiving the same weekly salary, your bank account should get bigger. Same for the greenhouse effect.”
Bank account? The greenhouse effect will make it bigger? Describe this magical free money generating greenhouse effect, if you will. I’d be interested in free money.
You’re an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Stocks and flows. The greenhouse effect is an effect of flow.
Basic accounting, really.
Deceitful cretin.
Whiffling Wee Willy,
You wrote
“If you slow down your expenses while you keep receiving the same weekly salary, your bank account should get bigger. Same for the greenhouse effect.”
Bank account? The greenhouse effect will make it bigger? Describe this magical free money generating greenhouse effect, if you will. Id be interested in free money.
You also wrote “The greenhouse effect is an effect of flow.”. It’s a pity that you cannot describe the effect, nor the effect of which it is an effect!
Youre an idiot.
Playing dumb about a simple analogy, Moron Mike?
Whiffling Wee Willy,
You wrote
“If you slow down your expenses while you keep receiving the same weekly salary, your bank account should get bigger. Same for the greenhouse effect.”
Bank account? The greenhouse effect will make it bigger? Describe this magical free money generating greenhouse effect, if you will. I’d be interested in free money.
You also wrote “The greenhouse effect is an effect of flow.”. Its a pity that you cannot describe the effect, nor the effect of which it is an effect!
You’re still an idiot.
Moron Mike,
You played dumb once.
You played dumb twice.
You played dumb thrice.
Is that it?
Cheers.
Willard, pleas3 stop trolling.
> I accept that it is impossible to predict the future states of chaotic systems in any useful way
Mike Flynn keeps repeating this meme. It is false:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/machine-learnings-amazing-ability-to-predict-chaos-20180418/
Why does he still repeat it – would it be because he cannot escalate the Climateball Bingo?
Great. My Otto Pilot turned escape into escalate.
Wee Willy Idiot,
From your journalist’s scribbling –
“This paper suggests that one day we might be able perhaps to predict weather by machine-learning algorithms and not by sophisticated models of the atmosphere,”
Or we might not?
You really are a gullible wee soul, aren’t you? ” . . . might be able perhaps to predict . . “.
Outcomes of chaotic processes are unpredictable.
These people uneducated in chaos theory don’t understand that there are emergent properties of chaotic systems that are entirely predictable. The simplest (most trivial) is averages. It is impossible to predict the state of a double pendulum at any point into the future, yet the average angle between the arms and average distance of the bob from the equilateral position are entirely predictable, up to an arbitrary degree of accuracy determined by the duration of measurement.
“… equilibrium position …”
AQ,
Don’t pretend to be any more stupid than you really are.
Averages are arithmetical calculations based on historical facts. You cannot predict the average of a chaotic system – it is chaotic and unpredictable. All you can do is average that which has already occurred.
If you disagree, provide more than the contents of your fantasies as support for your views.
You really live in a dream world, detached from reality, don’t you?
Even the IPCC grudgingly admitted that it is not possible to predict future climate states. If you believe you can predict the average of a chaotic system (given the usual disclaimers to avoid idiots and their semantic games) you are delusional.
Convert me. Provide some verifiable experimental support for your idiotic assertions. Don’t mind the laughter you hear in the background – that’s me.
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
Yep.
And ignorant troll Swenson is wrong that chaotic systems have no predictability.
Put a pot of water on a burner to heat up. At some point along the way, lots of chaotic convective motion of the water occurs.
Yet the average temperature of the water will rise predictably.
Similarly the Earth’s atmosphere has chaotic convective motions, but when extra radiative forcing was added, its average temperature rose predictably.
Nate, why would you use a burner to heat your pot of water? Are you trying to destroy the planet?
Use ice to warm water. Don’t you believe in your cult’s “science”?
Replacing the radiation of a much warmer burner incident on the pot of water and adding the radiation from water ice laughably won’t work to warm the pot of water, Clint, but your failure at physics is good entertainment.
You usually claim ice can warm water.
Have you sobered up?
It’s not just a claim Clint R since it’s supported by experimental evidence.
Ball4,
You haven’t got any evidence that radiation from ice can be used to warm water.
If you claim you have, you are not only an idiot, you are a lying idiot.
You are probably enough of a lying idiot to claim you have a description of the greenhouse effect, which of course you haven’t!
Have I hurt your feelings? Go and ring someone who cares.
LOL, no hurt feelings here since Swenson comments conclusively show no understanding of the relevant basic physics.
Ball4, have you patented your ice-powered steam engine yet? Where might inspect such a useful contrivance?
Only having a laugh at the expense of a delusional idiot such as yourself.
Carry on.
–Clint R says:
June 7, 2023 at 5:34 PM
You usually claim ice can warm water.
Have you sobered up?
Ball4 says:
June 7, 2023 at 9:39 PM
Its not just a claim Clint R since its supported by experimental evidence.–
I think polar sea ice, warms the ocean, but it also allows polar region air to be much colder.
Or ice free Arctic ocean particularly in winter increases polar air a lot, but also cools the ocean, until it freezes over.
Can’t say seen any experimental evidence, but it seems self-evident.
“Or ice free Arctic ocean particularly in winter increases polar air a lot, but also cools the ocean, until it freezes over.”
I am guessing you don’t mean water can freeze itself.
What is “self evident” in your view?
–Or ice free Arctic ocean particularly in winter increases polar air a lot, but also cools the ocean, until it freezes over.
I am guessing you dont mean water can freeze itself. —
It lacks sunlight and is surrounded colder land and it is evaporative cooling and warming the land.
Or land everywhere being warmed by warmer ocean, until ocean reaches point it freezes.
Or it freezes itself in sense that it evaporates and will evaporate more if air is drier.
But land is cooling it. Or land is cooling it until ocean surface freezes and evaporates, less.
And thicker the ice and any snow on it the more the liquid ocean is insulated and air temperature above could be -30 C or colder.
Or there is difference between less than 1 meter of polar sea ice and 5 meters of polar sea ice but a liquid ocean surface loses more heat and warms land more than compared if there is just 1 meter thickness of sea ice.
Or in general warmer [average 17 C] ocean warms colder land average 10 C], frozen ocean is like land, doesn’t warm land, and being more poleward, can have have very cold air on it which can flow southward and make that land colder.
Of course important factor I didn’t mention is changing state of matter, specifically, water.
It takes a lot energy to evaporate water {that energy is not “lost”
or water vapor has a lot energy]. Or 1 kg of it, has a lot of heat.
And when water turns to ice, it loses heat {which is not “lost”}
Or opposite, ice cube take heat in order to turn into a liquid- they cool the water you put them in.
Evaporating and forming ice puts a lot heat into a cold environment
or colder environment than 0 C. Or delays further cooling.
And when talking a ton of ice per square meter, it’s million tons of ice per square km and million square km, it a lot of heat involved.
Or it takes a long time to form sea ice 1 meter thick.
And ocean evaporates less if it has 1 meter of ice on it- and it’s not windy.
Russia average yearly temperature is about -3 C. So in terms of just
winter part of the year, it’s a lot colder.
If the arctic ocean wasn’t frozen, Russian winters would be a lot warmer. Though Russia would have a lot more snow. They may prefer to be colder and having less snow.
But they would have more forests and better farming. And people might want to live there.
Nate,
As the IPCC said, it is not possible to predict climate states.
You claim it is.
Whom to believe?
Mike Flynn,
There is no need to predict any specific state of the pot of water to predict that it will reach a boiling point. Kids can understand that. So could you.
Cheers.
As usual, you are twisting words.
I claim a pot of water on a burner, even with its chaos, will predictably warm.
You claim otherwise?
Nate and Willard,
As the IPCC said, it is not possible to predict climate states.
You claim it is.
Whom to believe?
You are both confused about chaotic systems.
The Earth has demonstrably cooled, and it is still not possible to predict climate states.
Which one of you is the less intelligent? Or are you both equally stupid and ignorant?
Carry on rejecting reality.
Moron Mike,
You claim the IPCC can’t predict if a pot of water will boil.
Deceitful cretin.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“You cannot predict the average of a chaotic system it is chaotic and unpredictable. ”
Another Swenson assertion falsified.
Nate,
Which assertion have you falsified?
You cannot calculate a future average using historical data.
You are a delusional idiot.
Try again – see if you can say something even more stupid. Maybe you believe you can predict the future by examining chicken entrails?
For the drift-catching impaired:
You stated “You cannot predict the average of a chaotic system it is chaotic and unpredictable.”
I showed you a counter example found in kitchens everywhere, so even you may be familiar with it. A pot of water heated on a stove is a chaotic system, yet has a predictable average temperature rise.
That falsifies your silly claim.
Oh well!
Try again. See if you can assert something that isn’t your personal fantasy this time.
Nate, you idiot,
The fluid dynamics of the water behavior is chaotic, just as the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere, the lithosphere and the aquasphere.
When you refer to “temperature”, of an object, you are diverting to something else entirely.
The IPCC has stated that it is not possible to forecast climate states, and I agree. You disagree, because you are ignorant.
The future state of any chaotic system is unpredictable. You claim a pot of water heated on a stove is a chaotic system. Why do you say that, when you obviously have no idea what chaos is? Maybe you could give your particular definition of a chaotic system – if you had the faintest notion of what you were babbling about!
Is it because you are a delusional SkyDragon cultist who cannot describe the GHE?
“A pot of water heated on a stove is a chaotic system, yet has a predictable average temperature rise.”
At a steady state below boiling, then the number of probes to get that ‘average’ correct is quite large.
“When you refer to temperature, of an object, you are diverting to something else entirely.”
Not at all. At each point in the water the temperature will chaotically vary. It is the average temperature of the water that rises predictably.
You stated You cannot predict the average of a chaotic system it is chaotic and unpredictable.”
And specifically the Earth’s surface temperature is what you were applying this notion to. Its temperature locally will chaotically vary. That is weather. But its average temperature rose predictably.
Sorry that you were wrong.
“At each point in the water the temperature will chaotically vary.”
But the number of probes to get that temperature is quite large compared to the size of the pot.
Nate,
You are confused about the difference between the chaotic motion of a chaotic system, and the average velocity of the molecules in a chaotic system.
Now, a pot of water does not exhibit the sensitivity to initial conditions as neither the pot nor the water, will show movement from their initial positions, or exhibit non-linear dynamic behavior.
However, you cannot even predict the future positions of either the pot or the water, can you?
You assume that both will remain where you expect them to be, don’t you? You assume that your heat source will be appropriate, and functions as desired. Even so, you cannot predict the turbulence in the convective currents when you heat the water. They are chaotic, as are the movements of air within the atmosphere
As the IPCC agrees, it is not possible to predict future climate states.
As to temperature of various thermometers (not at the surface, of course) rising, they are responding to additional heat. Dr Spencer is currently investigating the causes.
Anthropogenically Global,Warming is due to Anthropogenically Generated Heat, unless it can be demonstrated to be otherwise.
As the IPCC agrees, it is not possible to predict future climate states but as the IPCC agrees, future climate temperatures can be successfully predicted as authors have shown.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“However, you cannot even predict the future positions of either the pot or the water, can you?”
Sure I can. The average postion of the pot of water will remain where it started on the stove.
Swenson is trying desperately to get out of his claim about averages not being predictable in chaotic systems, by trying to pretend I was discussing positions, whereas I was discussing temperatures, and he were discussing temperatures.
In any case, in both systems, there are chaotic fluid motions which are related to chaotic variations in temperature.
Oh well, he was wrong, and is still wrong, but just can’t admit it.
Swenson,
Your claim is rejected, here is your claim
“When you refer to temperature, of an object, you are diverting to something else entirely.
The IPCC has stated that it is not possible to forecast climate states, and I agree. You disagree, because you are ignorant.”
Here is the rejection
The temperature is not a “climate state”
You don’t seem to understand what a climate state is.
That’s because the word “state” is being used in a specific scientific context, and you have not been able to google what a climate state is.
The way the IPCC is using that term means the weather at all points of the climate system at any one time.
Yes, that is not predictable, but that doesn’t mean the average temperature is not predictable
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
The ducking and weaving, ever evasive Dim Tim, wrote –
“My current ‘job’ is to explain the fundamental physics principles of “the greenhouse effect” If you can accept the two non-semantic points above [or even just the2nd point], we can proceed.”
The dimwit can’t even describe the “greenhouse effect”. Is it supposed to make objects hotter? Is it instead responsible for the cooling of the Earth? Tim doesnt know!
Does it have anything to do with greenhouses? Tim doesn’t know!
How many words are in the description of the greenhouse effect which Tim claims to have? Tim doesn’t know!
Dim Tim doesn’t seem to know much, but he is going to “explain” something he can’t describe, and doesn’t even know what its effect is supposed to be, or whether it has any relationship to real greenhouses or not!
Who but a delusional SkyDragon cultist would pay the slightest attention to the pretentious ramblings of such a self-admitted idiot?
Clearly anti science trolls have learned that dropping insult bombs on the messenger is much easier than honestly taking on the message.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Remember trolls seek attention. The DREMT method fails to achieve that goal because it has become background noise.
In the case of DREMT and Flynn I believe it is more about shitting on threads to prevent discourse.
AQ, please stop trolling.
No that is Blinny’s trick.
I have absolutely no intention of preventing discourse.
“to prevent discourse.” it fails to work.
Nate, please stop trolling.
but that doesnt stop idiots from trying it anyway.
Let’s compare our Moon’s and the planet Mars’ the satellite measured average surface temperatures.
–
Tmean.moon =220 K
Tmean.mars =210 K
–
And, let’s compare our Moon’s and the planet Mars’ the calculated, the theoretical, effective temperatures.
–
Te.moon =270,4 K
Te.mars =210 K
–
–
Why the Moon’s the satellite measured average surface temperature Tmean.moon is
50 oC lower than its theoretical Te?
–
And, why the Mars’ the satellite measured average surface temperature Tmean.mars is (almost) the same as its theoretical Te?
–
What do you think? Why?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Don’t ask, tell!
If either Mars or Moon has lakes [which are in sunlight] they
would have a higher global temperature or they would absorb more sunlight.
So if put a vast “lake” or you might call it a sea in Hellas Basin on Mars [so it the size of our Earth’s Mediterranean sea {and roughly at same latitude]. It would get almost same as amount of sunlight as Mediterranean Sea. Solar panel on it could get as much or more than solar panels on Mediterrean Sea- but the solar panel could be pointed at the sun- which helps a lot on Mars and not much on Earth.
[And also of course, you have snow all around this lake- looks cool like a constant Christmas.]
That would warm Mars a bit.
But you could have far more lakes on Mars, and bump it up by more than 10 C.
But let’s focus on regional effect of a sea or huge lake in Hellas Basin.
Without human activity, it would bump local temperatures by few degrees. But if had such a lake, one would need human population of
more than 1 million people- and 5 million is not vaguely crowded.
So, going to have few nuclear reactors which warm the lake, but 1/2 electrical power needs could come from solar panels.
Starting price of water could be as high as $1000 per ton, but it
this level of water use, it’s probably less than $10 per ton for drinkable water, crop water might be less than $5 per ton and hot water for heating and bathing/cleaning could be bought at less than $15 per ton, electrical power around 15 cents per Kwh.
Food could as cheap as on Earth, but stuff in general could be twice
the price as Earth. But real estate price could be less than Earth- and that is real estate which has cheap water {less than $10 per ton
which very expensive vs Earth water costs] and electrical power, and with other public services. And real estate without them, is very, very cheap- roughly “free” and might kind of get paid in sense of getting free loans, if you agree to developing the land- or cheaper than free.
So got nuclear plants and other Urban heat island effects which add few degrees to regional temperatures.
But also one would be mining the Mars sky, a lot, like a more than 1 billion tonnes per year- probably more than 10 billion tonnes per year {Mars atmosphere is 25 trillion tons} or less than 1/1000th of it per year. Also be mining frozen CO2- and price of liquid CO2 could about $50 per ton- or cheaper then CO2 on Earth.
Thank you, Bindidon, for your response: “Dont ask, tell!”
–
I was asking:
Why the Moons the satellite measured average surface temperature Tmean.moon is
50 oC lower than its theoretical Te?
And, why the Mars the satellite measured average surface temperature Tmean.mars is (almost) the same as its theoretical Te?
–
Well, the answer is that the theoretical effective temperatures for Moon and for Mars are calculated incorrectly.
–
The correct effective temperature
for Moon is Te.correct =223,83 K
and
for Mars is Te.correct =174 K
–
–
To calculate Moon’s Corrected Effective Temperature we should use the following data values
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Moon is a smooth surface planet
Φ = 0,47 solar irradiation accepting factor (dimensionless)
a = 0,11 Moon’s surface average albedo
So = 1.361 W/m, solar flux on the top of the Moon
Moons Corrected Effective Temperature Equation Te.correct.moon:
Te.correct.moon = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (1-0,11) 1.362 W/m /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (0,89) 1.362 W/m /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 2.510.168.871,25 ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = 223,83 Κ
–
–
To calculate Mars’ Corrected Effective Temperature we should use the following data values
So = 1.361 W/m, solar costant
R – is the distance from the sun in AU (astronomical units)
(1/R) = (1/1,524) = 1/2,32
Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has
Mars average surface albedo:
amars = 0,25
Mars is a smooth surface planet, Mars surface irradiation accepting factor: Φmars = 0,47
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Mars’ Corrected Effective Temperature Equation Te.correct.mars is:
Te.correct.mars = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R) /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Te.correct.mars = [ 0,47 (1-0,25) 1.361 W/m*(1/2,32) /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
=( 911.771.916,62)∕ ⁴ = 173,77 K
Te.correct.mars = 173,77 K
or, after rounding
Te.correct.mars = 174 K
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Like-wise for Earth the corrected effective temperature is
Te.correct = 210 K
Instead of Earth’s mistakenly calculated, Te = 255 K .
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“effective temperatures
the temperature of an object calculated from the radiation it emits, assuming black-body behavior.”
I would add, in vacuum of space. And ideal blackbody.
One could say, Earth atmosphere lowers Earth’s effective temperature.
And the highly insulation dusty surface of the Moon, lowers it’s effective temperature.
But how it’s emitting energy is not the issue, it’s amount energy emited from a sphere if sphere had surface which was ideal blackbody [for the amount energy it’s emits].
Now, you say:
“Like-wise for Earth the corrected effective temperature is
Te.correct = 210 K ”
What does “corrected effective temperature” mean?
Or effective temperature has been “corrected”
Or nothing is actually an ideal blackbody surface.
I would say Earth’s temperature in terms of it’s surface climate
is the average temperature of all of it’s water.
Or average temperature of it’s oceans is about 3.5 C [about 277 K].
If in vacuum, it could remain about this temperature, but it’s ocean surface would covered with ice which would insulate the ocean’s heat- and you have removed the atmosphere and removed any climate- unless you want to talk about oceanic climate- the climate for fishes.
Though talking about entire Earth it’s roughly molten ball of rock and it’s crust insulates it in regards to it’s effective temperature to the vacuum of space.
In terms of energy of sunlight, it’s energy heats a tiny amount of the Lunar surface. Likewise the sunlight only heats a tiny amount of Mars surface and also heats it’s tiny atmosphere.
Mars absorbs more sunlight than the Moon- one reason is it spins faster than the Moon. But Mars is further from the sun, and gets less sunlight.
Venus doesn’t absorb much sunlight, it gets a lot more sunlight but reflects a lot of sunlight.
Earth absorbs a lot of sunlight and 80% of sunlight is absorbed by it’s ocean which cover 70% of the surface of the planet.
— Christos Vournas says:
June 9, 2023 at 2:39 AM
Like-wise for Earth the corrected effective temperature is
Te.correct = 210 K
Instead of Earths mistakenly calculated, Te = 255 K .–
I was wondering if you are allowing for the 40 watt per square meter that radiates directly from the surface to space??
Thank you, gbaikie, for your respond.
–
Earth’s effective temperature Te =255K and Earth’s corrected effective temperature Te.correct = 210K are theoretical.
–
Earth doesn’t emit neither at 255K nor at 210K.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, Earth’s Te=255K has now been measured by many precision instruments confirming the 1LOT calculation of 255K from measured inputs.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Christos, Earths Te=255K has now been measured by many precision instruments confirming the 1LOT calculation of 255K from measured inputs.”
Precision instruments? Name just one – model, supplier, accuracy, precision, location . . .
You idiot.
Swenson laughably demonstrates too inept to figure all that out; what great entertainment. Christos could start here, Swenson is too inept:
https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/ceres/
Ball4,
You can’t actually provide details supporting your nonsense of a 255K Earth temperature, can you?
Linking to a site which doesn’t mention your 255 K Earth temperature makes you look as idiotic as the dimwitted Willard.
Now you may consider limited bandwidth radiometer readings, with accuracy claimed to be no better than between 0.3 and 1.0 percent (and if you believe that, you probably believe that Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist), somehow translates to a measured temperature of 255 K.
That’s all in your fantasy – nowhere else.
Try linking to another irrelevant site which also doesnt support your imaginary 255 K dream. Willard can provide a wide array of pointless and irrelevant sites, if you can’t find them for yourself.
“You can’t actually provide details supporting your nonsense of a 255K Earth temperature, can you?”
Good entertainment demonstrating more Swenson ineptness.
Sure I can do so since the earthen Te=255K has been measured by precision, calibrated instruments, results reported for over 50 years now, & some instruments were even manufactured by the source Swenson wanted to know.
Similar instruments have also measured the lunar Te, Te for Mars, and Te for Venus. It’s a real pity Swenson remains so inept but do carry on demonstrating such as Swenson’s blog entertainment is priceless.
Ball4 is STILL trying to pass off a colorized model of infrared as proof Earth is emitting at 255K!
The poor guy just cant learn.
Colorized model? No. The real Earth being measured at multiannual Te=255K with calibrated, precision instruments is not a picture on a wall, Clint R. Funny comment though.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Sure I can do so since the earthen Te=255K has been measured by precision, calibrated instruments, results reported for over 50 years now, & some instruments were even manufactured by the source Swenson wanted to know.”
You are a delusional SkyDragon cultist, of the idiotic kind.
The contents of your fantasy are not reality.
You seem to believe that somewhat imprecise, and frequency limited, radiometric measurements, are temperature measurements!
You are an idiot, pure and simple.
You can’t even describe the GHE! How sad is that?
Does CO2 play any part in your fantasy? Is it responsible for the surface cooling at night?
Idiot.
Cooling at night? Sometimes that does happen when the sun sets and CO2 does play a measured part not known to Swenson in the nighttime kinetic temperature readings.
Radiometer measurements of the earthen 255K are precision brightness temperature measurements calibrated to kinetic temperatures & yes, even at night! The correct descriptions of the earthen GHE abound except for the inept & ever entertaining Swenson who humorously can’t ever seem to find any of them not knowing relevant science basics.
In relation to CO2, and the role it plays in a GHE which Ball4 refuses to describe, I asked Ball4 “Is it responsible for the surface cooling at night?
Ball4 responded –
“Cooling at night? Sometimes that does happen when the sun sets and CO2 does play a measured part not known to Swenson in the nighttime kinetic temperature readings.”
