UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2023: +0.38 deg. C

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

The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June 2023 was +0.38 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is statistically unchanged from the May 2023 anomaly of +0.37 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 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 18 months are:

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2022Jan+0.03+0.06-0.00-0.23-0.12+0.68+0.10
2022Feb-0.00+0.01-0.01-0.24-0.04-0.30-0.50
2022Mar+0.15+0.28+0.03-0.07+0.22+0.74+0.02
2022Apr+0.27+0.35+0.18-0.04-0.25+0.45+0.61
2022May+0.17+0.25+0.10+0.01+0.60+0.23+0.20
2022Jun+0.06+0.08+0.05-0.36+0.46+0.33+0.11
2022Jul+0.36+0.37+0.35+0.13+0.84+0.56+0.65
2022Aug+0.28+0.32+0.24-0.03+0.60+0.50-0.00
2022Sep+0.24+0.43+0.06+0.03+0.88+0.69-0.28
2022Oct+0.32+0.43+0.21+0.04+0.16+0.93+0.04
2022Nov+0.17+0.21+0.13-0.16-0.51+0.51-0.56
2022Dec+0.05+0.13-0.03-0.35-0.21+0.80-0.38
2023Jan-0.04+0.05-0.14-0.38+0.12-0.12-0.50
2023Feb+0.08+0.170.00-0.11+0.68-0.24-0.12
2023Mar+0.20+0.24+0.16-0.13-1.44+0.17+0.40
2023Apr+0.18+0.11+0.25-0.03-0.38+0.53+0.21
2023May+0.37+0.30+0.44+0.39+0.57+0.66-0.09
2023June+0.38+0.47+0.29+0.55-0.36+0.45+0.06

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for June, 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


2,263 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2023: +0.38 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Herb Duncan says:

    Dr Spencer, what do you make of Tom Shula’s hypothesis with the Pirani gauge?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/

  2. Bindidon says:

    Oh how interesting!

    Suddenly, lot of people stick on the Pirani gauge, in search of every suitable straw possible.

    You can’t imagine what would happen if the Pirani gauge solely was useful to support global warming, GHE etc etc.

    Dozens of Pseudoskeptics would descend into the arena to ridicule the use of this gauge.

    • skeptikal says:

      Considering that climate change is far from being a ‘settled science’, I welcome any new ideas which might move the science forward. Most new ideas end up being wrong, but you should still look at them objectively and figure out why they’re wrong.

      Why do you feel that the Pirani Gauge has no merit?

      • bohous says:

        I am skeptical to the extent to which the theory of Pirani Gauge is applicable to the atmosphere. For example, all the incoming energy has to leave Earth. It leaves via radiation, there is neither convection nor conduction in the outer space.

        I can believe that convection is the most important for heat transfer in the lower part of the atmosphere. Nevertheless, if the upward radiation from the surface of the Earth is absorbed in the troposphere, it is very probable that it returns down via adiabatic convection. Adiabatic convection can transfer this heat from cooler upper layers of air to the warmer surface.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bohous…”all the incoming energy has to leave Earth. It leaves via radiation, there is neither convection nor conduction in the outer space”.

          ***

          The Earth’s energy budget is far more complicated than a simple energy in/energy out situation. Much of the solar energy we receive is used to maintain a temperature that represents warming over the eons and stored in the land and oceans. If we simply balanced energy in to energy out, the Earth would need to cool to a much lower temperature.

          As anyone knows who has tried to warm a home with a central furnace, if it’s freezing outside and the home is not heated, it takes a long time for the furnace to bring the home up to what we call room temperature. Once it’s there, however, if the home insulation is good, the furnace needs to come on only intermittently to maintain that temperature. That’s how I see the Earth-Su relationship.

          The point of the Pirani gauge is to measure the power loss representing heat dissipation in a heated filament in a vacuum. Then the vacuum is replaced with a gas and the heat dissipation is noted as the amount of current required to bring the filament back to the normalized temperature. Turns out the gas dissipates heat 250 times better than radiation alone.

          Alarmists have told us the opposite, that radiation is the sole means of heat dissipation at the surface and conduction/convection is only a minor player. If the Pirani gauge is an accurate means of determining the difference then we need to re-evaluate the science and figure out the exact role of conduction/convection in the process.

          We also need to determine the role of oxygen and nitrogen in the process. They make up 99% of the atmosphere and it strikes me as absurd that a trace gas like CO2 should be credited with not only warming the planet but cooling it as well.

          • bohous says:

            OK, the heat sinking into the ocean is true. But this mistake (or simplification) in my note does not improve the conceptual mismatch between the Pirani Gauge and atmosphere.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bohous…to understand my point, you need to go into it deeper. I have spent a long time pushing the boundaries of my understanding of heat. I have discovered that heat can be dissipated naturally in our atmosphere by simply being transported to higher altitudes by convection.