He can’t or won’t say whether he believes that CO2 is responsible (or not) for nighttime cooling. At least Ball4 reluctantly concedes that that “sometimes” the surface cools after sunset, and that CO2 “does play a measured part”.
So are we any better off? Maybe the GHE is responsible for nighttime cooling, maybe not. CO2 plays a part, but Ball4 cannot say what part, or how this part is played.
Ball4 is an idiot SkyDragon cultist, babbling about some “earthen GHE”, which results in a presumably “average surface temperature” of 255 K – or -18 C! At least the other delusional SkyDragon cultists only claim that the Earth “should be” 255 K, and express wonderment that the “measured” (ho! ho!) temperature is 288 K.
The dimwitted Ball4 doesn’t seem to realise that he is claiming his “earthen GHE” is causing a “measured” temperature some 33 C lower than that observed by normal SkyDragns! Ball4’s GHE is the opposite of the usual mythical GHE – being responsible for cooling, rather than heating (sometimes at night, too, according to Ball4).
Not the brightest bulb in the box, obviously.
[laughing at totally confused idiot. Yes, I know that’s not politically correct, and I don’t care]
Swenson 11:53 pm admits there is an earthen GHE agreeing: “CO2 plays a part”.
A humorous Swenson small step towards understanding some basic science. If that progress continues, then Swenson will be left behind in the transparent race for top science blog laughing stock.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
A new troll, “Drewski”, came in 2 days after the conversation had moved away. This is a trick trolls use, like Nate for example. I once found Folkerts leaving a comment 4 days late!
Anyway, troll Drewski reveals his ignorance of science:
Notice Drewski has long wave radiation “bouncing back off the earth”, instead of the correct “emitted by Earth”. Then, Drewski claims CO2 “re-radiates” back “as heat”!
It gets even funnier. “It is the double bonds” that “do it”.
Sorry Drewski, but it’s the photon wavelength that determines absorp.tion. And even if absorbed, a lower frequency photon can NOT increase the combined motions where the average frequency is higher. “Very well understood phenomenon”, expect by Drewski.
Hope Drewski hangs around. New humor is good.
Nah. Dead-thread last-word posting? DREMT is the grand champion.
“but its the photon wavelength that determines absorp.tion. And even if absorbed, a lower frequency photon can NOT increase the combined motions where the average frequency is higher.”
Now the photon is absorbed. But adds no energy! The fake physics keeps evolving, but still makes no sense.
Nate,
You may not realise that natural objects emit photons of various frequencies. Even CO2 when above absolute zero. There is a small, but finite chance that a body emitting a low frequency photon may absorb a photon of similar, or lower energy, replacing that which was emitted.
The result is no increase in temperature, of course.
This makes no sense to you, because you are a delusional SkyDragon cultist, who doesn’t seem to realise that photons falling on a transparent body just go through without being absorbed. For visible light, glass is transparent. For IR light, many things are transparent, depending on the frequency. For example, radio waves (which are IR) go straight through walls, people, and so on. For IR closer to visible light, germanium IR lenses are totally opaque to visible light.
Or light may be reflected, either totally or partially.
You are quite deranged if you believe that bodies absorb all photons which impinge on them.
Just denial of reality.
Swenson, no, there exist no fully transparent bodies, no fully reflective bodies, nor do fully black bodies exist but black body radiation does exist for calibration and experimental purposes.
Ball4,
I said transparent. If you don’t accept that window glass is transparent to visible light, fine.
If you don’t believe that the photons of visible light which you see through a window have managed to avoid being absorbed by the glass, fine.
If you want to believe that you can use radiation from a colder body to raise the temperature of a hotter body, fine.
If you want to believe that the colder body can lose energy by radiation without a drop in temperature, magically creating energy to maintain its pre-emission temperature, fine.
I am using the acronym “fine”. F***, It’s Never-Ending.
You are still a delusional SkyDragon cultist, believing in something you can’t describe. That’s religion, not science, you idiot.
Window glass is not transparent; window glass is translucent.
Swenson is too inept to have ever been reflected in a pane of glass. The rest of the comment is laughable too. I believe in proper experimental evidence.
Do carry on such laughable Swenson ineptness.
Ball4,
Window glass is transparent to those photons which pass through without attenuation. You can whine all you like, but the reality is that photons impinging on an object are not necessarily absorbed.
You idiotic attempts to “prove” that hotter objects can have their temperature raised by absorbing radiation from colder objects fail miserably. You can’t do it, even theoretically!
Yes indeed, transparent materials can and do reflect photons depending on circumstances. Just another example of photons not being absorbed. At least you admit reality into your fantasy – even if only partially.
All this is irrelevant, because you can’t even say whether your stupid GHE is responsible for the Earth cooling. How bizarre is that?
Carry on.
Wrong again laughably inept Swenson, transparent materials do not reflect any photons which is why they call such imaginary material fully transparent.
Has inept Swenson found and understood the earthen GHE and counted the words yet? No? Do carry on in such entertaining fashion since laughing at Swenson being so inept on basic science is priceless.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Wrong again laughably inept Swenson, transparent materials do not reflect any photons which is why they call such imaginary material fully transparent.”
Well, yes, Ball4, they do, although you refuse to believe in transparency.
Here’s a snippet from a paper looking at the phenomenon of partial reflection –
“Newton, following the atomic theory inherited from the ancient Greek philosophers, believed that light is a stream of particles. His experiments, in which monochromatic light propagated through the air film of continuously varying thickness confined between a plane glass plate and a convex lens, revealed that for certain thicknesses of the air film, the light particles penetrate the second glass surface, though for intermediate thicknesses they are reflected.”
Newton could not explain the results of his experiments. QED theory does.
For certain frequencies of light, glass is fully transparent in practice, as no measurable attenuation of the transmitted light occurs. However, if you were less ignorant, you would know that between 0 and 16 percent of photons are reflected from the glass. The average is, not unreasonably, 8 percent.
Just making things up as you go along doesnt make you look all that clever.
Pretending that you can describe a non-existent “earthen GHE” is equally stupid. Saying that you are not going to give the description to anybody you dont like, indicates a degree of childish petulance – or are you trying to avoid facing the reality that you don’t even know what your “earthen GHE” is supposed to achieve?
Four and a half billion years of cooling, perhaps?
There’s no pretending needed at all since the Earthen GHE has been repeatedly correctly described, measured, & it is well known what a GHE achieves except, of course, for the inept Swenson who is not fully transparent but fully entertaining.
Earlier Swenson stated
“Everything in the universe radiates IR, proportional to absolute temperature.
All gases can be heated by absorbing IR. All heated gases emit IR.”
Now its
“For IR light, many things are transparent, depending on the frequency.”
Oh ok, IR transparent things could not be heated by IR then?
Obviously he is quite confused as to what he thinks.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Oh ok, IR transparent things could not be heated by IR then?”
Exactly so. Why would you think otherwise? If light does not interact with matter (by passing through it unchanged, for example) why would heat result?
You might be confused – infra red includes all those frequencies below visible red light – hence “infra” red.
Maybe you need to pose a better gotcha?
“Why would you think otherwise?”
Because YOUR erroneous claim that
“All gases can be heated by absorbing IR. All heated gases emit IR.”
We understand, Swenson, you feel little compulsion to to be factual, to make any sense, or to even agree with yourself.
None of those are required if your sole purpose is trolling.
So keep on following the Troll Handbook.
Nutty Nate –
You wrote-
“Because YOUR erroneous claim that
“All gases can be heated by absorbing IR. All heated gases emit IR.””
No claim. Just fact. Unless, of course, you can name a gas which cannot be heated. And yes, it has to be heated above absolute zero, otherwise it cannot emit IR.
All matter in the universe emits IR. Another fact – unless you can demonstrate otherwise, which you can’t.
That makes you an idiot, until you can demonstrate otherwise.
Off you go.
Here’s a task for you Swenson
Try to take a picture of O2, H2, Ar, Ne, or He with an IR camera.
Send us the results
Use a mirror so we can see the picture of a clown.
cLInt
They are many examples on this page of DREMT replying 4 days late, and last month both DREMT and RLH.
Thanks for finally recognising what they are.
Or do they get an exemption?
AQ, please stop trolling.
A PST hardly qualifies as a reply, Antonin.
If it doesn’t qualify as a reply then why are you hitting the “Reply” button?
Oh – silly me – there is no “Troll” button.
AQ, please stop trolling.
What Clint R is complaining about are the people who leave actual, detailed responses a few days late, in an attempt to "win" the debate by getting the last word and making it look like the other person has no response, even though said person probably never even saw the message. A PST hardly qualifies as a detailed response. It’s just not the same thing at all.
whereas DREMT is posting a PST , in an attempt to “win” the debate by getting the last word, quite the same thing except with no intellectual effort.
…it’s just not the same thing at all, no matter how much some people might want to justify their bad behaviour in the childish manner of saying "well, so and so does it too!"
No matter how hard he tries to excuse or rationalize his behavior, there is simply no question that DREMT is the king of dead-thread last-wording.
…just not the same thing at all, no matter how much some people might want to justify their bad behaviour in the childish manner of saying "well, so and so does it too!"
“detailed responses a few days late, in an attempt to “win” the debate by getting the last word and making it look like the other person has no response,”
The people who seem to best describe the bad behavior and its ulterior motives are typically the most experienced perpetrators of it.
Reminds me of Trump, suggesting that Hillary used the Clinton foundation as an ATM. Of course we learned later that Trump had done exactly that with his foundation.
…not the same thing at all, no matter how much some people might want to justify their bad behaviour in the childish manner of saying "well, so and so does it too!"
Children say the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
Are you a child DREMPTY?
DREMT
What is the point of your “comments” then if you believe no one will read them?
YOU clearly look through old comments given that you post that nonsense on them, so how do they qualify as a “win”?
Have you ever considered posting a REAL comment instead of that trash? Although some comments you post that on are a trolling exchange, most are genuine attempts to deal with a question. You don’t discriminate.
Have you also considered that people post late simply because they haven’t been around for a few days? Or that they haven’t visited the top of the page for a while, and discover that someone else has posted a “late” reply to their comment?
And if you want to talk about “bad behaviour”, that nonsense reply of yours is as bad as it gets. IT is deliberately designed to get the last say.
> Reminds me of Trump
FWIW, Mike Flynn is more like teh Donald, Graham like Stephen Miller, and Pupman like Roger Stone.
Or perhaps Mike Flynn is more like …. Mike Flynn.
😀
"What is the point of your “comments” then if you believe no one will read them?"
What are you talking about? Where do you get the idea that I think nobody will read my comments?
"YOU clearly look through old comments given that you post that nonsense on them, so how do they qualify as a “win”?"
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, again. You don’t appear to have read anything I’ve said correctly. Try your entire comment again.
You know exactly what I said.
I can read what you said. I have read it several times. You do not seem to be responding to my 6:55 AM comment. It’s like you’ve read something completely different to what I wrote. Try again, and this time perhaps quote my words so we can see what you’re actually responding to.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
AQ, Willard, Nate, bobdroege – please stop trolling.
> Have you also considered that people post late simply because they havent been around for a few days? Or that they havent visited the top of the page for a while, and discover that someone else has posted a late reply to their comment?
Graham can’t imagine that not everyone is monitoring the comments using an RSS feed, like him.
For all I know, Graham might be replying from his emails. That would explain why he’s gaslighting all the time. He simply can’t follow exchanges.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Have you also considered that people post late simply because they havent been around for a few days?”
Yes, but it’s not the case with people like Nate, who post continuously and obsessively all day every day, seven days a week.
“Or that they havent visited the top of the page for a while, and discover that someone else has posted a late reply to their comment?”
That’s just not the case. What we’re talking about is people going back a few days later to slip in a detailed last word (not just “please stop trolling”) to a discussion, after everyone else has stopped commenting on the thread. It seems deliberate to me, and apparently to Clint R as well. There appear to be “last worder” trolls who go around doing this, and it appears to be quite premeditated. Nate does it, I often catch barry doing it, Tim has done it.
Trying to justify their actions by saying “well, DREMT does it too” is pretty childish, regardless.
“Graham can’t imagine that not everyone is monitoring the comments using an RSS feed, like him”
I have no idea what an “RSS feed” even is.
> Thats just not the case.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
Of course that is the case. To name one name, Gill does it all the time.
Bill does “last worder” trolling too, yes. barry, Nate, Bill, Tim, Bindidon, occasionally Little Willy…
To name another name, Bob does it all the time too.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Yes, bobdroege is another “last worder” troll. Thank you for your support in this, Little Willy, much appreciated.
“Children say the same thing over and over, expecting different results.”
I don’t expect different results. The reason why I repeat the last comment I made whenever Nate comments has been explained many a time.
“What were talking about is people going back a few days later to slip in a detailed last word (not just please stop trolling) to a discussion, after everyone else has stopped commenting on the thread. It seems deliberate to me, and apparently to Clint R as well. There appear to be last worder trolls who go around doing this, and it appears to be quite premeditated. Nate does it, I often catch barry doing it, Tim has done it.”
It may happen in some cases. Bill does it 5-7 days after regularly.
OTOH, I had the nerve of posting 12 hours after Clint once, because I have another life, and he accused me of ulterior motives.
Tim and Barry clearly also have other lives
As noted, the people who are quick to assign motives to other people are most likely to have these motivations themselves.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Even if he himself closely monitors the thread (he will *not* volunteer to reveal how), he sometimes has to delay his own responses. Sometimes he even says that he needs to get away for a while. Now, imagine those who do not monitor the threads as close as him.
Which is everybody else, including me and Nate.
Now, Pupman does not need to monitor anything, for he is just repeating the same three silly talking points have been peddling in each and every thread. Under that light, his complaint about necromancy is a bit rich. And here is the comment that threw Pupman in a fit.
> CO2 absorbs longwave radiation bouncing back off the earth and then re-radiates some of that energy back to the earth as heat. Very well understood phenomenon. It is the double bonds on the molecule that do it.
Very detailed, very very detailed. So of course Pupman had to punt his reply to the end of the thread. Which he always does.
Both Gaslighting Graham and Pupman are just acting like the little hypocrites they always are.
…I don’t expect different results. The reason why I repeat the last comment I made whenever Nate comments has been explained many a time.
The same three silly talking points *Dragon cranks* have been peddling in each and every thread, that is.
Everything Little Willy says is wrong, as usual.
As usual, Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
I’m not gaslighting at all. You guys have to accept some criticism, occasionally. Take some responsibility for your actions. Every time you lot get criticised, it’s “but so and so does it too!”, or “what about so and so”!
Instead of building on his first argument that a reply can be unresponsive (like most of his replies), Gaslighting Graham had to go for some *detailed* special pleading. Doubling down on the special pleading, so to speak.
1) A PST is just not the same thing as an actual response. You cannot compare a PST left four days late to an actual response left four days late. I should not have used the word “detail”. “Actual response” is clear enough.
2) Even if I were a hypocrite (which I’m not), the criticisms of you guys still stand. You have to take responsibility for your own actions.
Gaslighting Graham could acknowledge that Pupman is whining about something perfectly normal. He could also concede that Pupman applies a double standard.
No, he has to rely on a series of special pleading instead.
“Last worder” trolling is what it is, whether you want to describe it as “normal” or not. The GHE Defense Team are guilty as charged.
Graham concedes that Gill is trolling with his delayed gallops, but not that he is trolling with his PSTs. Yet he argues that his PSTs should be exempted from Pupman’s criticism because they are unresponsive. As if Gill’s gallops were responsive…
Some fine gaslighting there.
“…but so and so does it too!”
How can Graham be trolling when his PSTs are unresponsive replies?
The gaslighting is thick with our last-worder-in-chief.
“The gaslighting is thick with our last-worder-in-chief”
I’ll assume you’re referring to yourself.
I’ll agree that DREMPTY is not a hypocrite, he has no morals.
A ridiculously wild false accusation.
Gaslighting Graham may very well have more morals than Pupman, Troglodyte or Mike Flynn, Bob. In fairness, that does not mean much.
I’d say he’s on par with Gill and Bordo, unless we exempt Bordo on the basis that he is a pathological liar.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“so and so does it too!”
No it was not that.
It was “DREMT is the king of dead-thread last-wording”
So his complaints about others motives for doing it are quite ridiculous.
And his attempts to rationalize his irrational behavior are quite silly.
…Willy, please stop trolling.
2 hours and a half?
Graham took his time to not respond to Nate,
What a slacker!
…please stop trolling.
Clint R,
“Sorry Drewski, but its the photon wavelength that determines absorp.tion. And even if absorbed, a lower frequency photon can NOT increase the combined motions where the average frequency is higher. Very well understood phenomenon, expect by Drewski.”
Sorry Clint R, you are wrong as usual, it’s the energy level of the transition in the a.bsorbing body that must match the energy of the photon.
No average frequency involved, that’s just wrong.
bob tries to sneak in a last word, three days late.
Good catch, DREMT. I would have missed bobs nonsense, but your comment caught my eye.
bob doesnt understand the correlation between frequency, wavelength, and energy. And, he cant learn.
Bob just noticed your silly comment now because Graham mentioned him when he was gaslighting me, Pupman.
You typically love to “teach”. So, a chance is given to you to “show your stuff.” You prefer to troll instead.
Why is that?
“Bob just noticed your silly comment now because Graham mentioned him when he was gaslighting me, Pupman.”
Wrong, as usual. bob commented here already:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1496642
So he must have already read the original post from Clint R some time ago. He just chose to leave replying to it late, because he’s a “last worder” troll.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Bob left a comment yesterday in response to Graham’s silly special pleading. He came back this morning and presumably noticed that Pupman returns to a silly argument he repeated over the years.
Years. With an S.
Then he returned to the thread in which Graham was following up on his special pleading.
If he wanted to prove Bob right that he has no morals, Gaslighting Graham could not have done any better.
You don’t speak for bob, Little Willy. You can’t say whether he missed Clint R’s original post until now, or not. If he did, he was supremely ignorant. If he didn’t, and is only replying to it now, then it’s just more proof he’s a “last worder” troll…but we already have enough evidence for that, anyway. His entire commenting history is testament to it.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Our trio of Dragon cranks would deserve late replies all the way down. Most of the times, they are getting more than enough room service. Not everyone subscribe to comment threads.
Graham just showed that he did.
Little Willy will always defend bob, no matter what.
To defend, he always attacks.
Predictable.
Graham will always defend Pupman’s trolling, even if he has to invent reasons and gaslight as he goes along.
Attack, attack, attack.
Predictable.
Whining, whining.
Gaslighting Graham soldiers on.
Shock everybody. Do something other than attack for once.
Gaslighting Graham could try again to subtract 12 from 10.
Clint R,
Yeah right I don’t understand E = h * c / lambda
You don’t understand that the frequency of the vibrations of a molecule do not correlate with temperature.
Little Willy could please stop trolling.
Only nine minutes?
Pupman would be disappointed by Graham’s stalking.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Exactly my point, bob. You don’t understand. That equation is for photons, not molecules.
I presented a simple explanation of molecular energies and temperature. You can’t understand.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1493684
14 minutes. Gaslighting Graham is getting better.
And Pupman chimes in less than one hour later, with another of his silly riddles.
Clint R,
“I presented a simple explanation of molecular energies and temperature. You cant understand.”
That explanation is a little too simple and does not represent how the energy of a molecule is split between rotations, vibrations, and velocity.
And explains nothing when the question is whether or not the surface of the Earth can a.bsorb a 15 micron photon, and what happens to the energy of that photon.
It’s simple, the Earth’s surface emitted a 15 micron photon, means it can a.bsorb a 15 micron photon.
Bumbling Bobby,
You can’t even say whether the GHE which you can’t describe is supposed to raise or lower surface temperatures.
What does molecular energy content have to do with something about which you have so little knowledge that you can’t even say what it is supposed to do?
You are an idiot if you think that posting irrelevant things from the internet is helping you to look intelligent.
Carry on, idiot.
I have already told you Swenson,
Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.
There, seventeen words.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1497472
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1497638
I had already linked to that thread, Little Willy. No need for you to do so.
The concern troll can’t address the scientific nature of my post nor the lack of same, but complains about the timing of my post.
And gaslights me by assigning motives to me that do not exist.
It could be that I was trying to further the conversation, rather than trying to win the argument or have the last word.
Or maybe I wanted to give what I posted a little consideration, rather than blasting off a troll response in 9 minutes.
Robert Hunter said it best:
“Please don’t dominate the rap Jack, if you got nothing new to say”
“It could be that I was trying to further the conversation, rather than trying to win the argument or have the last word.
Or maybe I wanted to give what I posted a little consideration, rather than blasting off a troll response in 9 minutes.”
Nah, you wouldn’t have waited three days. You’re just a “last worder” troll, trying to pretend otherwise. You were caught bang to rights.
You are gaslighting again.
I have never gaslighted, and never will. I just call things as I see it. You are a “last worder” troll.
Seems to me you are more concerned with the timing of my posts rather than the content.
Because you have nothing of scientific value to add to the discussion.
You guys are welcome to repeat the exact same arguments over and over again if you wish (that’s all you’re doing), I don’t feel the need to at the moment. The GHE has long been annihilated. You will be taken seriously when you can admit that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the below GIF:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Braindead bob is a cult idiot that believes ice cubes can boil water, and passenger jets fly backward.
He’s about as anti-science as one can get.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham responds in 17 minutes. Pupman piles on less than one hour later, with his usual trolling rigmarole.
What a fine Sky Dragon crank duo!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yes Clint R,
I believe my own eyes when I see a video showing how you can boil water with ice.
What do think about passenger jets, can they keep up with the rotational speed of the Earth at the equator.
When viewed from a geo-stationary satellite, would the jet appear to move backwards?
Bobby Buffoon,
You wrote –
“I believe my own eyes when I see a video showing how you can boil water with ice.”
Do you really? Do you believe that everything you see on a video is true?
Are you trying semantic trickery – how hot is this “boiling”water? The boiling point of pure water at STP is defined to be 100C. As in “Celsius, also called centigrade, scale based on 0 for the freezing point of water and 100 for the boiling point of water.”
Maybe you haven’t mentioned some variation from standard temperature and pressure, trying to look clever. All irrelevant, if you are claiming that “boiling water with ice” has something to do with a mythical GHE which you can’t even describe!
You’re an idiot.
Swenson,
“Are you trying semantic trickery how hot is this boilingwater? The boiling point of pure water at STP is defined to be 100C. As in Celsius, also called centigrade, scale based on 0 for the freezing point of water and 100 for the boiling point of water.
Sorry chump, but the scale is no longer based on the freezing and boiling points of water.
Do try to keep up.
Bumbling buffoonish Bobby,
You wrote that you have seen the radiation from ice being used to raise the temperature of water to 100 C (boiling point).
You are obviously lying.
Just like you are lying if you say you have a valid description of the GHE, but are refusing to provide it.
Swenson,
“You wrote that you have seen the radiation from ice being used to raise the temperature of water to 100 C (boiling point).”
No, I did not say that, you are the one that is lying.
I did not say the water was at 100 C.
The boiling point of water depends on the pressure, change the pressure you change the boiling point.
I also did not say it was the radiation from ice boiling the water.
Liar liar pants on fire.
Bobby buffoon.
I wrote previously –
“Are you trying semantic trickery how hot is this “boiling”water? The boiling point of pure water at STP is defined to be 100C.”
You were trying to redefine “boiling” to be other than the effect which is noted at standard temperature and pressure. Semantic trickery, as I surmised.
You now write –
“I did not say the water was at 100 C.
The boiling point of water depends on the pressure, change the pressure you change the boiling point.
I also did not say it was the radiation from ice boiling the water.”
Oh good – you aren’t trying to imply that you can make something hotter by exposing it to the radiation from something colder. I’m glad that’s settled, then.
Carry being an idiot.
Swenson,
“Carry being an idiot.”
Will do, for various values of idiot.
I see you are doubling down on lying.
“You were trying to redefine boiling to be other than the effect which is noted at standard temperature and pressure. Semantic trickery, as I surmised.”
You will note I never attempted to redefine boiling to be other than the change from a liquid state to a gaseous state, which can happen at various temperatures and pressures.
And further more
“Oh good you arent trying to imply that you can make something hotter by exposing it to the radiation from something colder. Im glad thats settled, then.”
Well yes I was, you can do that without violating the second law as stated by Clausius
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time
Some other change is going on, it’s the Sun stupid.
The Sun isn’t a “change”, it’s a constant.
Dr Roy’s Stupid Comment team says
“The Sun isnt a change, its a constant.”
It’s also capable of doing thermodynamic work, so the Second Law is not violated by greenhouse gases providing an increase in temperature to the surface.
My comment refuted yours.
No, there was no refutation in DREMT’s comment.
Yes, there was.
The sunspot cycle shows that the output of the Sun is not constant.
So you are incorrect there Dr Roy’s stupid comment team.
Dumb response, bob. The GHE isn’t supposed to be driven by changes in the Sun’s output. You’re just desperate, as usual. Clausius did not mean “the Sun” when he referred to “ some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”…and you know it.
Dr Roy’s stupid comment team,
“and you know it.”
You are gaslighting me again.
You can’t look at the transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the Earth as the entire system and claim that energy transfer is prohibited by the second law.
Other energy transfers are going on at the same time, one of them being the transfer of energy from the Sun to the Earth which drives the whole climate, including the downwelling IR, which does add energy to the surface which becomes warmer.
That’s what Clausius meant when he stated his version of the second law.
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Some other change can be many things, such as the transfer of energy from hot to cold, as well as providing energy capable of doing work, both of which are occurring in the atmosphere.
Rubbish. If one of the exceptions to the rule was “the Sun” then “everything under the Sun” would be exempt from the rule that “heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body”! Ridiculous.
Dr Roy incompetent troll team leader
Try cracking a thermodynamics text before you use the word rubbish.
But then, this is actually rubbish
“If one of the exceptions to the rule was the Sun then everything under the Sun
It’s the Sun stupid, not everything under the Sun.
How hard is it to become educated on thermodynamics after all these years?
No scientific response, just insults. That means bob has conceded. Excellent.
> Clausius did not mean “the Sun” when he referred to “some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”
He must not have referred to a heat pump either. Even less a heat engine. He never referred to whatever feeds any machine that converts energy to mechanical work.
To Clausius, it’s all magic.
No, to Clausius, none of it’s magic. He did not mean "the Sun", though. Otherwise everything "under the Sun" is exempt from the rule that “heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body”, in which case there could be no application of that rule anywhere in the solar system, and there would be no reason for it to have ever been discovered in the first place.
DR EMPTY,
You want a scientific response to your unscientific garbage?
I am going for a drink.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderating Team
“heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body”
If you can’t bother to quote the whole law…
Then we have cycled back to the beginning.
Half a law Half a law half a law onward
Into the valley of death rode the science deniers
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Does he quote Clausius?
Not exactly.
Does he cite him?
Not at all.
Does he explain what he said?
Nope.
The Sun isn’t a constant, BTW. It’s a star.
"I am going for a drink."
Careful, bob…don’t have a cold one out in the sunshine, it might warm your insides up so much you get a fever.
No scientific response, just insults.
That means Graham has conceded.
Excellent.
No insults, whatsoever, in my last comment to bob.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
“If you cant bother to quote the whole law”
Graham does not bother with much these days…
Absolutely not, no.
Perhaps Graham just can’t understand the concept of system. After all these years, it stops being plausible. More plausible is the fact that he’s trolling.
Let’s still help the readers who would like to learn:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3
Readers ought to observe three things.
First, it’s just one of the form of the Second Law. Second, while the Solar system is not a perfect refrigerator, it’s not unlike a heat pump. Third, the page goes on to clarify:
Energy can transfer from cold to hot. Only the overall system can’t.
More than five years of trolling to fail understanding something this basic.
No, I understood all of that, thank you.
My remarks remain unchallenged, and settle this issue.
Thank you.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
Which means Bob wins another round of Climateball.
DREMT overestimates his own competence again.
My remarks remain unchallenged, and settle this issue.
Thank you.
You can’t settle the argument unless you quote the whole law.
You are being challenged to do that.
Since you won’t quote the whole law, you lose the argument.
Remember, Clausius also has published another version of the second law
“The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.”
The whole law is, as you already quoted:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
That "other change" cannot be "the Sun", otherwise everything "under the Sun" would be exempt from the rule that “heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body”, in which case there could be no application of that rule anywhere in the solar system, and there would be no reason for it to have ever been discovered in the first place.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7514258/
The paper makes it clear that Clausius considered "heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time" a "fundamental principle". I’ll take that. Most (including bob, the person I’m actually trying to talk to) consider it his statement of 2LoT.
So, once again, my remarks remain unchallenged, and settle this issue.
Thank you.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
There is no experiment demonstrating that the radiation from any amount of ice will raise the temperature of any amount of liquid water.
There is no experiment demonstrating that heat will spontaneously transfer itself from a colder to a warmer body under any circumstances.
Delusional SkyDragon cultists don’t have a theory anyway, because they can’t even describe what it is they are talking about. The surface cools at night, regardless of how much “back radiation” any dimwit calculates as being present.
“The Sun isnt a change, its a constant.”
FYI, for the case of the Sun, the CHANGE referred to by Clausius is that fact that the SUN lost heat, -dQ. And transferred it to the Earth, which gained heat, dQ.
In doing so the sun lost entropy, -dQ/Ts and the Earth gained entropy dQ/Te.
Since Te < Ts, the gain is much more than the loss.
As a result, the entropy of the 'system' of sun and Earth increased, A LOT.
That satisfies 2LOT.
Thus, there can be small decreases of entropy on Earth, as a result of this large gain in entropy of the whole system.
Such as a plant growing into an organized (low entropy) object.
or
Such as heat can be transferred from a cold refrigerator to a warm room, which is done by using work.
That work most likely came from the sun.
And of course there certainly can be solar powered refrigerators.
True, Swenson.
“That “other change” cannot be “the Sun”, otherwise everything “under the Sun” would be exempt from the rule that heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body”
So this is not correct.
Many things under the Sun on Earth are decreasing their entropy, forests growing trees, animals turning elements into highly organized bodies. Hurricanes organizing from a warm ocean.
All because the Sun is providing energy to do work to cause these things to happen.
There is no ‘rule’ that these events cannot happen, because they are not happening spontaneously. They are happening as a result of the another change, the transfer of heat from the sun to the Earth, and the resulting large entropy increase of the whole system.
“My remarks remain unchallenged, and settle this issue.”
And this is also, obviously, not true.
"Remember, Clausius also has published another version of the second law
“The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.”"
Ah, entropy. That’s a great way for you guys to obfuscate the issue. Let’s look at the drink example:
"Careful, bob…don’t have a cold one out in the sunshine, it might warm your insides up so much you get a fever."
So, some might say that in sending heat to the Earth, the Sun loses entropy, and the Earth gains it. As the gain is more than the loss, you might say that the entropy of the Sun/Earth system is increased, and so there can be small decreases of entropy on Earth, without violating 2LoT. Yet, when you drink your cold beer out in the sunshine, it doesn’t warm up your insides, does it? Or, if you spill it on yourself, it doesn’t warm up your skin…
…heat doesn’t generally pass from cold to hot, anywhere under the Sun, of its own accord, now does it?
(I’m fully expecting a switch to "insulation" soon)…
True, Nate.
“Ah, entropy. Thats a great way for you guys to obfuscate the issue.”
It only appears to be obfuscation to Ignorati.
Of course, it could be asked, why if one doesnt have even a BASIC understanding of the role entropy plays in the 2LOT, how one could be mansplaining 2LOT violations to others.
Just to clarify what was incorrect. It was “everything under the sun would be exempt from the rule that heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body”
The point is that is not a rule. So the whole statement is a strawman.
heat can pass from a cooler to a warmer body, with the assistance of work.
Eg a solar powered refrigerator, accomplishes that.
Little Willy says:
"True, Nate"
Ah, I’d noticed that the blog’s biggest hypocrite had waited until the discussion was just about finished before attempting to drop in his last word, as he usually does, the notorious "last worder" troll that he is.
What did he have to say? Anything interesting? Or just the usual false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults?
Gaslighting Graham aggressively gaslights again.
My “true” comment echoed his response to Mike Flynn, which he did to add a comment in response to Nate because he somehow pretends never to respond to him.
Which is kinda weird considering his empty remarks on entropy. So of course he had to find back a quote from Bob to pretend responding to Bob instead.
Gaslighting Graham is the biggest hypocrite in the history of Climateball.
bob said:
"Dr Roy’s Stupid Comment team says
“The Sun isnt a change, its a constant.”
It’s also capable of doing thermodynamic work"
Sure, it’s capable of doing thermodynamic work…but its role in the GHE is not doing thermodynamic work. Its role in the GHE is simply that it provides heat to the Earth.
I think that deals with any and all objections to my comments, now.
The argument that the GHE doesn’t violate 2LoT as described here:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
because the "other change" is the Sun, or rather the heat from the Sun, is a ridiculous argument that the GHE Defense Team should really kick to the curb. Ultimately they are trying to have their cake and eat it too, because on the one hand they want to say that heat is not flowing from cold to hot in the GHE, oh no, it’s just like "insulation", you see…and heat is not flowing from cold to hot with "insulation"…but on the other hand they also want to argue that heat is flowing from cold to hot in the GHE, but it’s OK because there’s this "other change" occurring at the same time and that "other change" is the Sun providing heat to the Earth.
I’ll assume from Little Willy’s response that Nate had nothing but false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
Here is how Nate starts the two comments Graham pretends to have skipped:
And here is how Nate ends his comments:
Gaslighting Graham is thus gaslighting again.
Oh, I see, he brought up entropy, like bob tried. Yes, Nate will typically try to obfuscate an issue wherever possible…hence the nickname he earned from Chic Bowdrie, "the King of Obfuscation".
Anyway, that was dealt with in my 9:33 AM comment.
Was there anything else?
Quoting me then pretending he hasnt read my post.
Pretending no one has challenged his claims.
Mansplaining 2LOT to people, quoting Clausius, but when entropy is mentioned he can’t deal and thinks people must be trying to con him.
Thinks facts don’t exist if they are posted by people he doesn’t like.
All of DREMTs behaviors are childish and quite bizarre.
True, Nate.
More bizarre still is Pupman’s claim that a surface temperature will not increase if the entropy does not decrease.
Isn’t Pupman supposed to be Graham’s Sky Dragon crank physics guru?
It’s usual at this stage, when he has lost an argument to a better man, that Nate makes a series of personal remarks about the victor. Is that what has happened?
No scientific response, just mockery and insults.
That means Graham has conceded.
Excellent.
Au contraire, L’il Willy. You showed me what Nate had written. I pointed to my 9:33 AM comment. There is also my 1:09 PM comment. Neither has been rebutted, as far as I’m aware. So, that’s that. Those remarks remain unchallenged, and settle this issue.
Thank you.
My first two posts in this thread were all about the science.
DREMT, lacking any sensible rebuttal, then made it all about the messengers and their terrible ‘tactics’, while bloviating.
“Ah, entropy. Thats a great way for you guys to obfuscate the issue.”
“Ah, Id noticed that the blogs biggest hypocrite had waited until the discussion was just about finished before attempting to drop in his last word, as he usually does, the notorious “last worder” troll that he is.
“Nate will typically try to obfuscate an issue wherever possible”
Then, as always, he plays the victim card, pretending that he had not made it personal.
“Nate makes a series of personal remarks about the victor”
…contraire, L’il Willy. You showed me what Nate had written. I pointed to my 9:33 AM comment. There is also my 1:09 PM comment. Neither has been rebutted, as far as I’m aware. So, that’s that. Those remarks remain unchallenged, and settle this issue.
Thank you.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
And here he is, decreasing the entropy in his comments by trying to handwave his way out of this pickle.
With no rebuttal to the comments I mentioned, all I can do is assume they cannot be rebutted.
Pathetic loser.
True, Nate.
Still no rebuttal, I take it. Shame.
Clarification, Nate.
I was agreeing with you 4:45 comment,
I now agree with the one you wrote after it.
It is also quite true.
As if Little Willy would ever disagree with something one of his masters said.
Little Willy showed me what Nate had said. For the benefit of any readers, I will make my response to his comments even clearer. Nate had argued that there can be small decreases of entropy on Earth, as a result of the larger gain in entropy of the whole Sun/Earth system. Such decreases could occur when work is done on the system. I don’t disagree. My response is that in the GHE, the Sun is not doing work. Same as when you drink a cold drink out in the hot Sun, or maybe accidentally spill some on yourself. The Sun is not doing work, so the cold drink does not warm your body, or the spilled drink warm your skin.
The GHE Defense Team should drop the silly line that the “other change” referred to in Clausius’ statement of 2LoT could be “the Sun” or “heat from the Sun” as regards the GHE. They’re trying to simultaneously argue that the GHE is insulation, and thus is not an example of heat flowing from cold to hot; and that the GHE is an example of heat flowing from cold to hot, but it’s OK because there is another change connected with it, that being heat flowing in from the Sun. They are holding two contradictory positions simultaneously.
Or, they can carry on making themselves look foolish. Up to them. I’m only trying to help.
Still no rebuttal from Gaslighting Graham.
Sadz.
“For the benefit of any readers,” I will simply point out that what I took issue with in this thread was pretty clear in my post, which was the false statement that “The Sun isnt a change, its a constant.” relative to 2LOT.
Whereas, Clausius makes clear that because the sun has lost heat, and the Earth has gained heat, these are qualifying CHANGES, that allow heat to be transferred from cold to hot on Earth under the right conditions, without violating 2LOT.
DREMT of course will never admit that was wrong about this.
Aa far as the GHE, anyone claiming endlessly that it violates the 2LOT is delusional. Because it does not involve spontaneous transfer of heat from cold to hot. And warming that results from it is with the assistance of a heat source, the sun, which cannot be ignored.
Period. End of story.
Readers can see otherwise, Little Willy…and the silence from Nate and bob is deafening.
Very true, Nate.
I see he has responded. My guess is, knowing Nate, that he has artfully avoided writing anything that actually addresses what I said. Prove me wrong, though, Little Willy. Quote Nate saying something that addresses what I said to him.
DREMT,
Just because I don’t bother to refute what you post on this thread, when I have refuted it many times on many other threads doesn’t mean you aren’t posting garbage.
Here we go again.
” Theyre trying to simultaneously argue that the GHE is insulation, and thus is not an example of heat flowing from cold to hot; and that the GHE is an example of heat flowing from cold to hot, but its OK because there is another change connected with it, that being heat flowing in from the Sun. They are holding two contradictory positions simultaneously.”
Those are not two contradictory positions, they are two supplementary positions, both are possible and neither is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics.
If insulation slows the cooling of something being heated, causing the something to increase in temperature, that is what would be expected in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics.
Here is another version of the second law, there are as many as twenty, though I am not familiar with all of them.
“Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system”
The Sun is capable of doing work, stand in the eye of a hurricane and tell me differently.
They are two contradictory positions when you are applying both to the GHE, bob.
I agree that the Sun is capable of doing work, however it is not doing so in the GHE.
Just for ease of jumping between threads:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1498824
DREMT,
“My response is that in the GHE, the Sun is not doing work. Same as when you drink a cold drink out in the hot Sun, or maybe accidentally spill some on yourself. The Sun is not doing work, so the cold drink does not warm your body, or the spilled drink warm your skin.”
Just because you can provide an example where the Sun is doing work that does not result in heat transfer from cold to warm, does not mean the Sun does not do work that does result in heat transfer from cold to hot.
The Sun is not doing work in the GHE, bob.
DREMT,
The Sun drives convection, which transfers heat to the colder atmosphere, which increases the rate that CO2 radiates, which then transfers some of that energy back to the surface.
That’s one way how the Sun transfers energy by doing work.
Sorry for your loss.
The Sun driving convection is not the GHE, bob.
Not the whole of it, but it is part of the transfer of energy both ways. It provides some of the energy for the greenhouse gases to radiate back to the surface.
Again you are wrong, sorry for your loss.
Of course the Sun provides energy for the GHE, bob. We were talking about work, though.
> the heat transfer is defined as the difference in two energy flows.
Perhaps one day Gaslighting Graham will get that one, Bob.
Perhaps he will have to wait another reincarnation.
bob, either:
1) the GHE involves the transfer of heat from cold to hot, but it’s OK because the "other change" is the Sun doing work on the system
or
2) the GHE only ever involves the transfer of heat from hot to cold.
It can’t be both. You have to pick one, and stick to it.
Perhaps Graham just can’t understand the concept of system. After all these years, it stops being plausible. More plausible is the fact that he’s trolling.
The system is the Solar system. Not the Sun. The Solar system. The Sun is an important part of the Solar system. But it’s only one part.
Another way to diagnose Gaslighting Graham’s intentional (let’s not kid ourselves here) failure to understand is with quantifier scope. It helps resolve the Moon Dragon crank silliness. It also helps resolve the plates silliness.
In any event, Graham will continue is gaslighting policy.
If you were going to go for 1), bob, be aware that this:
"The Sun drives convection, which transfers heat to the colder atmosphere, which increases the rate that CO2 radiates, which then transfers some of that energy back to the surface.
That’s one way how the Sun transfers energy by doing work."
fails because there you’re talking about heat being transferred from hot to cold ("the Sun drives convection, which transfers heat to the colder atmosphere") when the problematic part is heat being transferred from cold to hot.
Either
(P1) Graham really agrees with Nate on entropy, in which case he must reject the Sky Dragon crank talking point that the greenhouse effect breaks the Second Law.
or
(P2) Graham is gaslighting once again.
Tough choice.
Little Willy clearly could not understand my 12:48 AM comment.
True, Bob.
False, Little Willy.
DREMT,
“1) the GHE involves the transfer of heat from cold to hot, but its OK because the “other change” is the Sun doing work on the system
or
2) the GHE only ever involves the transfer of heat from hot to cold.
It cant be both. You have to pick one, and stick to it.”
2) is absolutely not true, the GHE is about the transfer of energy from cold to hot, not heat.
That’s your problem, you think it’s about heat when it’s only about energy.
One could be true, but is not necessarily so, it’s not necessary for there to be heat transfer from cold to hot. Probably happens sometimes, but not always.
If you stop deliberately trying not to understand, maybe one day you will get it.
Did you read 2) correctly, bob? I said the transfer of heat from hot to cold, not cold to hot.
You have to pick one or the other. So, make your choice.
DREMT,
Yeah, I read what you posted.
“Did you read 2) correctly, bob? I said the transfer of heat from hot to cold, not cold to hot.”
Obviously the GHE is not about the transfer of heat from hot to cold.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard someone (e.g. barry) say that the GHE or GPE always involves the transfer of heat from hot to cold, and that heat isn’t travelling the other way…but I’ve given up expecting any consistency between members of the GHE Defense Team. Wasn’t it you, bob, who said:
“No heat is transferred from the GHG to the surface, because the heat transfer is from the surface to the GHG”
In other words, the heat transfer is from hot to cold…
DREMT,
Keep counting, there is a two way flow of energy, the GHE being the energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the surface.
> Thats your problem, you think its about heat when its only about energy.
Exactly, Bob.
Since I (and the vast majority of people who fully understand the many versions of the GHE and know that they have been falsified) have always acknowledged that “back-radiation” exists, in other words that there is a two way flow of energy, one wonders what your point is, bob.
Just try to choose which one, 1) or 2), you are going to go with, and try to stick with it, in future.
DREMT,
“Since I (and the vast majority of people who fully understand the many versions of the GHE and know that they have been falsified) have always acknowledged that back-radiation exists, in other words that there is a two way flow of energy, one wonders what your point is, bob.”
OK, so you have always acknowledged that “back radiation exists”
That back radiation is the Green House Effect, so welcome to the GHE defense team.
No, bob. The GHE is not the existence of “back-radiation”. Some might say that their version of the GHE of choice is “back-radiation” from GHGs warming the surface though. I would disagree that this is possible.
Pick 1) or 2), and try to stick with it, in future.
DREMT,
“No, bob. The GHE is not the existence of back-radiation. Some might say that their version of the GHE of choice is back-radiation from GHGs warming the surface though. I would disagree that this is possible.
Pick 1) or 2), and try to stick with it, in future”
Warming of the surface is not possible you claim, sorry but that idea is falsified by the first law of thermodynamics.
And you forgot that and is possible between your 1 and 2.
I don’t have to pick and stick, both can happen.
Your misunderstanding of physics doesn’t preclude me from making truthful arguments.
And so Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
You have to pick one or the other, bob, if you look at the way it is worded…
…(Hint: number 2) begins with the words “the GHE only ever…”)
Gaslighting Graham may never understand how quantifiers work.
He does not always troll, but on net he is trolling. And he gaslights along the way.
All wrong, Little Willy.
Take the series:
1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
According to Sky Dragon crank, this series is *not* progressing.
In fact, according to Sky Dragon cranks, this series *cannot* be progressing!
Sky Dragon cranks are just cranks.
That bears absolutely no relation to what I’m saying, Little Willy. None whatsoever. Why don’t you just quit trolling me?
Gaslighting Graham is playing dumb once again. Perhaps arithmetic is too complex for him. Let us take a simpler domain –
Sky Dragon cranks cannot get any tax returns. Why? Because money only flows from their employer to the gubmint.
Sky Dragon cranks are that silly.
No, Little Willy. That’s, once again, absolutely nothing to do with what I’m saying.
This is what I’m saying.
Those who defend the GHE often describe it this way:
"Heat is always going from hot to cold in the GHE. All the extra back-radiation from increased CO2 does is reduce the rate of heat loss away from the surface. Since the surface is receiving a constant supply of heat from the Sun, it thus warms."
Note the "always", Little Willy.
So you can’t say that the GHE "always" involves heat going from hot to cold, on the one hand, and then on the other hand say that the GHE involves heat going from cold to hot, but it’s OK because the Sun does work on the system!
You have to choose one explanation or the other, and stick to it.
“”Heat is always going from hot to cold in the GHE. All the extra back-radiation from increased CO2 does is reduce the rate of heat loss away from the surface. Since the surface is receiving a constant supply of heat from the Sun, it thus warms.”
Yep that sound good.