            If Shula and the Pirani tube theory is correct, that means most heat is transported to higher altitudes by convection and simply dissipated internally due to the negative pressure gradient caused by gravity.

            I am not defying the conservation of energy theory I am simply pushing the boundaries and questioning it. No science us written in stone IMHO. After years of applying Newton II I just discovered some small print written by Newton. F = ma only if the force has the ability to accelerate the mass. That’s not how the law is presented at university.

            A simple translation of the conservation of energy theory suggest all heat created by solar energy must be returned to space. I am questioning that claim. I don’t think conservation of energy has been adequately tested in a planetary system with a negative gravitational field.

            I am not questioning that a certain amount of heat is not dissipated to space, especially during the dark hours when the Sun is not shining. However, I don’t think a trace gas is adequate to accomplish that for the simple reason there is not enough of it and radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation. I think we have seriously underestimated the ability of nitrogen and oxygen to do the same.

            A highly qualified scientist, Richard Lindzen, has already seen through that. He claimed that without convection, the surface temperature would rise to 70C+.

            I see no logical reason why both gases, N2 and O2, cannot radiate away energy at ‘SOME’ frequency. However, they don’t really need to radiate away a lot of energy if they lose it naturally by rising to higher altitudes where the pressure and temperature are lower.

            What I am implying is this. We really don’t understand the required science well enough to formulate opinions re energy budgets. The Pirani gauge reveals a gross inadequacy in the current theory and we need to look a lot deeper.

            However, I no longer think this i about science. It’s about politically-correct nobs trying to push pseudo-science down our throats to meet the requirements of a different agenda.

          • bohous says:

            I am no expert in this field and I do not want to incinerate new discussion about polarity of CO2 molecule it is quadrupolar and it is sufficient for CO2 to be able to absorb infrared radiation and dissipate the energy among the neighbouring molecules. O2 and N2 are neither polar nor quadrupolar, so that the radiation is not re-radiated to space. It heats the gas. Even the photons that are re-radiated hit the surface with probability 1/2. This is why I believe in the greenhouse effect. I am not mentally able to asses the influence of water vapor and water condensation but I feel quite sure that the greenhouse effect does not approach zero (as the generalization of Pirani Gauge would suggest). That’s all.

      • Bindidon says:

        No one tells here that ‘the Pirani Gauge has no merit’.

        It is just completely misused in the atmospheric context.

        In my absence, commenter bohous explained the problem perfectly: radiation is the only way to exchange energy between Earth and outer space.

        Moreover, conduction at the surface is the worst way for energy exchange as air is one of the worst conductors at all.

        And convection can’t happen without heat supply.

        Evapotranspiration is one of the better ways to explain what happens, but no one talks about it.

        • RLH says:

          So why is radiation considered such a small pert of heatsink/radiator design in the 0c to 50c range?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”conduction at the surface is the worst way for energy exchange as air is one of the worst conductors at all”.

          ***

          The Pirani gauge proves you wrong. Besides, you misunderstand what is meant by conduction. If molecules of a gas touch a hotter surface, heat is transferred to each molecule via conduction. Once heated by the surface, the molecules rise to higher elevations and are replace by cooler molecules.

          I am not arguing that heat conduction through a gas, molecule to molecule, is in the least efficient, we know air is a poor conductor of heat. However, when molecules are heated by touch, that heat can be moved via convection.

          That’s how the Pirani gauge works. Radiation alone is 250 times less effective at dissipating heat than bazillions of molecules touching the filament and taking away the hat they receive via convection.

          • Nate says:

            “Thats how the Pirani gauge works. Radiation alone is 250 times less effective at dissipating heat than bazillions of molecules touching the filament and taking away the hat they receive via convection.”

            Gordon has been informed several times that the Pirani gauge has important differences from the Earth/atmosphere, and thus the 250 factor is not correct for the Earth/atmosphere.

            But he ignores these facts.

            Some additional evidence comes from in-floor home heating.

            https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/radiant-heating

            For this setup, radiation produces the largest component of heat transfer to a room.

            https://tinyurl.com/3weea23h

            Thus these are appropriately called radiant-heating systems.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            if you put a pebble inside and ice cube it doesn’t emit hardly any net radiation either Nate. And it doesn’t heat up from the inside out either despite all that high frequency light that shining on it.

          • Nate says:

            Does Bill think a pebble is a heating system?

          • Nate says:

            And apparently if you wait 3 weeks you can post almost any sort of nonsense.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            So in your view does the ice melt from the inside or the outside?