For anyone still declaring that the GHE violates 2LOT, they need to show what’s wrong with this logical, fact-based description.
IOW actual evidence that the GHE involves heat transfer from from cold to hot.
Has nobody understood that my entire argument in this thread is not about challenging the GHE, it’s about getting those who defend the GHE to make a consistent argument, rather than holding two contradictory positions simultaneously!?
“My guess is, knowing Nate, that he has artfully avoided writing anything that actually addresses what I said.”
You’ve already shown us that you do read my posts, so there is no need to keep up the silly charade.
My post did directly address things you said:
“The Sun isnt a change, its a constant.”
As far as the sun doing work to facilitate the GHE transfer heat from cold to hot, I have never suggested that, since clearly the GHE does not transfer heat from cold to hot.
The basic GHE mechanism is best described as adding a radiative insulating effect to the atmosphere.
On the other hand the real Earth and its real GHE is much more complex, with contributions from various solar-driven heat engines that drive the water cycle and the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere.
Once again…has nobody understood that my entire argument in this thread is not about challenging the GHE, it’s about getting those who defend the GHE to make a consistent argument, rather than holding two contradictory positions simultaneously!?
My guess is, knowing Gaslighting Graham, that he is gaslighting once again. And once again he confuses a celestial body with a mathematical constant.
Everything I’ve said is correct, Little Willy. Go back and read through the thread.
I’m not challenging the GHE in this thread. I’m trying to get you GHE defenders to sort your own arguments out.
Why on Earth do GHE defenders keep going on about the "other change" Clausius refers to in his statement of 2LoT as being "the Sun", or "heat from the Sun", or "the Sun doing work on the system"? There’s no need for you people to invoke this if your argument is that heat only ever flows from hot to cold in the GHE!
bob started this whole thing off by doing just that, in his June 14, 2023 at 7:36 AM.
Nothing he what Gaslighting Graham said is correct.
Even when he agrees with Nate he can’t accept the consequences.
In any case, he still misunderstands quantifier scope:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499261
So down below he goes.
"…once again he confuses a celestial body with a mathematical constant."
OMG. Obviously I did not mean a "mathematical constant". I meant the Sun’s output is (relatively) "constant", as in, "unchanging".
Jesus wept.
This is the relevant part of bob’s comment, that started this all off:
"And further more
[quoting Swenson] “Oh good you arent trying to imply that you can make something hotter by exposing it to the radiation from something colder. Im glad thats settled, then.”
Well yes I was, you can do that without violating the second law as stated by Clausius
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time
Some other change is going on, it’s the Sun stupid."
There is no need for you guys to invoke the "other change" clause of 2LoT as being the Sun if you are arguing that in the GHE, heat only ever moves from hot to cold!
> There is no need for you guys to invoke the “other change” clause of 2LoT as being the Sun if you are arguing that in the GHE, heat only ever moves from hot to cold!
Yes, physicists indeed do. For physicists understand that the “only ever moves from hot to cold” is first and foremost the Sky Dragon cranks’ own misinterpretation of the Second Law. Graham has built up a position out of straw.
Also, I already documented why Clausius found this formulation unsatisfactory. What matters is that heat and work are equivalent. Since equivalence is another logical notion, I predict that Graham will use it for future gaslighting. If he did not used it already.
Let me check.
Can someone who Little Willy listens to please just explain to him what this discussion is actually about?
Can somebody ask Gaslighting Graham to stop gasl-
Never mind. Gaslighting Graham will gaslight forever.
The bank always wins. Does that imply that it wins every single time?
No, it does not.
Gaslighting Graham and his silly equivocations.
You have not correctly followed the discussion. Go back to the beginning, and carefully read through what has been said.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
My emphasis.
So our pathetic loser is asserting that (1) is inconsistent with (2).
That is false, for he overinterprets the meaning of “ever.”
Ever, not as in at every single point in time for every single heat exchange in the universe.
Ever, as in it’s always the result. ON NET.
In other words, this is an observational principle.
Pathetic loser of a troll.
Once again, you have not correctly followed the discussion. Go back to the beginning, and carefully read through what has been said.
(ESTR) *Quotes the whole argument, with the emphasizing the quantifier used for the exploit.*
(VLAD) You have misunderstood everything. Go back and read again.
Pathetic loser of a troll.
For the third time, you have not correctly followed the discussion. Go back to the beginning, and carefully read through what has been said.
Gaslighting Graham again returns to his fixed point.
Pure gaslighting.
For the fourth time, you have not correctly followed the discussion. Go back to the beginning, and carefully read through what has been said.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, oblivious to the fact that “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body” is perfectly fine as it is, and is perfectly well understood by everyone except Sky Dragon cranks.
Graham is a pathetic loser.
You have absolutely no understanding of what point I was making. I’m correct. Try going back to the beginning and reading through, until you get it. Perhaps try to increase your intellect and knowledge of physics to the requisite level as well.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once more.
Compare and contrast:
[GG1] It can’t be both.
[GG2] There’s no need for you people to invoke this if your argument is that heat only ever flows from hot to cold in the GHE!
After denial comes bargaining.
Once again, you have absolutely no understanding of what point I was making. I’m correct. Try going back to the beginning and reading through, until you get it. Perhaps try to increase your intellect and knowledge of physics to the requisite level as well.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499338
For the third time, you have absolutely no understanding of what point I was making. I’m correct. Try going back to the beginning and reading through, until you get it. Perhaps try to increase your intellect and knowledge of physics to the requisite level as well.
At first, Gaslighting Graham tried denial:
[DENIAL] It’s about getting those who defend the GHE to make a consistent argument, rather than holding two contradictory positions simultaneously!?
There are no two positions. It is the same position expressed in two different ways. And the two versions are indeed compatible.
Then he went for bargaining:
[BARGAINING] There’s no need for you people to invoke this if your argument is that heat only ever flows from hot to cold in the GHE!
So now there’s no contradiction anymore!?
Hence why all Gaslighting Graham has left is gaslighting.
"There are no two positions. It is the same position expressed in two different ways. And the two versions are indeed compatible."
False, Little Willy. The two positions are separate and incompatible. They are:
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.
The GHE Defense Team needs to pick a position, and stick with it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499351
Note that 1) and 2) are DREMT’s words 2:55 pm & imagination; 1) and 2) are not physical reality since EMR is NOT heat.
Cars and trucks have a GHE, farmer’s use a GHE, and the Earth planetary system has a GHE so there is no ONE position on the GHE that is only physically correct thus DREMT’s search “pick a position” for the GHE is futile.
B4 might wish to search for the Mayer-Joule principle.
The contradiction between the two positions is painfully obvious to all astute readers and commenters, Little Willy. Sorry for your loss.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499356
Both positions are incorrect physically in modern times so any contradiction is meaningless.
F * d and energy transfer by a difference in temperature CAN be found experimentally equivalent. This circumstance has no effect on the principle of EMR is NOT heat.
DREMT uses the term “heat” physically incorrect. There is no heat or work in any object in modern times. There is plenty of total thermodynamic internal energy in an object.
B4 keeps ignoring that we are on a blog and that using heat is perfectly fine, e.g.:
http://energyandentropy.com/resources/newburghleff.pdf
Language is a social art, and unless and until scientists drop their talk about heat transfer, B4’s pet peeve in this venue is of little merit.
Nobody expects you to make a worthwhile contribution, Ball4.
Nobody expects more than gaslighting from Graham.
It is unfortunately true, Willard 4:11 pm, the incorrect use of the term “heat” persists from the mid-1800s & using the term “heat” wrongly in place of EMR can cause the writer to comment unphysically as does DREMT. Using the term “heat” is just a tool of DREMT et. al. to provide continuing entertainment here.
Using EMR correctly would reduce the debate to nil instead of the many 1,000+ long comment threads on each top post. These many “hits” used to drive up Dr. Spencer’s advertising compensation so paid his blogging expenses and then some.
Ball4 troll, begone.
B4 should take note that there are books published in 2023 with “heat transfer” in their titles, e.g.:
https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Heat-Transfer-Interdisciplinary-Analytical/dp/9819909562
Until he convinces the community of physicists, he has no leg to stand on.
“Nobody expects more than gaslighting from Graham.”
I’ve never gaslighted, and never will.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
And Bob wins another round of Climateball.
bob lost again, as usual.
So Willard, since you picked that book presumably knowing its contents, please cite the book’s definition of the term “heat” as used in the author’s words. If Willard can’t, then Willard does not know what the book contains or what is meant by the author’s use of the term “heat”.
The modern community of thermodynamic authors all agree there is no heat or work in any object (after Joule proved it experimentally mid1800s) or find a modern thermodynamics textbook claiming heat exists in an object and is not just a measure of the object’s total thermal energy.
And so B4 acts like any other contrarian who gets caught – ask for a silly sammich.
The title contains the expression “heat transfer.” Since he got a problem with that expression, perhaps he should take that up with the authors of the textbook I cited. And then there are other textbooks.
That ought to make him busy for a while.
Ball4, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard 8:37 pm admits picking a text where Willard doesn’t even know the author’s defn. of their title term “heat” nor do I so whether there is a title problem or not isn’t yet known. I checked two nearby college libraries & neither have the text so any determination won’t be timely.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
In this thread we get from DREMT:
“The GHE has long been annihilated.”
And that is largely based on the oft-repeated argument that the GHE violates 2LOT, because it involves a ‘transfer of heat from cold atmosphere to warm surface’
And this is of course ridiculous, since the SUN is the source of the warming, and the GHE is simply reducing the heat loss to space.
So ‘its the Sun, stupid’ is ignored in this argument.
By the end of the thread we get:
“Of course the Sun provides energy for the GHE, bob.”
“my entire argument in this thread is not about challenging the GHE”
Are we to understand there has been a transformation in thinking along the way?
…please stop trolling.
B4 would rather put words in my mind instead of owning the fact that physicists are actually publishing works with “heat transfer” in their title. No wonder he bickered with just about everyone over the usage of “heat” on this blog!
Some blog readers will experience more informed science when Willard learns the correct, physically meaningful words to use in comments.
That authors use a word in their titles without Willard looking up that word’s definition (by the text author) does point out Willard is uninformed what the author’s truly mean.
Perhaps Willard can find a less obscure text that is more readily accessible (maybe even an online text) to become informed on the author’s physically true meaning of their own text title.
Little Willy, Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
[PUPMAN] A new troll came in 2 days after the conversation had moved away.
[ALSO PUPMAN] You’re late again.
Graham will not criticize Pupman’s silly Procustes trick.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
32 minutes?
Clint R’s comment was about how rapidly you would typically respond to him…his “you’re late again” was mocking you for that. It has no connection whatsoever to his correct observation that there are “last worder” trolls in operation at this blog. You put the quotes together in a deliberate attempt to deceive.
Pupman’s comments usually create some kind of impossible demand.
This time it’s a basic double bind.
You respond too fast? Stalker.
You respond too slow? Last worder.
And Graham gobbles all of it uncritically.
Worse, he adds it to his gaslighting.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“You respond too fast? Stalker.
You respond too slow? Last worder.”
You obsessively stalk Clint R, Swenson, Gordon and myself. There’s more to it than just how quickly you respond. You actively seek us out wherever we’re commenting and interject into all of our discussions, pretty much without fail. You seem completely obsessed with us.
Graham gently gaslights again.
Mike Flynn just PSTed my comment one minute after I made it. Then he claims I’m the stalker!
What a frustrated punk!
Completely obsessed.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Eight minutes after my comment, Gaslighting Graham gloats about obsession.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Folkerts?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1495234
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1498229
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
May 2023 data
UAH Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/uah-global.jpeg
UAH Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/uah-tropics.jpeg
So don’t you think your overturning curve is making a pretty poor prediction for 2023?
AQ: So as the points are either side of the central projection line (As OLS dictates) it looks like they are quite close at the moment. If the points cluster for a long time on just one side then it looks like an inflection is near. The 3 earlier points this year balanece the 3 later points so far.
Do you not know how to read OLS reports and S-G projections?
edit: balance
If it changes then that means your prediction/projection was wrong.
What evidence do you have that this method has made useful projections in the past?
AQ,
You wrote –
“What evidence do you have that this method has made useful projections in the past?”
What evidence do you have that it hasn’t?
The future is unpredictable.
You are an idiot.
Do you know how S-G works? Of course depending on the data points in the later half of the window the actual line will change. That’s how OLS works. Idiot.
“What evidence do you have that this method has made useful projections in the past?”
S-G? Well it is well looked at in other disciplines.
“Savitzky and Golay’s paper is one of the most widely cited papers in the journal Analytical Chemistry and is classed by that journal as one of its ’10 seminal papers’ saying ‘it can be argued that the dawn of the computer-controlled analytical instrument can be traced to this article'”
AQ: I challenge you to produce a LOWESS with the same window that produces significantly different answers.
So … no evidence then. You could have just said that.
AQ, please stop trolling.
Do I have an S-G. I challenge you to produce a LOWESS with the same window that produces significantly different answers.
No I have an S-G……
Special, Custom or Standard?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“Special, Custom or Standard?”
Please define.
“The LOWESS algorithm contains four data-specific parameters, namely the polynomial order d, the number of LOWESS algorithmic iterations t, the weight function w(), and the fraction of the data points used in the local regression f. Consequently, these parameters all affect the values of the weights h i (A j )”
RLH, Out of curiosity, since you like making plots, what would your S-G projection look like for the tropics if you you applied it over the 6 years from 2003 thru 2009? How does that compare with your actual 5 year smoothed curve. You could just add the result to the plot you just posted.
The result (I just checked) is very little changes for 6 compared to 5 years.
And the overlap period you have requested is mostly overwritten by the main trace for CTRM.
Your post suggests that you didn’t understand my question. I asked that you perform your S-G projection starting with the data at January 2003 and continuing thru 2009. Then, plot the result, appending it to your 5 year smoothed curve at the start of 2003 as you did for your projection after 2017.
I followed your requests precisely. I have stated what the outcomes are clearly. They do not produce any significant results that differ from what I have already posted. 6 years instead of 5 years is not likely to produce much visible change in any case. Do you not know how filters work?
RLH, Are you being intentionally obtuse? I was not asking you to change the period of your smoothing curve from 5 years to 6 years. I simply wanted you to apply your S-G projection to the data starting in 2003 and running it thru 2009 to see how well it matched your 5 year curve.
“change the period of your smoothing curve from 5 years to 6 years”
Why? Do you think it will produce any significant change and why?
As I said, I did that already and it does not show any real difference and that the trace so provided is mostly over written by the CTRM low pass trace (as one would expect).
So you are saying that my claim that the S-G curve matches to a CTRM over the same period is not correct. With no data to back that up.
The data is freely available so why not do this for yourself? Cannot do an S-G curve? Try a LOWESS (with the same window).
P.S. This chart only uses S-G throughout as the caption says (up to Apr 2023 and apart from the 12 month green curve).
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah_lt.jpg
Here’s the same data for May 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/uah_lt.jpg
“I simply wanted you to apply your S-G projection to the data starting in 2003 and running it thru 2009 to see how well it matched your 5 year curve.”
He is getting at the issue with your projections. At their end, the available data is diminishing, an so they randomly whip around.
Your current SG projection is headed sharply downward at its end. That is unlikely to line up with what the actual 5 year CTRM centered on May 2023, will do.
You can test how well it did in the past by ending the S-G projection at then end of 2009, and seeing how well did it line up with the observed 5 y CTRM that is centered on the end of 2009.
The problem explained when applied to financial data:
“Without some way of estimating the future data, the S-G filter tends to track the most recent prices too closely and has much higher volatility that compared with the smoothed value. If the filter did its job perfectly we would expect the blue line to exactly track the orange line that is only known at a later date.”
“At their end, the available data is diminishing, an so they randomly whip around.”
An OLS over a window, as S-G creates, does not randomly do anything. See the example in wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter#/media/File:Lissage_sg3_anim.gif
“the S-G filter tends to track the most recent prices too closely”
i.e. a single pass S-G allows to much high frequency content to pass through. That is why Nate Drake used (as I do now) a 5 pass S-G which does not have such a behavior.
edit: …allows too much…
“You can test how well it did in the past by ending the S-G projection at then end of 2009, and seeing how well did it line up with the observed 5 y CTRM that is centered on the end of 2009.”
Compare
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/uah_lt.jpg
with
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/uah-global.jpeg
The main issue with Savitsky Golay filtering is one that plagues zero lag style filters. Estimates for recent observations changes as new data becomes available. In case of the scipy Golay filter implementation there are various techniques to try to estimate future data to fit the filter to. These include:
constant
last value
interpolate
For any practical forecasting applications, these are all useless and give a value that overweights the most recent observation. If Golay filters are applied sequentially, and the last estimate of the filter recorded its easy to visualise this problem.
https://markrbest.github.io/savitsky-golay/
Very well. If you compare LOWESS and S-G how well do you think they fit?
P.S. 5 pass S-G is very close to LOWESS.
“Estimates for recent observations changes as new data becomes available.”
Estimates for recent observations change slightly as new data becomes available.
See the wiki mentioned above.
Either you work with a lagging indicator or you risk false signals, Richard. There is no free lunch.
Use both, and split the difference.
So what error do you think is present with a simple whole data window OLS?
RLH, You still don’t get it. I wanted you to use data thru 2009 with your S-G filter, but end it there. Let me say again, no input data past 2009. And, plot the results so they coincide with the CTRM data at 2003, just as you did for your S-G projection to 2023
Your latest plots use all the data thru 2023. Both Nate and Willard pointed out the problem of projection at the end of the data, which is what I wanted to emphasize.
If you’d work with intraday data as it’s coming in you’d notice that the trend is oversensitive.
“I wanted you to use data thru 2009 with your S-G filter, but end it there.”
The 5 pass S-G curve for all the data is at
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/uah_lt.jpg
The CTRM for all the data is at
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/uah-global.jpeg
Both of these are for all of the UHA LT data from 1979 to present.
“If youd work with intraday data as its coming in youd notice that the trend is oversensitive.”
So you are in effect saying that whole window OLS is under sensitive. You can’t have it both ways.
Edit: …the UAH LT data…
I said that lagging indicators are *lagging*, Richard. There’s an old saying according to which price is the only indicator that never diverges from itself.
So anything with less data than half the window is suspect according to you.
There’s nothing suspect with indicators, Richard.
What’s suspect is a cycle nut who keeps touting an indicator known for its mean reverting properties, without showing any understanding or worse playing dumb.
Willard: So of course you agree that
“Lagging indicators differ from leading indicators, such as retail sales and the stock market, which are used to forecast and make predictions”
So no valid predictions are available from lagging indicators, such as whole data OLS. Thank you.
You can make forecasts using any kind of indicator you please, Richard. Lagging indicators will make you enter a trade with a delay, but leading indicators can get you out of a trade too early.
The best is really the enemy of the good here. Use a system that works reasonably well and stick to it.
I’ll stick with short (relatively) OLS then thank you. I will use 5 pass S-Gs to achieve that result.
Perfect. Tell me how that fares in term of P/L, with your max drawdown and the ratio you prefer.
I am talking about climate, not finance.
Climate is usually longer than short (relatively) OLS…
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Climate is usually longer than short (relatively) OLS”
So what?
You just said you were talking about climate, dummy.
I was talking about climate. 30 years is shorter than the full window.
So a 5y low pass is climate-related because you roll it over six times?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Folkerts??
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1495234
Poor Pupman. Cannot get the attention he craves for:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1498229
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The widely known and the widely used, when considering the real bodies’ the emission temperature – the physical term emissivity (ε), cannot be applied when the source of EM radiative emission energy originates from the EM/surface INTERACTION PROCESS from the incident on that surface an outer EM radiative energy.
–
Thus,
The Planet Effective Temperature FORMULA:
Te = [So(1 -A)/4εσ]∕ ⁴ (2)
is always written with ε =1, that is why, after simplification, it has its usual form of appearance as:
Te = [So(1 -A)/4σ]∕ ⁴ (2)
and which calculates for Earth the theoretical effective temperature as:
Te = 255 K
but theε = 1is for spheres emitting their inner source’s heat transformed on their surface into IR EM radiative energy.
–
For planets and moons, their source of energy is already radiative energy, what they emit as IR EM radiative energy is the result of interaction of the incident radiation with the surface (with the matter).
–
There is NOT for the EM energy interaction process,which results in the surface’s IR emission, there is NOT any kind of surface emissivity term to be applied.
–
So, under those, very much different circumstances, there is NOT any room for the real planets the average surface temperatures to be compared with their respective theoretical effective temperatures.
–
Earth’s oceanic waters do have emissivity close to ε = 1 , when waters emit IR EM energy at dark hours (at night), but there is NOT possible to the term emissivity being applied, when incident solar EM energy induces the same waters to emit IR (to re-emit the SW as IR) – there is NOT any room for the emissivity term to be applied.
–
Therefore, the Effective Temperature (Te) MATHEMATICAL CONSTRAINT also cannot be applied, when we consider for real planets and moons the actual emission behavior.
–
The planet (or moon) EFFECTIVE TEMPERATURE, which is a pure theoretical ABSTRACTION, cannot be accepted as the planets’ (or moons’) Mathematical CONSTRAINT:
Teffective = Tmean(maximum)
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earlier, bobdroege, posted this “description” of the GHE –
“I have already told you Swenson,
Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.
There, seventeen words.”
And yet, the surface cools every night, so bobdroege’s GHE has no effect at night, and the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, so it seems to have had no effect even after four and a half billion years of sunlight!
God obviously left the sixes and sevens out of bobdroege’s deck.
Either that, or he’s very good at pretending that he is retarded, and in denial of reality.
Swenson,
Why should the Greenhouse Effect stop something from cooling or heating due to other mechanisms.
You can do two things at once, like chew bubble gum and fart, right?
Some people can even juggle.
And you have no evidence that the Earth has cooled over the past 4 1/2 Billion years, there have been documented periods of warming during that period.
You do know the Earth was almost completely covered in ice at one point?
Bumbling Bobby,
Here’s your definition of the GHE –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.
There, seventeen words.”
You don’t really believe the Earth was totally covered by ice, do you? How would anybody know after the ice had melted? You dont bother thinking at all, do you? If you don’t want to believe that the Earth’s surface is no longer molten, good for you!
What a stupid attempt at avoiding the fact that you haven’t described the GHE at all! “Moar hotter moar better”? Really?
You idiot.
Swenson,
I was dumbing it down to your level.
“How would anybody know after the ice had melted?”
By looking at the rocks, the same way we know that the surface of the Earth was molten, because with one exception, we can’t find any rocks that were solid since the Earth was formed.
You want some pretty pictures?
https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2020/019892/great-unconformity
Bumbling Bobby,
I don’t believe you can tell if the sea floors were once covered by ice. Or sand, nor anything else, really. Yes, glaciers leave characteristic trails, but ice sitting on sand, laterite, schist etc., just melts. If you find a pot in your yard, how can you objectively determine whether it once held ice? Do you believe if you left the pot in the Sun long enough it would freeze? Maybe the ground under the pot?
Of course, your “snowball Earth” begs the question – why would the Earth decide to cool down, then heat up again? SkyDragon magic, perhaps?
At least you accept that the surface was molten. Now it’s not. It has cooled, whether you want to accept it or not.
Are you sticking with your GHE description –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”?
Idiot.
Swenson,
“I dont believe you can tell if the sea floors were once covered by ice.”
Did I say I believe the sea floors were once covered by ice?
Remember, ice floats.
Why would the Earth decide to cool down, does the Earth have a brain?
Maroon!
Bobby buffoon,
You posed the gotcha ” Did I say I believe the sea floors were once covered by ice?”. I don’t know. Did you?
And another “Why would the Earth decide to cool down, does the Earth have a brain?”. Once again, I don’t know. Are you as stupid as you seem?
Why would the Earth spontaneously heat up and cool down?
You wrote –
“And you have no evidence that the Earth has cooled over the past 4 1/2 Billion years, there have been documented periods of warming during that period.
You do know the Earth was almost completely covered in ice at one point?”
Do you just make up this nonsense about warming as you go, or do you really believe the Earth heats up, and becomes almost completely covered by ice because “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Fool.
Swenson,
These were responses to your idiocy
“You posed the gotcha Did I say I believe the sea floors were once covered by ice?. I dont know. Did you?
And another Why would the Earth decide to cool down, does the Earth have a brain?. Once again, I dont know. Are you as stupid as you seem?”
It seems to me, that you don’t understand that ice floats, otherwise why would you ask if I believed the sea floors were covered by ice, your question, dumbass.
You asked why the Earth would decide to cool down, like the Earth has a brain, and a consciousness, are you that dense, maybe so, I am beginning to think so.
If you don’t like my “stupid gotchas” stop posting drivel, you are beginning to sound like Gordon, not a good sign.
Bumbling Bobby buffoon,
You wrote –
“If you dont like my “stupid gotchas” . . .”
Did I say whether I liked you stupid gotchas or not? Do you really care?
Why are you an idiot?
The world wonders.
Swenson,
Stop posting drivel.
You wrote
“If you dont like my “stupid gotchas” . . .
Did I say whether I liked you stupid gotchas or not? Do you really care?
Why are you an idiot?
The world wonders.
After being served another description of the greenhouse effect, Mike Flynn deflects:
> GHE has no effect at night
Night temperatures are in fact warmer due to the greenhouse effect:
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/22/with-climate-change-nights-are-warming-faster-than-days-why/
What a moron!
Willard, you idiot, nights are cooler than days. Winter is colder than summer. You are talking about the effect of the atmosphere, which results in less diurnal variation than the airless Moon. As John Tyndall pointed out, without an atmosphere, water would boil during the day, and freeze at night.
Or are you claiming that the GHE is just another name for the atmosphere, like the “greenhouse effect” is just another name for something non-existent, but certainly nothing to do with greenhouses?
You can’t describe the greenhouse effect, you idiot. You should adopt the technique adopted by other delusional SkyDragon cultists – claim everybody has described it, but forgot to send you a copy.
Have you accepted that “cooling over time” is not getting hotter? If you haven’t, you are an idiot of the stupid variety.
Carry on.
Moron Mike,
Higher lows means there’s a warming trend.
One day you’ll get over it.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willard,
You wrote –
“Higher lows means theres a warming trend.”
A twelve your old knows that, you fool. Just like UHIs increase the global average.
Have you anything of use to contribute?
A description of the GHE, for example? Maybe you like bobdroege’s “definition” –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.
There, seventeen words.”
Or do you prefer your “cooling over time”?
You are an idiot, if you think that pointing out what young children know, makes you look intelligent.
Moron Mike,
Here you go:
https://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-morons
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, bobdroege wrote –
“Other energy transfers are going on at the same time, one of them being the transfer of energy from the Sun to the Earth which drives the whole climate, including the downwelling IR, which does add energy to the surface which becomes warmer.”
Bumbling Bobby doesn’t seem to to realise that the surface warms when exposed to sunlight. It’s called daytime, as opposed to nighttime, which occurs after the Sun has set.
No GHE required or needed.
bobdroege suffers from some mental defect which prevents him from accepting reality.
Sad.
Swenson,
You claim
“Bumbling Bobby doesnt seem to to realise that the surface warms when exposed to sunlight.”
That’s what I said here
“one of them being the transfer of energy from the Sun to the Earth”
You don’t understand that that happens during the day?
What a marooooooooooooooooooooooon!
Bumbling Bobby,
Thank you for informing me that sunlight makes the surface warmer, but I already knew that.
Now, you said that the definition of the GHE was “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”, which I didn’t know. However, I’m pleased to see you acknowledge that the GHE does not operate at night (there being no sunlight).
That must surely explain why the Earth is cooler now than when the surface was molten. As Baron Joseph Fourier pointed out a long time ago, at night the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s primordial heat. No worries about the Earth getting hotter, which is comforting.
By the way, is “marooooooooooooooooooooooon” some mentally defective way of trying to write “moron”?
Or are you just an idiot?
Swenson,
I am pleased to see that you acknowledge that there is a greenhouse effect.
It still operates at night, however, since there is still downwelling IR from the atmosphere at night since the surface is cooling at night.
As for the baron, what about those nights when the surface temperature doesn’t reach the low from the day before? Does the surface still lose all the heat from the previous day?
And the Earth is still getting hotter, see the graph at the top of the page.
Maroon with a few extra letters, as Bugs Bunny used to say.
Buffoon Bobby,
You wrote –
“I am pleased to see that you acknowledge that there is a greenhouse effect.”
You are obviously off with the fairies, and hallucinating. There is no greenhouse effect, you idiot.
As you agree, the surface cools at night. If you claim that the cooling is due to the greenhouse effect, your laughable GHE definition “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” doesn’t seem to make any more sense than before, particularly when the Sun isn’t shining.
You also attempted a stupid gotcha “Does the surface still lose all the heat from the previous day?”. Of course it does, idiot. Otherwise, the Earth would have got hotter, rather than cooler, over the past four and a half billion years.
I presume you don’t actually mean maroon, otherwise you would have written maroon. What has a brownish crimson colour to do with the fact that you are obviously a delusional idiot?
No wonder the US Navy let you go.
Idiot.
Swenson,
Well the Earth has gotten warmer over the last 44 years, see the graph at the top of the page, or do you not understand how to read a graph?
What if tonight’s low temperature is warmer than the previous night’s low temperature, does that mean that all the heat of the previous was lost?
Of course not maroon.
Bugs was just trying to be polite and not call Elmer a moron.
But then you are both.
Funny thing is, you don’t know that the Earth had a molten surface when it formed, you actually have no evidence for that either way.
Since it formed from cold interstellar dust.
Sucks for you don’t it.
Bereft Bobby,
You wrote –
“Well the Earth has gotten warmer over the last 44 years, . . . ”
Well, no, it hasn’t. The Earth has cooled, being a big blob of rock – more that 99% of which is glowing hot – sitting in space a long way from the Sun.
You are obviously confused, your normal state. Some thermometers are responding to the anthropogenic heat of eight billion people, by recording higher temperatures. That’s what they are designed to do.
You said “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
What a dimwitted statement! Reducing the amount of sunlight makes the thermometer colder, you fool!
What are you, some sort of reality denying delusional SkyDragon cultist? Babbling about “moar hotter moar better” indicates your level of stupidity, and not much more!
Carry on.
Swenson,
Anthropogenic heat of 8 billion people?
Got a calculation for that, and a calculation for the input of the Sun, and a comparison.
You are dribbling in your Maypo again.
Blundering Bobby,
You wrote –
“Got a calculation for that, and a calculation for the input of the Sun, and a comparison.”
Don’t need any calculation, do I? Four and a half billion years of sunlight didn’t stop the Earth cooling to its present temperature. Half of the Earth is always in darkness, radiating energy away continuously. Cooling.
On the other hand, eight billion people create heat night and day.
Maybe you are one of those idiots who deny anthropogenic heat can affect thermometers. I wouldn’t be surprised.
Can you come up with a slightly less stupid gotcha?
Maybe you could define the GHE as “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”, and just ignore the fact that the sun doesn’t shine at night – like some of the idiots at NASA!
Give it a try.
Good, it’s great that we have the waste heat of 8 billion people, so I don’t need a furnace to keep me warm in the winter.
What a maroon!
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Here’s some interesting real world data. Unusual warming detected in the Earths oceans recently:
https://twitter.com/BMcNoldy/status/1668255350305193985
https://twitter.com/MichaelRLowry/status/1669367789730013194
We might experience another exceptionally warm El Nino this time around.
Mikey F posts so much rubbish, I am surprised he hasn’t started arguing with himself.
He did, many times.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Off with the fairies again, are you?
You are the sort of idiot who makes bizarre unsupported allegations against figments of your imagination.
Oh well, if you think it encourages people to think you are wise and respected, why not?
Are you sticking to your assertion that the GHE is “cooling over time” – presumably as opposed to “instantaneous cooling”, which, once again, is a figment of your imagination.
Dream on, laddie!
Moron Mike,
Remember all the times that you asked for your silly sammich are received as response your own words?
Remember how you played dumb?
Fun times.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
G,
I’m sure Mikey F (whoever that is) is astonished at your surprise. Do you think he values your opinion, or are you just babbling for no particular reason?
Mike Flynn,
“Mikey F” refers to you.
Deceitful cretin.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Sky Dragon Cranks Use this One Weird Trick
[W] Another way to diagnose Gaslighting Grahams intentional (lets not kid ourselves here) failure to understand is with quantifier scope.
[GG] Note the “always”
[2LOT] Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process.
“Net” means overall, if we compare the beginning and the end of a process. The “always” refers to that net effect. It does not mean or imply every single interval of time within that process. Objects are not processes, and 2LOT only applies to objects and processes when viewed as systems.
Compare and contrast:
[TAX] Money can transfer from the gumint to any tax payer either by transfer of subsidy or other kind of tax exemption, but the net transfer will be from tax payers to the gubmint in any country that does not print free money.
In other words, Gaslighting Graham indeed fails to understand quantifier scope.
You’ve completely got the wrong end of the stick about what I was saying. Completely.
There’s no talking to you, though. So…think what you like.
Manual pingback:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499262
It’s about time Graham stops gaslighting about the various meanings of “always.”
For God’s sake.
Gaslighting Graham spilled the beans right here:
Indeed one can, when managing the quantifiers properly. Always, on net. OVERALL. For the WHOLE damn process.
Like with state budget. On net, tax payers as a whole can’t get more money (after tax) than what they give the gubmint. That does not imply that every single god damn transaction need to be negative. That does not imply the gubmint can’t build roads either.
There is only one interpretation here. That Graham can’t see that is beyond me. So he’s gaslighting once again.
This is the whole point of saying that an atom does not decide what it does depending on the temperature it feels. It just emits.
Silly stupid slippery slope.
Little Willy, you’re so confused you’re never going to find your way back to what I was actually saying…
…and because this is me, you’ll assume I’m "gaslighting" you by saying this.
I can’t win. Nothing I say ever gets through to you. Please just stop this.
Poor Graham. Forever the victim.
Winning would be easy for him – he just have to prove that there is an inconsistency in what I have been saying. But he won’t, for there is none.
All he has is his own silly pea and thimble game around a basic quantifier. Which he would spot immediately if he understood that the God Damn 2LOT is a freaking (differential) equation! I mean, physicists all over the world F A I L E D to spot the 2LOT violation that he himself, along a few fellow Sky Dragon cranks, spotted.
And all this without even groking equations. Or even studied never studied logic, and with it quantifier scope:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_(logic)
God this is silly.
I wasn’t challenging the GHE in the thread you’ve branched off from, Little Willy. You have completely and utterly got the wrong end of the stick.
You’re an idiot. Seriously. You can’t follow even a basic discussion. Let alone anything more complicated. Please just stop trolling me.
Poor Graham. Forever the victim.
He has been misrepresenting the “hot to cold” principle for years. He is misrepresenting it once again. Nobody is not married to Graham’s misrepresentation of that line except Sky Dragon cranks.
When we say that cold can’t move to hot, it is on net. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object. For that to obtain, there needs to be work involved. So OVERALL, a cold system will not transfer more energy to a hotter system than the hotter system will transfer back. So of course the TL;DR is that cold can’t get to hot, but when this is properly understood.
It is a budget thing. The same silly mistake as with the energy balance thing.
The stupid in Sky Dragon cranks, it burns more than the Sun’s UV.
> Nobody is not married
Erm.
Nobody is married, of course.
I was not saying what you seem to think I was saying.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
His argument as simple as it is ridiculous.
If one claims that cold can’t get to hot, then there’s no need to invoke any other consideration. And Bob sometimes say that cold can’t get to hot. So Bob would arguably got to choose: either he continues saying that cold can’t get to hot, or he drops it.
The problem is that Graham forgets that he’s misrepresenting what Bob says. He’s not saying “never” as in “at absolutely no point in time.” He means ON FUCKING NET. Heat transfer at a molecular level is a statistical thing. Hence why Clausius and others never really were satisfied with the damn law.
Silly punk.
Incorrect and incoherent, Little Willy. Please go back to the beginning of the discussion, and read through, carefully, until you understand.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again.
And that’s all he has left:
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
So our pathetic loser is asserting that (1) is inconsistent with (2).
That is false, for he overinterprets the meaning of ever.
Ever, not as in at every single point in time for every single heat exchange in the universe.
Ever, as in its always the result. ON NET.
In other words, this is an observational principle.
Pathetic loser of a troll.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499295
Pathetic loser of a troll.
Again, that is incorrect and incoherent, Little Willy. Please go back to the beginning of the discussion, and read through, carefully, until you understand.
(ESTR) *Quotes the whole argument, with the emphasizing the quantifier used for the exploit.*
(VLAD) You have misunderstood everything. Go back and read again.
Pathetic loser of a gaslighting troll.
For the third time, that is incorrect and incoherent, Little Willy. Please go back to the beginning of the discussion, and read through, carefully, until you understand.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, oblivious to the fact that “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body” is perfectly fine as it is, and is perfectly well understood by everyone except Sky Dragon cranks.
Graham is a pathetic loser.
You have absolutely no understanding of what point I was making. I’m correct. Try going back to the beginning and reading through, until you get it. Perhaps try to increase your intellect and knowledge of physics to the requisite level as well.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once more.
Compare and contrast:
[GG1] It can’t be both.
[GG2] There’s no need for you people to invoke this if your argument is that heat only ever flows from hot to cold in the GHE!
After denial comes bargaining.
Once again, you have absolutely no understanding of what point I was making. I’m correct. Try going back to the beginning and reading through, until you get it. Perhaps try to increase your intellect and knowledge of physics to the requisite level as well.
Once again, Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting.
Bob wins another round of Climateball against this pathetic loser.
For the third time, you have absolutely no understanding of what point I was making. I’m correct. Try going back to the beginning and reading through, until you get it. Perhaps try to increase your intellect and knowledge of physics to the requisite level as well.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499345
I’ve spelled it all out for you once again. Perhaps you’ll get it this time.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again.
He hasn’t spelled out anything. He simply asserted that there was a contradiction where there is none.
I spelled out why starting on June 15, 2023 at 2:07 PM. I also diagnozed his logical mistake earlier today.
Gaslighting Graham is a pathetic loser.
DREMT,
That’s right, you can’t win.
You are denying settled science from the 19th century.
Absolutely not, bob. I’m not even challenging the GHE in this discussion. In this discussion, I’m summarizing two positions that I’ve seen people argue on the GHE, and pointing out that they contradict each other. Position number 1) you argued earlier. Position number 2) has been argued by plenty of people.
True, Bob.
DREMT points out a difference in purported positions using DREMT’s own physically incorrect wording so it is true that DREMT cannot win on the physics.
You’re in my thread, B4.
Get lost.
The two positions are:
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.
The GHE Defense Team needs to pick a position, and stick with it.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Well, at least he stopped trying to pretend he was misunderstood.
Obviously you had absolutely no idea what was even being discussed, Little Willy, as the readers can plainly see from your earlier comments.
Obviously Gaslighting Graham has difficulties keeping his false dichotomies straight. First it was:
Now it’s:
Gaslighting Graham can’t shoot straight.
The latter is just a more detailed version of the former. I had assumed people would have been able to work out the latter from the former, along with additional comments such as:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499014
and
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499245
Those reading back carefully through the discussion, as I suggested, would have understood.
All those “reading back carefully through the discussion” please so indicate in comments.
Ball4 troll, begone.
Gaslighting Graham acts as if it was his thread.
It’s not.
I’ll do as I please, forever.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Absolutely not, no.
And again.
False.
Again.
Incorrect.
“His (1) refers to internal energy whilst his (2) is only external.”
Incorrect, Little Willy. The rest of your comment fails accordingly.
And… again.
Wrong.
Again and again.
Not in the least, no.
And again!
I’m not gaslighting to say I’ll do as I please.
Gaslighting Graham pretends he is no better than Mike Flynn.
This is gaslighting.
Little Willy announces what he’s doing.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again, this time with a No U.
You are the one that gaslights. Always.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once more.
No, he won’t do as he pleases. He is constrained by some rational principles. At least that’s what he pretends through his persona.
Though sometimes it’s “bleedingly obvious” that he stretches this constraint beyond the limits of justified disingenuousness.
Once again, you are the one that gaslights. Always.
Gaslighting Graham started by trying to pretend I did not read his argument. That made me quote its multiple versions.
Then Gaslighting Graham tried to pretend that I did not understand it. That made him change its formulation.
When will Graham stop gaslighting?
Probly never.
By saying “never” I’m not implying that he’s gaslighting every single second of his existence, it should go without saying.
Wink wink.
You demonstrated upthread that you either did not read, or did not understand, my argument. I am still not convinced you understand. That’s not my fault, or problem.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
And he continues downthread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499728
I am still not convinced you understand. That’s not my fault, or problem.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499791
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Obviously Gaslighting Graham has absolutely no idea what he even wishes to relitigate, as the readers can plainly see from his comments.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499382
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499385
Perhaps Little Willy has finally worked out that what I was actually saying was not what he thought I was saying. Of course, he can never admit that he was wrong. This is as close as we’ll get to that happening. Good that there’s a permanent internet record of his failure, though.
Perhaps Graham should have worked out that he’s only trying to suggest that either Sun works or there is a greenhouse effect, but not both. Which is overly silly however Sky Dragon cranks wish to slice it. Of course it can be both. It *is* both.
No wonder he needs to keep obfuscating the issue by trying to gaslight anyone who stands in his trolling way.
Another misrepresentation. Looks like he still doesn’t understand. Comical.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once more:
(1) is simply that the greenhouse effect is work done by the Sun.
(2) is simply that the greenhouse effect is backradiation.
Since we know that the greenhouse effect involves both and that (1) alone is absurd (think about it!), Gaslighting Graham’s whole charade once again fizzles.
We can give him points for his baroque writing style.
One of them involves heat flowing from cold to hot whilst the other involves heat only ever flowing from hot to cold. So no, they cannot both be correct at the same time. You would think that would be obvious.
Here is bob arguing 1), by the way:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1497641
and
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1498861
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once more:
His (1) refers to internal energy whilst his (2) is only external. The two stances are thus completely compatible. What we observe outside a system is independent from its inner processes.
Besides, backradiation is downward longwave radiation. The atmosphere is cold yet it radiates back to Earth. For that to happen, some work needs to be done there too.
Thus his (1) and (2) are two sides of the same coin.
So as usual, Gaslighting Graham can’t even follow his own train of thought.
And here is Bob supporting what I just said:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1498851
And for good measures, here is where this will go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1498857
So once again Gaslighting Graham will simply retrace what has been said already.
“His (1) refers to internal energy whilst his (2) is only external.”
Incorrect, Little Willy. The rest of your comment fails accordingly.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again.
Backradiation is observational:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
It’s a phenomenon.
Heat transfer at molecular level for the whole of the God damn Solar system is not observable!
Yes, back-radiation is observed. In 1), the GHE defender treats it as a flow of heat from cold to hot, but justifies this by saying that there is another change occurring at the same time, that being work done by the Sun.
In 2) the GHE defender treats it as a flow of energy from cold to hot, but not heat. The GHE defender insists that the flow of heat is always from hot to cold, but this back-radiation flow just effectively reduces the heat loss from the warmer surface. Since the surface is continually heated by the Sun, the reduction in the rate of heat loss from it causes it to warm (they argue).
Two completely different and incompatible stances. The GHE Defense Team needs to pick one, and stick to it.
Gaslighting Graham fools himself once again.
It’s quite possible for the greenhouse effect to “ever” involve the transfer of heat from hot to cold, viz. Graham’s original (2), and a transfer of heat from cold to hot involving “Sun doing work on the system,” viz. Graham’s original (1). All Graham needs is to understand his “ever” properly, i.e. as abiding by Clausius’ principle. And as Bob already observed, the only way to interpret his (2) properly is to make room for Clausius’ principle anyway.
Graham’s butchering of backradiation makes that last point quite obvious.
Most people would have just gone, “oh, I see what you mean now…sorry”. Little Willy instead opts for writing ever more nonsensical posts in a desperate attempt to avoid ever admitting he was wrong.
Most good hearted trolls would say –
“Oh, Sorry Bob. You’re right. I’m deliberately trying not to understand. I like trolling you. My bad.”
No. He has to keep gaslighting.
You really lose your shit whenever I show bob to be wrong about something, don’t you, Little Willy?
That has never happened DREMT
The two positions are complementary, not contradictory.
Sorry
Wrong, bob, as explained.
True, Bob.
No, he’s wrong, as explained.
Funny how Grahams pseudo-contradiction evolved.
As if he learned something from Bob, perhaps even B4.
There is still hope.
It’s painfully obvious to anyone reading that the two positions are contradictory, no matter how much you and bob try to gaslight me otherwise.
It’s painfully obvious that instead of correcting his misinterpretation of a simple stupid modality by tightening his argument, Gaslighting Graham expanded it into versions that does not even look like the first draft anymore.
Perhaps he should work on his theory according to which the non-radiative gases are the real radiative gases instead.
Nothing really changed, Little Willy, I just included the detail I had assumed was already understood.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again. This time, he’ll have to do the work himself. Readers will observe that at first, backradiation wasn’t mentioned. Then it was mentioned for (2). Then it was mentioned in (1) and (2). Meanwhile heat and energy got finally distinguished, as if it would salvage his silly point.
Nate has the right of it: the Sky Dragon Crank argument “is largely based on the oft-repeated argument that the GHE violates 2LOT, because it involves a “transfer of heat from cold atmosphere to warm surface.””
Thus Gaslighting Graham is trying to own the Clausius Principle. Sky Dragon cranks won’t have it. Or if they do, they’ll have to share it with everyone else.
But first he has to understand it properly.
Once again, nothing really changed, Little Willy, I just included the detail I had assumed was already understood.
Once again Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting.
He has yet to prove that either versions of his false dichotomy fails the Clausius principle, and not a misrepresentation of it. We know that Sky Dragon cranks keep misrepresenting the Clausius principle. And we also know that he misrepresents the time modality.
It’s entry-level editing work to see that Graham is just confused.
Nobody reading has a clue what Little Willy is on about. Which is par for the course with Little Willy.
Either Graham proves that one of his versions of the greenhouse effect breaks Clausius principle, or he has no case.
When will he try?
After a bit of gaslighting is my prediction.
My case is simply that GHE defenders argue positions that are contradictory. I have successfully made that case.
Either two interpretations abide by physics, in which case they are compatible, or they don’t. Graham argues (or rather asserts) that two interpretations of the greenhouse effect are incompatible. So instead of gaslighting as is his wont, Graham has to show how one of the interpretations does not abide by physics.
The only bit of physics he invoked is the Clausius principle.
This is not rocket science. It’s just logic.
They are contradictory in that both cannot be correct, at the same time. It is also the case that both could be incorrect, of course. Though this discussion is not about challenging the GHE.
DREMT,
You have not show why either statement is incorrect.
Sorry for your loss.
Either two interpretations are compatible, or they are not. Most if not all common interpretations of quantum mechanics are compatible. It’s not even clear there’s one Copenhagen interpretation. As long as an interpretation works for the same formalism and the same phenomena, scientists don’t really care about that kind of thing.
Besides, Graham’s assertion, when interpreted as a pedagogical injunction (as he did himself when he was bargaining), would make little sense. It is by multiplying cognitive models that understanding is reinforced. Otherwise it leads to rigid trains of thought.
Come to think of it, that may explain Sky Dragon crankery!
OK, bob.
1) is incorrect because the Sun is not doing work that facilitates the transfer of heat from cold to hot in the GHE. You mentioned the Sun driving convection, upthread, but that only involves heat transfer from hot to cold.
2) is incorrect because radiative insulation functions via reflectivity, and not absorp.tion/emission.
DREMT 10:33 am 1) wording is physically wrong because the sun is driving the earthen atm. climate relevant processes. For example, electricity is driving a refrigerator in the home. Stop either energy source and the relevant processes stop.
DREMT 10:33 am 2) wording is physically wrong, for example, because home insulation has a thin partially reflective layer on top of a much thicker trapped air cell partially insulating layer made of foam, fiberglass, and/or cellulose.
DREMT,
“1) is incorrect”
Convection transfers heat from the surface to the atmosphere, which then allows CO2 to emit IR which causes the surface to become warmer.
So 1) is correct
2) is incorrect because radiative insulation functions via reflectivity, and not absorp.tion/emission.
Incorrect, radiative insulation functions through both mechanisms.
Back to the drawing board.
I’m happy with what I said, Ball4. Good to see you agree with me on 2), providing an example of radiative insulation functioning via reflectivity.
Besides, 1) and 2) can definitely not both be correct, since they’re contradictory.
Sorry bob, the Sun driving convection only facilitates heat transfer from hot to cold. It does not facilitate heat transfer from cold to hot. It does not assist the GHGs in somehow warming the surface.
As for 2):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[1] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
Here is an example of a contradiction:
(1) It’s the Sun, stupid
(2) the Sun driving convection only facilitates heat transfer
No, that would be an example of a misrepresentation.
DREMT 11:02 am admits being happy to be wrong. Very entertaining.
In 2), the partially reflective thin shiny aluminum layer found on some home insulation still is highly conductive so the trapped air cell thick insulation made of foam, fiberglass, and/or cellulose is useful to further reduce home heating & cooling bills.
Indeed, the part of the insulation that is radiative functions via the reflectivity of the material. Thanks for your support, Ball4.
Partially reflective; even a non-accomplished entertaining squirrel will find a nut every now and then.
Thanks for your support on 2), Ball4.
I guess that means you are going for 1) as being the correct GHE description. They cannot possibly both be correct since they are contradictory.
Other than that, you are dismissed. Thank you.
Another example of compatible claims:
(1) Radiative insulation functions through both mechanisms.
(2) Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier, or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.
The logical operator that Gaslighting Graham misinterprets this time is “or.”
He also overinterprets the reduction of conduction, but that can wait.
No, Little Willy, you have got yourself all confused again.
bob meant that he thinks radiative insulation functions via both reflectivity, and absorp.tion/emission.
Conductive insulation is another matter entirely, removed from the issue, and irrelevant to it.
“bob meant that he thinks radiative insulation functions via both reflectivity, and absorp.tion/emission.”
bob is correct, no material thing is totally reflective; the shiny aluminum on home insulation also experiences “absorp.tion/emission” at all frequencies and temperatures.
I didn’t say that any material thing is totally reflective, Ball4. However, the degree to which any material thing radiative insulates is the degree to which it is reflective.
Agreed on degree. Works same with cloud albedo in the atm. Hooray! DREMT has learned to occasionally correctly comment on the basic radiative physics.
Just going to ignore any further responses, and wait for a response from bob. This is getting ridiculous.
I say radiative insulation and DREMT posted a link to thermal insulation.
That’s an epic fail.
Convection transfers energy to the CO2 up higher in the atmosphere than the surface, allowing the CO2 to radiation more IR than it would without that convection.
Another epic fail,
2 for 2, you are batting a thousand.
"I say radiative insulation and DREMT posted a link to thermal insulation…"
…which mentions radiative insulation and that it works by radiation being "reflected rather than absorbed".
"Convection transfers energy to the CO2 up higher in the atmosphere than the surface, allowing the CO2 to radiation more IR than it would without that convection"
Sorry bob, the Sun driving convection only facilitates heat transfer from hot to cold. It does not facilitate heat transfer from cold to hot. It does not assist the GHGs in somehow warming the surface. I can repeat that as many times as is necessary.
You are still trying to defend both positions, even though they are contradictory, and thus cannot possibly both be correct. Logic goes out of the window completely when it comes to defending the GHE, I note.
I note that Gaslighting Graham is shifting from the empty assertion that both of his baroque claims are contradictory to the more cheeky one that they that both are false.
Intriguing twist!
Of course I think both are false, I don’t think there’s a GHE!
That doesn’t change the fact that the positions are contradictory. They cannot both be correct…but they can both be false.
Gaslighting Graham almost forgets his wish not to relitigate the greenhouse effect at the beginning.
However, the fact that he’s now relitigating will help display his misunderstanding of Clausius principle, which is at the root of all of Sky Dragon cranks cognitive difficulties.
I didn’t want to discuss whether or not there’s a GHE for the seventieth time, but you lot insisted and repeatedly baited me into it. However, I’m perfectly happy to skip the GHE discussion and just continuously point out that GHE defenders support contradictory positions on the GHE. I am happy to do so over and over again, until you stop responding to me.
Poor Graham, forever the victim.
Another reading for his shift is that it happened right after Bob showed that the statements he asserted as contradictory were in fact quite compatible. Witness:
[B] You have not show why either statement is incorrect.
[G] OK, bob. (1) is incorrect because … (2) is incorrect because…
bob has never shown that the positions are compatible, and they are not compatible.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499454
Ah, what the hell.
Let’s speed things up:
[G] They are contradictory in that both cannot be correct
This is what prompted Bob to challenge Graham.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499876
Oh, and here’s where Bob showed that the two claims are quite compatble:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1498983
This comment also explains why Gaslighting Graham suddenly switched from heat to energy this morning.
No, bob did not show there that the positions are compatible. bob has never shown that the positions are compatible, and they are not compatible.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499454
Another comment where Bob explains away Gaslighting Graham’s false dichotomy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1498851
So Nate is right once again – all this because Sky Dragon cranks believe that the greenhouse effect breaks Clausius’ principle.
Let the record show who was baiting whom
“and the silence from Nate and bob is deafening.”
and
“Just going to ignore any further responses, and wait for a response from bob. This is getting ridiculous.”
Once again, no, bob did not show there that the positions are compatible. bob has never shown that the positions are compatible, and they are not compatible.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499454
Once again Gaslighting Graham keeps asserting without proof that both descriptions of the greenhouse effect contradict one another, except by misreading Clausius’ principle.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499700
Of course the positions contradict each other:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499454
Of course Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting once again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499251
The contradiction only appears in his misreading of Clausius’ principle.
False. You really will just say anything.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499454
Graham gaslights again, oblivious to the fact that “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body” is perfectly fine as it is, and is perfectly well understood by everyone except Sky Dragon cranks. Both descriptions satisfy this principle, when correctly interpreted. Which Graham fails.
Graham is a pathetic loser.
I should not have to take this abuse from anyone.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham should have stopped gaslighting a long time ago.
He won’t, for he is a pathetic loser.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I am still not convinced you understand. That’s not my fault, or problem.
I am not convinced that Gaslighting Graham is not gaslighting once again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
1) is true because it is straight out of the Clausius statement of the second law of thermodynamics.
2) is a non-sequitur because the Greenhouse Effect is about the transfer of energy from cold to hot, not the transfer of heat from hot to cold. But it’s true because there is a transfer of heat from hot to cold occurring in the atmosphere.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499766
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499802
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499866
Exactly, Bob.
All that remains is Graham’s misunderstanding of Clausius’ principle.
Exactly, DREMT. You have already refuted bob’s arguments, and you have already demonstrated that you understand Clausius’ statement of 2LoT just fine.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
All he needs is to return to Clausius principle.
I am done with your false accusations, Little Willy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
At this point we are past accusations. Graham has been shown to be gaslighting. Time and time again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499289
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Here is another refutation from Bob:
(1) and (2) are indeed compatible.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499469
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499914
“(1) and (2) are indeed compatible.”
This does not at all follow from what you quoted, by the way. You are just at the stage of randomly quoting stuff and pretending it supports you.
“Some other change can be many things, such as the transfer of energy from hot to cold…”
Citation needed for that, by the way. I’ve heard of the “other change” being work done, of course, but “the transfer of energy from hot to cold”? No.
Gaslighting Graham once again just says stuff and asks for room service.
Nobody deserves to be gaslighting like that.
I think we have heard more than enough from you on this subject, Little Willy. These are the two positions, again:
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.
The GHE Defense Team needs to pick a position, and stick with it. That’s all I’m saying. It never required a five hundred comment discussion, or however many it’s been…but there you go. I can’t seem to say anything on here without there being some sort of unnecessary uproar.
I think we have had enough gaslighting by Graham for a few lifetimes.
The long and short of it is that Graham is misrepresenting the Clausius principle. All the descriptions of the greenhouse effect abide by it. The inconsistency Graham claims he found is in his own fantasy world of the ridiculous Sky Dragon crank that he is.
There is nothing behind that silly episode.
“The long and short of it is that Graham is misrepresenting the Clausius principle“.
False.
The long and the short of it is that the two positions are obviously contradictory. Someone like Nate would probably endorse the second description, but not the first, and would recognise the contradiction between them. They would just never dare to say so, because that would go against you and bob, and members of the GHE Defense Team must never, ever, argue amongst themselves. Instead, Nate will probably be along soon to bring up MLI.
Meanwhile, Ball4 rejects both, because they use the word “heat”.
It is as if Gaslighting Graham does not even realize that his hot-cold/cold-hot trick has not been obvious right from the start.
His two cases satisfy Clausius principle. On net, it is always from hit to cold.
Always, on net. Not at every moment, everywhere, all the time, including at quantum state.
Very silly gaslighting.
It is as if Gaslighting Graham does not even realize that his hot-cold/cold-hot trick has not been obvious right from the start. His two cases satisfy Clausius principle. On net, it is always from hit to cold. Always, on net. Not at every moment, everywhere, all the time, including at quantum state. Very silly gaslighting.
There is no such thing as “net heat”, Little Willy. It’s not like you have a flow of heat in one direction, and a flow of heat in the other direction, and then take the net, to get “net heat”. There is a flow of energy in one direction, and a flow of energy in the other direction, and then “heat” is the net of that.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again, this time by trying to channel B4’s pedantry.
The greenhouse effect abides by basically Clausius principle. The Clausius principle states that heat transfers from hot to cold on net. The Sun does some work and backradiation works by insulation.
There. (1) and (2) made compatible.
Gaslighting Graham is really not bright.
1) and 2) are not compatible, and there is no such thing as “net heat”. The Sun does thermodynamic work, but none that facilitates the transfer of heat from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface.
Gaslighting Graham channels B4’s pedantry once again. We should thank B4 for that. Whether heat is a noun or a verb or an adjective won’t save Graham’s misunderstanding of Clausius principle.
The one-way transfer from hot to cold objects only applies on net. Else there is always work involved. Always, on net. The two modalities goes together. They are in the scope of each other. As said earlier, Graham sucks at logic.
Both (1) and (2) abides by Clausius principle, and are thus compatible. Only in Graham’s mind either breaks it.
1) and 2) are not compatible. Those readers needing a more detailed account of the energy flows will find them here, and will hopefully see the contradiction even clearer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499469
“The Clausius principle states that heat transfers from hot to cold on net.”
Not physical. That is using Willard’s unphysical defn. of heat. Everyone seems to have their own defn. of an imaginary substance called “heat” as used in DREMT’s incorrect 1) and 2).
Using Clausius defn. of heat a measure of an object’s internal energy is transferred both ways producing universe entropy each way as in Planck’s cited experiments with radiation thus in accord with Clausius’ 2LOT.
DREMT, there is no ONE correct defn. of GHE that you seek since there are many different types of GHEs. The right thing to do is give up your quest for one, and only one, correct GHE defn. and learn to practice the basic science to figure out which description is correct for each experiment.
Gaslighting Graham armwaves his way to more gaslighting.
“A flow of heat from cold to hot.” “A flow of energy from cold to hot, but not heat.” Pure crap.
Graham’s interpretation skills are worse than B4’s casuistry.
We witness transfer from hot to cold in the atmosphere. Work must be involved if we are to abide by Clausius principle.
There is nothing else to this current Climateball episode.
> That is using Willards unphysical defn. of heat.
Quote it, sock puppet.
I welcome Willard to be able to point out any unsound or non-experimentally based physics reasoning in any of my comments.
“We witness transfer from hot to cold in the atmosphere. Work must be involved if we are to abide by Clausius principle.”
Presumably you mean transfer of energy from cold to hot…and no, no work need be involved unless it is heat that is being transferred from cold to hot.
If you did mean hot to cold, no work need be involved whether the transfer is of energy or heat.
> I welcome
You’re not welcome in my thread, pedant sock puppet.
You said I had a definition.
Quote it.
I did quote it 11:06 am, perhaps Willard missed it.
There was no definition in your 11:06 am comment, pedant sock puppet.
So Willard now comments there is “no definition” of the words Willard wrote & I quoted at 11:06 am. No one can then understand what Willard wrote.
I will point out the words I use have authoritative science definitions accessible on the internet to all readers accomplished enough in physics to do the research.
Our pedant sock puppet claimed I had a definition of heat.
For some reason he can’t produce it.
Quite a pedant sock puppet we have here!
Already produced as Willard wrote: “The Clausius principle states that heat transfers from hot to cold on net.”
So out most pedant sock puppet can’t produce a definition.
Heat transfer. Heat transfers.
Our most pedant sock puppet has a pet peeve against the word “heat.”
No pet peeve, maybe some irreverence, since I quoted Willard’s own words verbatim thus the named author must have been “using Willard’s unphysical defn. of heat.” unless Willard now chooses to disown his original comment and update the comment to actually use Clausius’ own definition of words Clausius employed.
> No pet peeve
Of course not:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-222973
Vintage 2016-08.
Who does our pedant sock puppet think he’s kidding?
#3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
No kidding Willard, objects do not contain heat, they contain measurable KE. On avg. as measured by thermometer.
A bit later:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-222981
The “you” in question was Mighty Tim.
No pet peeve at all from our pedant sock puppet!
I guess Little Willy stands corrected by my 11:19 AM comment.
No need to guess that Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
You don’t stand corrected by it? If not, what is your response?
Gee, with this:
“Presumably you mean transfer of energy from cold to hotand no, no work need be involved unless it is heat that is being transferred from cold to hot.”
And his lengthy defense of this:
“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.”
it seems DREMT genuinely now gets why the GHE doesnt violate 2LOT.
Miracles are possible.
Manual pingback:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1500720
Ah, I see our resident “last worder” troll tried to sneak in another last word. Presumably he wrote that he is in direct disagreement with bob, who supports 1) and rejects 2), since Nate supports 2) and rejects 1). I expect he would have had the integrity to argue against Little Willy, who still cannot even understand that 1) and 2) are contradictory. Finally, I fully expect that he will have a response to bob, who wrote about 2) that:
“I also have a hard spot with this statement of yours.
“All the extra back-radiation from increased CO2 does is reduce the rate of heat loss away from the surface.”
Because the back-radiation adds energy to the surface, it does not prevent the surface from radiating, nor does it affect the rate of heat loss.
You continue to work really hard to misunderstand the science.”
Poor bob seemed not to realise that I don’t actually think 2) is correct…bless him.
True, Nate.
True, DREMT.
Let’s see if DREMT will be able to apply his new thinking such as this:
“Presumably you mean transfer of energy from cold to hot and no, no work need be involved unless it is heat that is being transferred from cold to hot.”
directly to the GPE, and realize that it too, does not violate 2LOT.
Yes, miracles of logical thinking can happen, but are often thwarted by ideological thinking.
Once again, I see our resident “last worder” troll tried to sneak in another last word. Presumably he wrote that he is in direct disagreement with bob, who supports 1) and rejects 2), since Nate supports 2) and rejects 1). I expect he would have had the integrity to argue against Little Willy, who still cannot even understand that 1) and 2) are contradictory. Finally, I fully expect that he will have a response to bob, who wrote about 2) that:
“I also have a hard spot with this statement of yours.
“All the extra back-radiation from increased CO2 does is reduce the rate of heat loss away from the surface.”
Because the back-radiation adds energy to the surface, it does not prevent the surface from radiating, nor does it affect the rate of heat loss.
You continue to work really hard to misunderstand the science.”
Poor bob seemed not to realise that I don’t actually think 2) is correct…bless him.
Exactly, Nate.
Worse is that for some reason Gaslighting Graham believes that Bob would dispute that the Greenhouse Effect is about the transfer of energy from cold to hot, not the transfer of heat from hot to cold.
Perhaps his “the Greenhouse Effect is about the transfer of energy from cold to hot, not the transfer of heat from hot to cold” was not clear enough.
I go with the fact that bob has been relentlessly defending 1), which is the idea that the GHE involves the transfer of heat from cold to hot. Of course, he is free to argue against himself.
Gaslighting Graham presumes that his contradiction holds, and from it infers that Bob and Nate disagrees. So he has been begging the question all along.
Thus of course he’ll reject whatever direct evidence that Bob and Nate agree with one another. Which means that his usual egocentrism is kicking in.
bob and Nate agree on many things. What they disagree on, here, is now a matter of permanent internet record, however.
Yet Gaslighting Graham brags about not having read half of that record. Meanwhile:
[MYSTERY MAN] The two positions are complementary, not contradictory.
#4
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Once again, I see our resident last worder troll tried to sneak in another last word.”
Gee, if I have the nerve to post in a discussion where my name and quotes are brought up dozens of times, that can only be with evil intent and ulterior motives!
Of course, to suggest that in any discussion with DREMT that I would compete for the prestigious last-wording prize is quite insane!
…please stop trolling.
Yes, please take your own advice.
Yet again, I see our resident “last worder” troll has tried to slip in a last word. Has he actually contributed anything of value to this discussion over the last couple of days? I remember back when I used to read his comments he would frequently leave snide, bitchy little remarks rather than actually contribute anything of value. Is that what he’s been doing over the last couple of days? Has he even addressed the fact that he disagrees with bob? Has he had the integrity to set Little Willy straight? Somehow, I doubt it.
As ever, DREMT plays the victim card, while most if not all of his posts are grievances about his opponents imagined nefarious intent or lengthy campaigns with the sole purpose of humiliating others.
…I remember back when I used to read his comments he would frequently leave snide, bitchy little remarks rather than actually contribute anything of value. Is that what he’s been doing over the last couple of days? Has he even addressed the fact that he disagrees with bob? Has he had the integrity to set Little Willy straight? Somehow, I doubt it.
True, Nate.
Exactly, Nate.
It’s as if Gaslighting Graham wasn’t asking you to fight Bob over his own misunderstanding while warning he won’t read your comments.
That’s right, I’m not doing that.
If the Sun doesn’t do thermodynamic work, how can the surface of the Earth reach temperatures 5 times the temperature of the surface of the Sun?
https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-temperature#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20lightning%20can%20heat,the%20surface%20of%20the%20sun).
Nobody is arguing that the Sun doesn’t do thermodynamic work, bob. What is being argued is that the work the Sun does, does not facilitate the transfer of heat from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface.
Half of the GHE Defense Team would agree, too, bob…because they would go with position 2) rather than position 1).
Really DREMT,
2 isn’t the greenhouse effect at all.
I was arguing against the absurd position that the Greenhouse Effect violates the second law of thermodynamics.
Because you know the denier position is heat can never be transferred from cold to hot.
Obviously it can.
Yes, really, bob. 2) is a description of the GHE that I have seen both Nate and barry endorse, before. Maybe Norman and Entropic Man too. Probably others.
“Because you know the denier position is heat can never be transferred from cold to hot”.
No, that is not the correct position. The position of the GHE skeptics is that heat can never be transferred from cold to hot, unless work is done to facilitate it.
No DREMT,
You guys always leave the work part out of it when quoting the second law.
How many times have I said that you guys are quoting half of the second law, I believe I have lost count.
“Nobody is arguing that the Sun doesnt do thermodynamic work,”
So the Sun can do thermodynamic work?
And that can facilitate the Greenhouse Effect, and cause the surface to be warmer than it would otherwise?
Or the Sun can cause water to evaporate thereby increasing the Greenhouse Effect?
So we are agreed, there is a Greenhouse Effect.
Thanks for playing.
“How many times have I said that you guys are quoting half of the second law, I believe I have lost count”
You do indeed often say it…unnecessarily.
The Sun does thermodynamic work, but none that facilitates the transfer of heat from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface.
> none that facilitates the transfer of heat from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface.
Gaslighting Graham is smoking something quite potent.
Physically correct, the Sun does thermodynamic work that drives the transfer of thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. Stop the sun driving that process and thus stop that transfer of thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface that we experience today.
You will find that at least half of the GHE Defense Team would agree with me, Little Willy. They would go with 2), and reject 1), on the basis that they do not think the GHE involves the transfer of heat from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface.
The “half of the GHE Defense Team” that agree with DREMT, please so indicate in comments.
“Physically correct, the Sun does thermodynamic work that drives the transfer of thermal energy…”
No thermodynamic work done by the Sun is required to make the atmosphere radiate energy towards the surface. It simply does so based on its temperature and emissivity.
“The “half of the GHE Defense Team” that agree with DREMT, please so indicate in comments.“
The only person who is currently commenting from the GHEDT that ought to endorse 2) and reject 1) is Nate. Perhaps search the comments to see if he has endorsed 2) and rejected 1) already. It is quite possible that he has done so already, I wouldn’t know as I don’t read his comments any more.
DREMT, without the sun illuminating our atm., it would be frozen to the surface and conduction would prevail with thermal energy flow still both ways producing universe entropy each way. Just like when the atm. is warm enough to be a gas.
“DREMT, without the sun illuminating our atm., it would be frozen to the surface and conduction would prevail”
Agreed…and I still stand by what I said.
Then Nate and any others in the half of the GHEDT should please stand up in comments and be counted or remain imaginary in DREMT’s view only.
Gaslighting Graham always ignore Nate’s comments, but he knows what Nate should hold.
Have a look through the comments somewhere up around here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499251
and see if you can find Nate endorsing 2) and rejecting 1). I have a feeling you might find it, though of course I have not read his comments. Just a shot in the dark.
More handwaving from Graham to support his gaslighting.
DREMT demonstrates DREMT reads Nate’s comments, thx.
Oh, I take it I got lucky?
Great, so now you must have seen that Nate endorses 2) and rejects 1).
Thx.
DREMT would have to ask Nate what Nate endorses, I haven’t seen that.
Gaslighting Graham does not always ignore Nate’s comments, in contradiction to his usual claim otherwise, but when he does he misrepresents them.
So, judging by the reactions, we have Nate agreeing with position 2), and bob saying:
“2 isn’t the greenhouse effect at all.”
Direct disagreement amongst the GHEDT! Let battle commence…
DREMT,
“The Sun does thermodynamic work, but none that facilitates the transfer of heat from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface.”
One could provide numerous examples of weather conditions that make the atmosphere warmer than the surface, and in those cases, which are driven by the energy from the Sun, there is heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface. Like during a temperature inversion.
And there is evaporation of water, providing the greenhouse gas water vapor in the atmosphere, that would not be there if there was not a Sun providing the work necessary to get the water vapor aloft.
And there are thermals that heat the greenhouse gases that are already aloft, increasing the rate of emission of IR, some going down and some going up.
On average, over the whole planet, the heat transfer is from the warm surface to the cold atmosphere, but local conditions may vary.
You want me to quote Nate in support of this argument?
It’s in the same post you cited, you didn’t read the whole post, just cherry picked what you think agrees with you.
Here is what Nate said
“On the other hand the real Earth and its real GHE is much more complex, with contributions from various solar-driven heat engines that drive the water cycle and the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere.”
My best guess DREMT, is that you don’t understand what we are talking about.
bob thinks he is challenging me by providing examples where heat is moving from hot to cold! No, bob, you need examples where, in the GHE, heat is moving from cold to hot, facilitated by work from the Sun.
You are in direct disagreement with Nate, as explained.
DREMT,
I also have a hard spot with this statement of yours.
“All the extra back-radiation from increased CO2 does is reduce the rate of heat loss away from the surface.”
Because the back-radiation adds energy to the surface, it does not prevent the surface from radiating, nor does it affect the rate of heat loss.
You continue to work really hard to misunderstand the science.
Argue it out with Nate, bob.
DREMT,
Check the scorched part of a tree hit by lightning, then get back to me.
Temperature inversions are direct evidence of heat transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warm surface.
You are avoiding the argument that I actually made, that the second law doesn’t prohibit the heat transfer from cold to hot, it is not necessary to provide actual examples of that to support my argument.
And the Sun does thermodynamic work, you have to show that that does not warm the surface, other that by direct heating.
bob hilariously argues that a temperature inversion, where heat is still flowing from hot to cold, is an example of heat flowing from cold to hot!
“You are avoiding the argument that I actually made, that the second law doesn’t prohibit the heat transfer from cold to hot, it is not necessary to provide actual examples of that to support my argument.”
Of course heat can transfer from cold to hot…when work is done to facilitate it.
“And the Sun does thermodynamic work, you have to show that that does not warm the surface, other that by direct heating.”
…and finally, Bob reverses the burden of proof! He’s in full meltdown.
Of course, he won’t argue with Nate…
DREMT,
“bob hilariously argues that a temperature inversion, where heat is still flowing from hot to cold, is an example of heat flowing from cold to hot!”
No, it’s an example of heat from the atmosphere to the surface, which you guys say is impossible.
“Of course heat can transfer from cold to hotwhen work is done to facilitate it.”
And I have provided examples of the Sun doing the work that facilitates that transfer, thermals, the atmosphere aloft is still colder than the surface but more energy is transferred due to the work done by the Sun.
“and finally, Bob reverses the burden of proof! Hes in full meltdown.”
I have provided that evidence, you just reject it without any evidence.
“Of course, he wont argue with Nate”
I quoted where Nate agreed with me.
bob, in the temperature inversion, heat is still flowing from hot to cold. So it is not an example of heat flowing from cold to hot.
I have already explained to Ball4 that:
“No thermodynamic work done by the Sun is required to make the atmosphere radiate energy towards the surface. It simply does so based on its temperature and emissivity.“
Do you realise that I am trying to help you?
This is what you are currently defending, as though your life depended on it:
“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.“
Do you realise that by defending this, you tacitly accept that back-radiation is a transfer of heat from cold to hot? I know that you don’t really think that. So why are you defending 1)?
2) is the version of the GHE that is the GHEDT’s best bet. It’s still wrong, but it’s a lot more convincing than 1), which is obviously wrong.
Exactly, Bob.
Now, let’s see if Gaslighting Graham can recognize who wrote this:
[GUESS WHO] The real Earth and its real greenhouse effect is much more complex, with contributions from various solar-driven heat engines that drive the water cycle and the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere.
I will take it that Little Willy and bob are being honest, and that what they quoted is to be found in this comment that I linked to earlier:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499251
I wonder if Nate would argue that these “contributions from various solar-driven heat engines that drive the water cycle and the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere” somehow make back-radiation a flow of heat from cold to hot? Or if he would argue that back-radiation was not a flow of heat from cold to hot?
I’m thinking probably the latter.
I wonder if Graham has never read this:
[MYSTERY MAN] Clausius makes clear that because the sun has lost heat, and the Earth has gained heat, these are qualifying CHANGES, that allow heat to be transferred from cold to hot on Earth under the right conditions, without violating 2LOT.
I am quite sure Graham read this before:
[MYSTERY MAN] Warming that results from the greenhouse effect is with the assistance of a heat source, the Sun, which cannot be ignored.
Graham would rather continue gaslighting instead of admitting that he was wrong about any of this.
DREPT,
This
1) The GHE involves heat being transferred from the colder atmosphere to the hotter surface, but its OK because as per the Clausius statement of 2LoT, there is another change occurring at the same time, that being work done by the Sun.
Is the second law of thermodynamics.
“Do you realise that by defending this, you tacitly accept that back-radiation is a transfer of heat from cold to hot? I know that you dont really think that. So why are you defending 1)?”
I am defending it because it is the second law of thermodynamics, and if you can prove it false, there is a prize in it for you.
I usually consider it a transfer of energy from cold to hot, but it can sometimes be heat, as in lightning bolts reaching temperatures higher than the surface of the Sun.
And then there is this
“No thermodynamic work done by the Sun is required to make the atmosphere radiate energy towards the surface. It simply does so based on its temperature and emissivity.
Not required, but it can do work that increases the rate that the atmosphere radiates energy towards the surface, that’s what thermals do.
All of this would go away without the energy input from the Sun.
No Sun, no greenhouse effect.
Little Willy quotes:
“…that allow heat to be transferred from cold to hot on Earth under the right conditions, without violating 2LOT.”
Sure, under the right conditions…such as when work is being done to facilitate it.
“…warming that results from the greenhouse effect is with the assistance of a heat source, the Sun, which cannot be ignored.”
This would be in support of 2) again, no doubt.
“Graham would rather continue gaslighting instead of admitting that he was wrong about any of this.”
You have not shown me to be wrong.
bob says:
“I am defending it because it is the second law of thermodynamics, and if you can prove it false, there is a prize in it for you.“
I don’t need to prove 2LoT false. All I need to sink 1) is to point out that back-radiation is not a transfer of heat from cold to hot. Then, all the discussion about the work the Sun does becomes a moot point.
You can argue over whether 2) is correct, with Nate.
True, Bob.
True, DREMT:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499251
True, Nate:
> On the other hand the real Earth and its real GHE is much more complex, with contributions from various solar-driven heat engines that drive the water cycle and the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499254
Oh, so that quote that we discussed earlier is from a different comment to the one I keep linking to, then? That means bob was lying when he said:
“You want me to quote Nate in support of this argument?
It’s in the same post you cited, you didn’t read the whole post, just cherry picked what you think agrees with you”
So what does it say in this comment, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499251
And so Gaslighting Graham won’t confront the fact that Bob and Nate indeed agree with one another, something me and Bob pointed out independently earlier.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1500350
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1500379
He could have realized it all by himself by interpreting Clausius principle properly. Which he never will. His career as a Sky Dragon crank depends on misunderstanding it.
OK, if you are not going to read it to me, I will break my rule this one time and read it myself.
It says:
“”Heat is always going from hot to cold in the GHE. All the extra back-radiation from increased CO2 does is reduce the rate of heat loss away from the surface. Since the surface is receiving a constant supply of heat from the Sun, it thus warms.”
Yep that sound good.
For anyone still declaring that the GHE violates 2LOT, they need to show what’s wrong with this logical, fact-based description.
IOW actual evidence that the GHE involves heat transfer from from cold to hot.“
So, Nate is endorsing 2) as a description of the GHE, whereas bob said of 2):
“2 isn’t the greenhouse effect at all”
So that is direct disagreement between Nate and bob.
Also, Nate clearly disagrees that the GHE involves heat transfer from cold to hot. So he must also reject position 1).
“He could have realized it all by himself by interpreting Clausius principle properly“
Do you mean the principle I had to correct you about, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1500302
Gaslighting Graham is twisting himself into knots.
Bob abides by Clausius principle. Nate abides by Clausius principle. In this house, we abide by Clausius principle.
Even Sky Dragon cranks, but for them that principle is kinda weird. They shriek that the greenhouse effect does not abide by it!
Silly Sky Dragon cranks.
Miracles are possible:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1500705
As for the “correction” he brags about, it’s actually from Bob:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1498983
It took him a while to get to the version in which he makes the distinction. And since he did not follow my exchange with our pedant sock puppet, and since like him he cannot understand what people mean unless they use the exact wording he expects, he got himself another knot around which to twist himself.
Little Willy loses yet another argument, with his usual grace.
Gaslighting Graham is in full meltdown.
When will he acknowledge that once he issued Bob’s correction for his (2), he agreed with it?
To do so, I would have to first have some idea what you were talking about.
In my head, my 1) and 2) were always complete. I always knew what I meant, and assumed others would too, since they had followed the various debates over the years. I just added more detail to what I initially wrote, for clarity. Nothing bob or anyone else said changed my 1) and 2) from my original vision of it, one iota.
Since Bob and Nate agree with one another, Graham tries to gaslight a bit more.
Does he recall what is Clausius Principle? Probly not. Here it is:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7514258/
Graham misreads all the time.
All that matters is that the equations work, pun intended.
“Since Bob and Nate agree with one another…”
Someone hasn’t been paying attention. bob and Nate are in direct disagreement:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1500564
The meltdown continues:
[GG] the greenhouse effect only ever involves the transfer of heat from hot to cold.
[B] That’s your problem, you think it’s about heat when it’s only about energy.
[W] We witness transfer from hot to cold in the atmosphere. Work must be involved if we are to abide by Clausius principle.
[GG] Presumably you mean transfer of energy from cold to hot
[N] it seems Gaslighting Grahan genuinely now gets why the greenhouse effect doesn’t violate 2LOT.
Which goes on to show that our pedant sock puppet gets it all wrong: pedantry only allows Sky Dragon cranks to hide their misunderstanding of Clausius principle.
Sorry, Little Willy…utterly random combinations of disembodied quotes divorced from their full context won’t change the fact that Nate and bob are in direct disagreement:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1500564
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
The first quote is Graham fumbling over his (2).
The second quote is Bob correcting Graham.
The third quote is me quoting the Clausius principle verbatim.
The fourth quote is Graham misunderstanding what I was doing, but indirectly acknowledging Bob’s correction.
The fifth quote is Nate agreeing with Graham’s wording with Bob’s correction.
Nate thus agrees with Bob.
That’s a checkmate.
"The first quote is Graham fumbling over his (2)."
Not at all. The most important part of 2) is that the GHE defender argues heat is always being transported from hot to cold, in the GHE.
"The second quote is Bob correcting Graham."
No, it’s simply a false accusation from bob.
"The third quote is me quoting the Clausius principle verbatim."
Absolutely not. A correct quote would be "Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time".
"The fourth quote is Graham misunderstanding what I was doing, but indirectly acknowledging Bob’s correction."
No, it’s a partial quote of my full correction of your failure to understand Clausius.
"The fifth quote is Nate agreeing with Graham’s wording with Bob’s correction."
Nate and bob are in direct disagreement, Little Willy. Nate thinks position 2) is correct, and position 1) is incorrect, and bob thinks position 1) is correct, and position 2) is incorrect. They couldn’t be more at odds with each other.
The meltdown continues, and Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
If you say so, Little Willy.
Back in the real world, Nate and bob are in direct disagreement:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1500564
Every time Gaslighting Graham goes for the quote fest he ends up tilting not long afterwards.
Bob and Nate are in full agreement, and the meltdown continues.
If by “in full agreement” you mean “think diametrically opposing things” then yes, I guess so.
Here is what Nate said, quoted by me and Bob:
“On the other hand the real Earth and its real [greenhouse effect] is much more complex, with contributions from various solar-driven heat engines that drive the water cycle and the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere.”
Bob’s best guess is that Gaslighting Graham does not understand what Bob and Nate are talking about.
Mine is that Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Already dealt with, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1500385
Gaslighting Graham does not always deal with things, but when he does he’s Just Wondering…
About Nate, whom he would *never* read…
But he surely knows what Nate *must* hold…
Pathetic loser.
I didn’t have to Just Wonder long, because at 11:56 PM yesterday I decided I would break my rule for one time, and read that comment from Nate. It confirms what I thought.
Hard to be a pathetic loser when I keep winning arguments.
Gaslighting Graham could not understand what Bob and Nate are talking about, *and* he could be gaslights again.
Could be both. No contradiction there. Just like there’s no real contradiction between what Nate and Bob hold.
Graham is just a pathetic loser.
I see, so there is no contradiction when one person agrees with statement 1), and disagrees with statement 2), and the other person agrees with 2), and disagrees with 1).
What a fascinating world you live in, Little Willy.
The meltdown continues.
Bob corrects statement (2).
Nate agrees with the corrected statement.
Very Big disagreement there!
Oh, and of course the disagreement over (1) is only in Graham’s mind too:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1500795
What a pathetic loser!
bob did not correct statement 2), Little Willy. You are living in a fantasy world.
bob does not think statement 2) is a correct description of the GHE. Nate does.
Nate does not think statement 1) is a correct description of the GHE. bob does.
“Oh, and of course the disagreement over (1) is only in Graham’s mind too”
1) The GHE involves heat being transferred from the colder atmosphere to the hotter surface, but its OK because as per the Clausius statement of 2LoT, there is another change occurring at the same time, that being work done by the Sun.
Nate) [referring to statement 2] “For anyone still declaring that the GHE violates 2LOT, they need to show what’s wrong with this logical, fact-based description.
IOW actual evidence that the GHE involves heat transfer from from cold to hot”
Nate, agreeing with Graham:
“Presumably you mean transfer of energy from cold to hot”
after Bob corrected his (2), i.e. the GHE only ever involves the transfer of heat from hot to cold:
“the GHE is about the transfer of energy from cold to hot, not heat. That’s your problem, you think it’s about heat when its only about energy.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting Bob and Nate once again.
Pure and simple gaslighting.
bob is so confused on this that half the time, he is arguing with himself. On the one hand, he said, “the GHE is about the transfer of energy from cold to hot, not heat”. On the other hand, he devoted an entire day to defending 1), which begins, “the GHE involves heat being transferred from the colder atmosphere to the hotter surface…”
Very funny.
> bob is so confused
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Oh, and why not:
[MYSTERY MAN] Heat can pass from a cooler to a warmer body, with the assistance of work.
Is that Bob arguing with himself about (1)?
Little Willy will never stop defending bob. No matter how obviously wrong he is. No matter if he argues with himself. No matter how clearly he disagrees with others from the GHEDT. Little Willy will just spend day after day trying to make excuses for him. He will go on forever if I let him. So, as always, it will inevitably have to end with a PST.
So not only Bob and Nate agree on (2) when coherently formulated, but they also agree on (1). And Graham has nothing else but gaslighting to prove his contradiction.
Here is 1) and 2):
1) The GHE involves heat being transferred from the colder atmosphere to the hotter surface, but its OK because as per the Clausius statement of 2LoT, there is another change occurring at the same time, that being work done by the Sun.
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.
Please show the “coherent formulations” of these that you believe Nate and bob would both agree with.
P.S: back in the real world, bob and Nate are in direct disagreement:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1500564
” bob and Nate are in direct disagreement:”
Yes, we know that trolling is the main focus here.
Getting at the truth is way down the list.
Once again, I see our resident “last worder” troll tried to sneak in another last word. Presumably he wrote that he is in direct disagreement with bob, who supports 1) and rejects 2), since Nate supports 2) and rejects 1). I expect he would have had the integrity to argue against Little Willy, who still cannot even understand that 1) and 2) are contradictory. Finally, I fully expect that he will have a response to bob, who wrote about 2) that:
“I also have a hard spot with this statement of yours.
“All the extra back-radiation from increased CO2 does is reduce the rate of heat loss away from the surface.”
Because the back-radiation adds energy to the surface, it does not prevent the surface from radiating, nor does it affect the rate of heat loss.
You continue to work really hard to misunderstand the science.”
Poor bob seemed not to realise that I don’t actually think 2) is correct…bless him.
True, Nate.
I wonder who wrote this:
[MYSTERY MAN] That back radiation is the Green House Effect, so welcome to the GHE defense team.
Little Willy clearly has no “coherent formulations” to show. Guess he concedes the entire argument, then.
Gaslighting Graham has obviously no idea what a contradiction is.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham clearly has no contradiction to show.
Every time he PSTs he concedes the entire argument.
Not in the least. You already conceded when you failed to produce your “coherent formulations”. I simply PST because you’re a troll, and if I didn’t, you’d just never stop trolling me.
Our last-worder-in-chief concedes another argument.
This is becoming too easy.
Either show your “coherent formulations”, or please stop trolling.
Since the agreement between Bob and Nate is “painfully obvious,” Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again.
Nate and bob agree there is something called the Greenhouse Effect. That is “painfully obvious”. What they don’t agree on, is how to describe it.
My entire point has been that there exists contradictory versions of the GHE, and that different members of the GHEDT will defend these different versions. This has been demonstrated, perfectly, by Nate and bob. You running around in the background attempting to muddy the waters has been a nice additional demonstration of the GHEDT’s dishonesty. That Nate and bob refuse to debate each other is the icing on the cake.
One of my favourite wins.
It is painfully obvious that Gaslighting Graham has no idea how to formulate a contradiction coherently or recognize when he’s putting straw into his opponents’ mouth.
Both Bob and Nate agree with Clausius principle, and both agree that backradiation is a thing.
Gaslighting Graham’s rigidity is nobody else’s concerns.
“Both Bob and Nate agree with Clausius principle, and both agree that backradiation is a thing.”
Yes, absolutely. They just cannot agree how to describe the GHE. They have each defended a contradictory version of it.
Please do continue your dishonesty display.
So Gaslighting Graham now tries to pretend that his (1) was a description of the greenhouse effect. Funny how the mind of the Sky Dragon crank works. That sure explains why our man of mystery said:
[MYSTERY MAN] That back radiation is the Green House Effect, so welcome to the GHE defense team.
Perhaps he should revisit what he himself “tacitly” infers.
1) and 2) have always been different descriptions of the GHE, Little Willy. That’s why in 1) it says “the GHE involves heat being transferred from the colder atmosphere to the hotter surface”, and in 2) it says “the GHE only ever involves heat being transferred from the hotter surface to the colder atmosphere”. Exactly how slow on the uptake are you? Or is it just another part of your dishonesty display?
Also, let it be noted that a man of mystery also said:
[MYSTERY MAN] FYI, for the case of the Sun, the CHANGE referred to by Clausius is that fact that the SUN lost heat, -dQ. And transferred it to the Earth, which gained heat, dQ.
Could be another man of mystery.
He’s at the “utterly random quoting” stage of his dishonesty display.
I’m starting to think that when a man of mystery says that “the Sun is the source of the warming, and the greenhouse effect reduces the heat loss to space,” Gaslighting Graham does not get that the Sun is the source of what produces the greenhouse effect too. Which means that the contradiction between his (1) and (2) is in his own mind.
Since the greenhouse effect abides by the Clausius principle and explains backradiation, there is no contradiction.
This at least should be “painfully obvious” to anyone who’s not a Sky Dragon crank.
The GHE can’t simultaneously both involve heat transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface and only ever involve heat transfer from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere. So simple that even Little Willy should understand.
Perhaps every time Gaslighting Graham experiences randomness it’s because he can’t recognize when we speak of his (1) or his (2) unless everybody copypasta them.
Here’s how a man of mystery explains (1):
How is that a description of the greenhouse effect?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1498726
The man of mystery needn’t have explained any of that, because the man of mystery doesn’t think that the GHE involves the transfer of heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface, in any case!
In fairness, how Gaslighting Graham rolls his eyes over the word “entropy” will always be a thing of immense beauty.
May he never get that it’s always a big tell.
Are we done here, yet? God, this is tedious.
Another tid bit from our Man of Mystery:
[MAN OF MYSTERY] The greenhouse effect does not involve spontaneous transfer of heat from cold to hot. And warming that results from it is with the assistance of a heat source, the sun, which cannot be ignored.
It is as if our Man of Mystery agreed with (1)…
I don’t see the word “work” in that quote. Try to find a quote from them where they mention “work”, and get back to me.
It is as if Gaslighting Graham has not followed the exchange:
[MAN OF MYSTERY] All because the Sun is providing energy to do work to cause these things to happen.
If I recall correctly, none of the referred to “these things” were the GHE. Try again, look elsewhere and find a different quote where the mystery man mentions work.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham recalls incorrectly.
Perhaps he should not try to take on two physicists in a physics fight.
Try looking in one of the comments you linked me to, earlier. What does he say about work in this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1499254
Gaslighting Graham tries to armwave his way out of another loss.
Since (1) is basically a statement of the Clausius principle as applied to the greenhouse effect, both Bob and Nate agree with it.
And I provided direct evidence that Nate does.
In a sane world, this should be a checkmate. I’ve seen Redditors shut down their account for less.
OK, since you are not going to read it to me, I will break my rule for another time and read the comment myself. Nate says:
“As far as the sun doing work to facilitate the GHE transfer heat from cold to hot, I have never suggested that, since clearly the GHE does not transfer heat from cold to hot.“
As clear a rejection of 1) as you could possibly find.
I guess that’s checkmate.
And so Gaslighting Graham continues to turn himself into knots, oblivious to the fact that it is “blatantly obvious” to everybody that he has been spinning on a silly equivocation right from the get go.
Let it also be noted that he still pretends not to read Nate, that he breaks his rule by reading a comment he already read, and that he still forgets the end of that comment:
[MYSTERY MAN] On the other hand the real Earth and its real GHE is much more complex, with contributions from various solar-driven heat engines that drive the water cycle and the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere.
A bit me and Bob independently quoted to him.
Notwithstanding the fact that nothing in that comment contradicts what Nate says about work and entropy elsewhere, in accord with what Bob kept saying him in passim.
bob claimed that what Little Willy desperately quotes once again was "in the same post you cited, you didn’t read the whole post, just cherry picked what you think agrees with you."
Even though that turned out to be a lie on bob’s part. It turned out that quote wasn’t in the same post I cited at all, it was in a different post.
Hilariously, what proves beyond any doubt that Nate rejects 1) is to be found in the same post that bob and Little Willy cited…they just neglected to mention the crucial part of the post! They are the ones guilty of cherry-picking…
…you couldn’t make it up.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again.
Both Bob and Nate addressed Gaslighting Graham’s claim that
[GRAHAM’S SILLY CLAIM] The Sun isnt a change, its a constant.
Both explained something that aligns with Gaslighting Graham’s (1). For Gaslighting Graham’s current story to stick, Nate would need to reject (1). Since his (1) follows directly from the Clausius principle, here we are, Gaslighting Graham tying himself in knots.
Little Willy is making the same mistake bob made earlier (I corrected him on June 20, 2023 at 5:51 PM). For Nate to reject 1), he does not need to reject Clausius’ statement of 2LoT. Nate just needs to reject that the GHE involves heat being transferred from cold to hot.
He has done so.
That’s the end of it. Nate rejects 1), and endorses 2).
bob rejects 2), and endorses 1).
They are completely at odds with each other.
I wonder if Gaslighting Graham recalls who wrote this:
[MYSTERY MAN] I wonder if Nate would argue that these “contributions from various solar-driven heat engines that drive the water cycle and the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere” somehow make back-radiation a flow of heat from cold to hot? Or if he would argue that back-radiation was not a flow of heat from cold to hot?
Yes, the idea being it was obviously the latter.
I wonder if Gaslighting Graham recalls who wrote this on June 22, 2023 at 11:30 AM:
[MYSTERY MAN] I will break my rule for another time and read the comment myself.
Getting bored of waiting for a point to be made.
I would like to point out that whenever a heat engine transfers heat from cold to hot, say like in a refrigerator, it always does it in two stages both of which transfer heat from hot to cold.
Solar driven heat engines in the atmosphere do it the same way.
So 1) is still good.
I find 2) to be incomplete, it’s OK to describe the greenhouse effect as being due to insulation properties of the atmosphere, but I object because that is passive, and the Greenhouse Effect is active.
It doesn’t depend on CO2 absorbing IR, it does, of course, but CO2 gets energy to radiate from multiple sources, not just IR from the surface.
1) is not good, because the GHE does not involve the transfer of heat from cold to hot.
You are welcome to dispute 2) with Nate. I would agree with you that it is also wrong.
Since there is no GHE.
So Gaslighting Graham can’t follow another exchange.
Here’s what another man of mystery said earlier today:
[MAN OF MYSTERY] Let it also be noted that he still pretends not to read Nate, that he breaks his rule by reading a comment he already read.
The last quote clearly shows that Gaslighting Graham indeed already read a comment he pretends to not have read.
[BOB] I find 2) to be incomplete, it’s OK but
[GRAHAM] I would agree with you that it is also wrong.
“The last quote clearly shows that Gaslighting Graham indeed already read a comment he pretends to not have read.”
I have read two of Nate’s comments in this discussion. Plus you read one to me.
Gaslighting Graham does not always brag about not reading Nate, but when he does he’s gonna argue to death about what Nate means.
When will he realize that incompleteness is not inconsistency?
I’m very, very familiar with Nate’s position on the GHE, from back when I used to read his comments but not respond…and even from way, way back when I used to read his comments and respond.
bob and Nate disagreed before on the "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" issue…but they never, ever, argue amongst themselves. On pain of death.
Imagine this dialogue:
(Vlad) CO2 gets energy to radiate from multiple sources, not just IR from the surface.
(Estr) The real Earth and its real greenhouse effect is much more complex, with contributions from various solar-driven heat engines that drive the water cycle and the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere.
Are Vlad and Estr contradicting one another?
No.
What they do disagree on has been clearly explained.
What has been explained is not a contradiction.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again.
Keep telling yourself that, Little Willy.
[MYSTERY MAN] The two positions are complementary, not contradictory.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1501186
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1501110
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1501133
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1501135
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/#comment-1501278
My most satisfying win so far.
Forever on the Internet.
Obviously you lost, as always.
In a way, Gaslighting Graham inflicted this loss upon himself.
He once again forgot about the second part of the Clausius principle, and he *forgot* to read all the comments Nate wrote on this page.
One day he will be able to take on Bob. Perhaps another five years of trolling?
bob outright rejected 2), then later decided to half-heartedly say it was “OK”, presumably after it became clear to him that he’d made a huge mistake. That leaves him in the awkward position of kind of endorsing two contradictory positions. The GHE can’t simultaneously both involve heat transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface and only ever involve heat transfer from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere. Yet bob is trying to argue that it can, and Little Willy gobbles it up, because it’s bob.
If bob were trying to say that the GHE sometimes involves heat transfer from cold to hot, and sometimes involves heat transfer from hot to cold, that would be one thing. He’d be wrong, still, but it would at least make sense…however, those aren’t the options.
He should drop trying to defend 1), and endorse 2) more completely. 2) is still wrong, of course, but it’s more convincing than 1), which is painfully obviously wrong.
[GRAHAM] Bob rejected (2)
[MYSTERY MAN] The two positions are complementary, not contradictory.
Let us hope that Mystery Man is not Bob!
True, he’s been mixing it up throughout. Initially it was, “the two positions are complementary” (which is obviously false), then he said, “2 isn’t the greenhouse effect at all”, a clear rejection of 2). Then he went on to say 2) was incomplete, but OK.
Basically he’s all over the place.
The two positions are not contradictory, they are complementary.
The Greenhouse Effect does involve heat transfer from cold to hot, but it does not do it in one step, it involves multiple steps, just like a refrigerator.
Because in one step, heat transfer is always hot to cold, because it it [b]defined[b] that way.
The two options are contradictory, not complementary. The GHE can’t simultaneously both involve heat transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface and only ever involve heat transfer from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere.
bob, are you saying “back-radiation” is a flow of heat from cold to hot?
If yes, you endorse 1) and reject 2).
If no, you endorse 2) and reject 1).
It’s that simple.
Graham has been gaslighting all along – (1) is not a description of the greenhouse effect. It is an application of the Clausius principle. To deny (1) is to deny the Clausius principle.
Sky Dragon cranks deny basic physics.
They also gaslight, troll, and manipulate.
[LITTLE WILLY] To deny (1) is to deny the Clausius principle.
[NATE, DENYING 1] As far as the sun doing work to facilitate the GHE transfer heat from cold to hot, I have never suggested that, since clearly the GHE does not transfer heat from cold to hot.
Is Nate denying the “Clausius principle”, Little Willy?
Of course not.
[BOB] The Greenhouse Effect does involve heat transfer from cold to hot
[NATE] clearly the GHE does not transfer heat from cold to hot
[LITTLE WILLY] Bob and Nate agree with one another
[BOB] In one step, heat transfer is always hot to cold, because it it defined that way.
[NATE] clearly the greenhouse effect does not transfer heat from cold to hot
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
[BOB] CO2 gets energy to radiate from multiple sources, not just IR from the surface.
[NATE] The real Earth and its real greenhouse effect is much more complex, with contributions from various solar-driven heat engines that drive the water cycle and the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Ok, they might agree on (1) after all, but I still want to see them fight. Fight! Fight! Fight!
Even when their disagreement couldn’t be more direct, obvious and absolute, Little Willy still just can’t accept it. He’s completely in denial.
Gaslighting Graham would rather waste a week trolling instead of acknowledging that there may be various levels of description, that either the greenhouse effect abides by his (1) or is unphysical, or that understanding what people say requires one reads them, which he pretends not doing with Nate. Suppose Nate argues with Bob over some detail. Im what way will he be able to enjoy the fight he sorely misses?
Gaslighting Graham might be the most Machiavellian prick I have ever had the chance to witness,
“that either the greenhouse effect abides by his (1) or is unphysical“
Wrong, Little Willy. If the GHE only ever involves the transfer of heat from hot to cold, then there is no need to invoke work done by the Sun. It’s amazing how thick you are.
[BOB SAYS] The Greenhouse Effect does involve heat transfer from cold to hot, but it does not do it in one step, it involves multiple steps, just like a refrigerator. Because in one step, heat transfer is always hot to cold, because it it [b]defined[b] that way.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM READS] The Greenhouse Effect does involve heat transfer from cold to hot
No wonder his eyes glaze over *any* mention of entropy!
(He still secretely reads when Nate mentions it, however.)
bob, are you saying “back-radiation” is a flow of heat from cold to hot?
If yes, you endorse 1) and reject 2).
If no, you endorse 2) and reject 1).
It’s that simple.
Did Graham forget once again the second part of the Clausius principle, Bob?
Is Graham Just Asking Questions? Does Just Asking Questions cohere with his hotdoggin’?
No, I have not forgotten the part about work, Little Willy. It just does not need to be in the question.
To paraphrase Andy Dessler, thermo is like your mom. It does not tell you what to do. It only tells you what you can’t do.
Thermo is underneath both (1) and (2). So in contradistinction to Graham’s gaslighting, work appears underneath both, e.g.:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_Physics_(Boundless)/13%3A_Heat_and_Heat_Transfer/13.5%3A_Global_Warming
Imagine someone who’d believe that clouds only worked as very strict unidirectional pathways.
Think I’ll just put Little Willy on ignore, and wait for a response from bob.
Think Graham is gaslighting again.
So I’m just gonna put this here:
https://tinyurl.com/greenhouse-effect-for-cranks
No response from bob. Guess that’s that.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, this time pretending that Bob has not answered his leading question already.
Gonna leave this here:
https://tinyurl.com/greenhouse-effect-for-cranks
That is all that matters.
DREMPT,
Back radiation has nothing to do with it.
I endorse both 1) and 2) though I prefer 1)
bob runs away from reality, as usual.
DREMT,
What do you mean by back radiation?
Downwelling IR from GHGs, from the atmosphere towards the surface.
DREMT,
So it requires work.
Because most of the IR from greenhouse gases is provided by the energy transfer from O2, N2, and other gases in the atmosphere.
No work required to make GHGs emit.
Yeah, but the work done by the Sun makes them emit more.
Utterly irrelevant, bob. Completely meaningless, really. Nothing on Earth would be emitting very much of anything, without the Sun. It sort of goes without saying. It’s a truism that adds nothing to the discussion.
The issue with the GHE is, does the "back-radiation" warm, or does the "back-radiation" not warm?
If it warms, how does it warm? Is it an effect related to insulation (position 2) or is it actually a transfer of heat from cold to hot, facilitated by work (position 1)?
You seem extremely reluctant to actually just say either way. No doubt you’ll try to find some elaborate way to claim it’s both. Even though it can’t be. It’s either a transfer of heat from cold to hot, or it’s not.
DREMT,
It’s both,
A transfer of heat from cold to hot in more than one step, like a refrigerator or any other heat engine, driven by the energy input from the Sun.
It’s also insulation, the atmosphere slows the heat transfer from the surface to space, and it’s the CO2 and other greenhouse gases that does it.
It’s up to you to show that either one is impossible, or violates some law of physics.
So far all you have done is claim it must be one or the other, no evidence to support your position is apparent.
You have no evidence, so go ahead and continue to flap your gums.
“Back-radiation” cannot be both a transfer of heat from cold to hot and, at the same time, not a transfer of heat from cold to hot. It’s not like I need “evidence” to point out your ridiculous double-speak is obviously logically impossible. I just need to talk to someone sane.
Op. Cit.:
No challenge there to what I just said, then.
Gaslighting Graham can’t grok that if the greenhouse effect “is a continuous cycle of absorp-tion and emission of energy between the Earth and atmosphere, there’s no unidirectional filter except in Sky Dragon cranks’ imagination.
Thus Bob once again has the right of it.
Energy flows in two directions, heat only in one direction.
Gaslighting Graham’s meltdown continues:
No inconsistency, contradiction or problem, then. Heat goes in one direction only, 1) and 2) are two contradictory positions with heat flowing one way or the other.
[GRAHAM] 2) the greenhouse effect only ever involves the transfer of heat from hot to cold.
[BOB] 2) is absolutely not true, the greenhouse effect is about the transfer of energy from cold to hot, not heat. Thats your problem, you think its about heat when its only about energy.
[GRAHAM] Did you read 2) correctly, bob?
[LATER ON, GRAHAM] Energy flows in two directions, heat only in one direction.
Yes, what bob said to me was a false accusation, as I said earlier. There is no inconsistency, contradiction or problem. Heat goes in one direction only, 1) and 2) are two contradictory positions with heat flowing one way or the other.
(Vlad) The greenhouse effect only ever involves heat being transferred from the hotter surface to the colder atmosphere.
(Estr) The greenhouse effect is about energy, dummy.
(Vlad) M I S R E P R E S E N T A T I O N
(Vlad, later on, when trying to correct Lucky) The greenhouse effect is about energy, dummy.
What I meant is, I have always been well aware of the difference between heat and energy, and the roles they supposedly play in the so-called GHE. bob was wrong to suggest otherwise. 1) and 2) are two contradictory positions on the GHE, that I have seen people defend. They have even defended them in this very discussion. bob is currently trying to suggest both are correct! Was he arguing with himself, earlier, then?
Gaslighting Graham would rather cling to an interpretation of the backradiation explanation of the greenhouse effect, even if it breaks thermo. Which is unsurprising, for Sky Dragon cranks will never let go of the weird belief that the greenhouse effect breaks thermo.
Little Willy, please stop with the false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
Since (1) follows from thermo, if (2) contradicts (1) it breaks thermo.
Even Gaslighting Graham ought to follow that argument.
Little Willy is as thick as he is relentless.
Readers should note how painfully obvious it is that (2) & thermo implies (1).
GHE defenders would not hold that either 1) or 2) “break thermo”. However, honest GHE defenders would still recognise that 1) and 2) are contradictory.
“Energy flows in two directions, heat only in one direction.”
Yes!
Now why did DREMT insist endlessly that the back radiation in the GPE was a 2LOT violation???
Why then do sky-dragon-slayers insist that back radiation in the GHE is a 2LOT violation?
If only they could apply facts and logic consistently and avoid reverting to ideology.
…defenders would not hold that either 1) or 2) “break thermo”. However, honest GHE defenders would still recognise that 1) and 2) are contradictory.
Gaslighting Graham is just an obnoxious kiddo, really.
If you say so, Little Willy.
DREMT,
“Back-radiation cannot be both a transfer of heat from cold to hot and, at the same time, not a transfer of heat from cold to hot.”
I’ll agree with that, because both transfers don’t happen at the same time.
One is a two step process, where the transfer is from hot to cold in both steps, but overall a transfer from cold to hot, like a heat engine.
So, yes, it can because there are more than one thing going on at any one time.
Word salad. Expand and describe exactly what you are talking about, or concede.
Gaslighting. Graham has yet to explain how backradiation breaks thermo, which is what he suggests when he says that his (1) and his (2) are contradictory.
I do not have to explain a thing, as this is not about me. This is not even about questioning the GHE.
DREMT,
“Word salad. Expand and describe exactly what you are talking about, or concede.”
If you don’t understand, try enrolling in your local community college or pursue a decent undergraduate degree.
Start with studying heat engines, or the basics if that is too difficult for you.
I take it that you concede, then, as you cannot explain what you mean.
“Back-radiation” cannot be both a transfer of heat from cold to hot and, at the same time, not a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
That is so obviously true that even Little Willy should understand. You even agreed yourself, then argued with yourself by waffling something about heat engines. There is not a soul on this site who has a clue what you’re prattling on about, bob.
DREMT,
You don’t understand how a heat engine works, then.
I have explained it ad infinitum.
Your lack of understanding does not confront me.
You said:
“One is a two step process, where the transfer is from hot to cold in both steps, but overall a transfer from cold to hot, like a heat engine.”
So if “back-radiation” is the overall heat transfer from cold to hot, what is the two step process, and what are the heat transfers from hot to cold in each step?
DREMT,
Like I said, I have already explained it,
I am not going to spoon feed you your Maypo.
You haven’t explained what I just asked, anywhere. It’s all very well saying it’s like a heat engine, but if you can’t explain what parts of the atmosphere are doing what, it amounts to no explanation at all. I’m not saying there aren’t heat engines in the climate system. There are. What you have to do is explain where the "back-radiation" comes into it.
Then you have to explain how the "back-radiation" is both a flow of heat from cold to hot, and also not a flow of heat from cold to hot.
Best of luck!
Allow Kerry to spoon-feed Gaslighting Graham, Bob:
https://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/geosys/node3.html
Allow Kerry to spoon-feed Gaslighting Graham, Bob:
As usual, Little Willy’s link does not provide any of the requested explanation.
As usual, Gaslighting Graham would rather gaslight and troll instead of learning anything about climate science.
DREMT,
Like I said, you don’t understand what has already been explained.
Pick any arrow on the Trenberth diagram and I’ll tell you whether it is 1), 2) or both.
Or how a thunderstorm separates positive and negative charges resulting in a lightening bolt that heats the surface to a temperature higher than the surface of the Sun.
“Back-radiation” cannot be both a transfer of heat from cold to hot and, at the same time, not a transfer of heat from cold to hot. In any rational world, that wins me the argument. bob and Little Willy are not rational, however.
DREMT,
You’re not even trying.
Readers will note your vague hand-waving towards heat engines, refusal to explain yourself, that you hold two contradictory positions to both be correct, your earlier lie about the comment I linked to, your generally condescending attitude, and that back-radiation cannot both be a transfer of heat from cold to hot and not a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
That is enough for the win.
Readers will note that Gaslighting Graham is not even trying to hide his equivocation anymore.
No equivocation.
Figure 3.3 alluded to earlier –
https://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/geosys/fig3.3.gif
I won.
Bob remains undefeated by Sky Dragon cranks.
No, he just never concedes when he should. Hard to debate people who aren’t intellectually honest enough to admit defeat. That’s why these discussions go on for so long.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, forgetting that the exchanges always end up with him trying to get the last word by gaslighting.
You are just an obnoxious child, really.
DREMT,
“No, he just never concedes when he should.”
“You are just an obnoxious child, really.”
You are projecting your faults onto others.
Not a good look.
Sorry for your loss, bob.
DREMT,
A refrigerator, a heat engine, has two heat transfers from hot to cold, and an overall heat transfer from cold to hot, because work is going on.
So you have heat transfer from hot to cold, and heat transfer from cold to hot, all happening at the same time.
Not to mention, in the atmosphere you have heat transfer occurring without a temperature change.
Man up and admit you lost.
The thing is, bob, I can agree with everything you’re saying, and still have won the argument. That’s because it comes down to, “is back-radiation a flow of heat from cold to hot, or not?”
“Back-radiation” is only going one way. It is a single flow of energy. So, there is no way for you to obfuscate and try to claim it is energy flowing in two parts or whatever else you are trying to imply, but never specify. It’s just a single flow of energy.
Now, is it a flow of heat, or is it just a flow of energy, bob? It cannot be both. It cannot be both a flow of heat from cold to hot, and not a flow of heat from cold to hot. You have to actually say what you think at some point. You have to actually commit to an answer.
If you go with saying it is a flow of heat, you are going with 1), and rejecting 2).
If you go with saying it is a flow of energy, you are going with 2), and rejecting 1).
1) and 2) are contradictory. Both cannot be correct, though both can be wrong.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Energy flows in two directions, heat only in one direction.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] “Back-radiation” is only going one way. It is a single flow of energy.
Alright Graham,
You are wrong, but you win the argument,
Now go fuck yourself or play your guitar.
No sensible response means I do win the argument, yes.
Thank you.
If Graham says so, it must be gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Still nobody has described the GHE, by the look of it.
I note bobdroege is off with the fairies again. He wrote – “Temperature inversions are direct evidence of heat transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warm surface.”
What an idiot! Night time temperature inversions are due to the ground cooling faster than the atmosphere, as explained by John Tyndall over a century ago. It’s interesting to note that the surface continues to cool, in spite of the atmosphere having a higher temperature than the surface.
So much for idiots who believe that slower cooling makes the surface hotter (Willard and co.), or others who believe that a cold body must get hotter when exposed to the radiation of a hotter body (or atmosphere). It’s not that simple – heat, temperature, energy – all need to be taken into account.
For example, air temperature generally decreases with altitude, known as the lapse rate. Ground temperature actually increases with altitude in sunlight (where protected from wind, snow, etc).
Here’s John Tyndall giving a personal account –
“I never, on any occasion, suffered so much from solar heat, as in descending from the ‘ Corridor ‘ to the Grand Plateau of Mont Blanc, on August 13,1857. Though Mr.Hirst and myself were at the time hip deep in snow, the sun blazed against us with unendurable power. Immersion in the shadow of the Dome du (route at once changed our feelings ; for here the air was at a freezing temperature. It was not, however, sensibly colder than the air through which the sunbeams passed ; and we suffered, not from the contact of hot air, but from radiant heat, which had reached us through an icy cold medium.”
Here’s a recorded observation –
“At 10,000 feet, in December, at 9 a.m., I saw the mercury mount to 132, while the temperature of shaded snow hard by was 22.”
When people actually measure things, they sometimes have to revise their views.
GHE believers cannot even describe the GHE, let alone measure it.
Still nobody has correctly described the GHE except many commenters on this very blog where there are even experiments proving the GHE being discussed. Swenson demonstrates being so behind in GHE comprehension.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I’d rather be with the fairies, than be a fairy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXqMkqeFQwA
Get your boots on Swenson.
“At 10,000 feet, in December, at 9 a.m., I saw the mercury mount to 132, while the temperature of shaded snow hard by was 22.”
Um, all the snow on mountains shows it is colder at high altitudes. So, NO, the temperature is not 132 on top of mountains.
Because one does not measure air temperature by putting the thermometer in direct sunlight.
And obviously there is less air between the snow on a mountain and the sun, yet it is colder.
If anyone is interested in an explanation of round versus cylindrical vessels, internal versus external pressure, and carbon composite properties I happen to know a few things about these topics. Otherwise, please carry on with your posts.
Everyone,
Please shut up.
TS will tell us the most scientificest story if we do.
*Sits and waits.*
ENSO figures for week ending June 24:
1.2 … +2.9
3 … +1.4
3.4 … +1.0
4 … +0.7
ONI will probably reach +0.5 for Apr-May-Jun, for which NOAA’s probability of ENSO starting was only 38%.
Solar Cycle 25:
June: guaranteed 140+, chance of 150+
SSN (December 2022): probably 106, up 5 on last month, 14% higher than Zharkova’s predicted max
Should say … El Nino starting …
Sunspot counts averaged 163 for June, highest since 2002.
First 7 months of year 4 of SC25 has 44% more spots than same period in SC24.
Come on Roy.
A small crumb for skeptics.
A little drop in the temp this month what with Arctic ENSO reversing and all those clouds floods etc .
How low can you go.
0.15C
0.05C
Lower?.
What is “Arctic ENSO”?
test