          • Nate says:

            Not interested in irrelevant unheated pebbles.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            You aren’t interested because you know it leads to an exposure of your contradictory position regarding the 3rd grader radiation model.

            You are incapable of making a consistent argument because you have zero physical evidence of backradiation. You have no working physical model specifying that the effect is real and thus you don’t know how it works.

            And you spent a lot of posts sometime ago responding the the following study of the CO2 effect had to have something wrong with it but never figured out what was wrong with it.

            https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

          • Nate says:

            ” zero physical evidence of backradiation. ”

            Gee Bill, who knew you were a secret sky dragon slayer!

            As I discussed at length, the paper was very poorly done.

          • Nate says:

            “zero physical evidence of backradiation.”

            Bill, if I point my cheap IR thermometer, purchased from Harbor Freight Tools, into my freezer, it accurately detects its temperature.

            Obviously the SB blackbody emission from the cold internal surface of my freezer is being detected by my warmer thermometer, and its temperature is determined.

            Thus anybody, even you, can see the physical evidence of back radiation.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nope Nate thats just because you don’t understand the technology behind IR detectors. Your Harbor Freight model is one of the simplest technologies in that it measures the energy being lost from the detector. There is no energy being gained by the warmer detector surface to detect. this is why the first detectors had to be chilled to below the temperature they were attempting to measure.

            You probably also don’t understand how your phone works either.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”As I discussed at length, the paper was very poorly done.”

            Your at length discussion was virtually limited to repeating that the paper was poorly done numerous times and only fretting over very small amounts of energy that was supposedly missing. . . failing to recognize that some energy would travel through the insulation wrapping the box.

            bottom line is there wasn’t enough missing energy to account for the expected results per the 3rd grade radiation model. Thus it is adequate to refute that model, which of course has been replicated many times including by Vaughn Pratt.

            But as G&T stated its not their job to refute every possible regarding backradiation. . .its the job of the claimants to provide a completed blueprint of the physics of the model that is demonstrable. . .then it that can be repeated to see if the same results are obtained.

          • Nate says:

            “Your Harbor Freight model is one of the simplest technologies in that it measures the energy being lost from the detector. There is no energy being gained by the warmer detector surface to detect. ”

            I’ve not claimed any NET GAIN in energy by my device.

            And yet it determines the T of a colder object. Explain how it can do that without detecting the emitted radiation from the object.

            No handwaving or gibberish please.

          • Nate says:

            “Your at length discussion was virtually limited to repeating that the paper was poorly done numerous times”

            False. I showed direct communication with the authors. They could not account for energy lost, which makes it a poor experiment. They admit that it does not convincingly overturn any laws of physics.

            It has no useful conclusions.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            You are the one who concluded the experiment was poorly done due to the missing energy.

            The missing energy was far below the expected results from the 3rd grader radiation model.

            But regardless of all that nobody has ever managed to do an experiment on this that in your view would not be poorly done.

            The scientific method demands that the first thing in science that must be done to judge an experiment as being poorly done is an experiment that fails to produce the effect when virtually every other attempt does.

            Obviously you know nothing about the scientific method – concluding an experiment results are poorly done without having a single source of what the correct result would be.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Worse than that every knowledgeable scientist I am aware of has moved past the 3rd grader radiation model, acknowledging its inappropriateness.

            That is evidenced by experimenters who have failed to produce the effect as profusely diagrammed by early advocates of the effect and now say thats not how it works. Also we have seen the disappearance of the original diagram from hundreds of websites including Harvard Univeristy. That says something.

            Yet Nate won’t give up.

            Perhaps Nate can revive a diagram for our amusement. LOL!

          • Nate says:

            My IR thermometer determines the T of a colder object. Explain how it can do that without detecting the emitted radiation from the object.

            No handwaving or gibberish please.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunbter continues to insist that:

            You are incapable of making a consistent argument because you have zero physical evidence of backradiation.

            But his referenced S&O paper does exhibit evidence of back radiation, as shown in their Figure 9. Also, their explanation based on calculations using S-B ignores the fact that gasses do not emit with a continuous spectrum, thus they ware wrong.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            The technology is both varied and a bit complex using lenses, sensors, and reflectors in various versions. But you have ambient temperature and cooling rate of the sensor being the most basic then you know everything. This was made possible by the digital age. In analog times they needed to cool the sensor to below the target because without digital the computations couldn’t be done. Today you get all that in a $10 instrument.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            You are incapable of making a consistent argument because you have zero physical evidence of backradiation.

            But his referenced S&O paper does exhibit evidence of back radiation, as shown in their Figure 9. Also, their explanation based on calculations using S-B ignores the fact that gasses do not emit with a continuous spectrum, thus they ware wrong.

            ————
            As in my response to Nate to above there is evidence consisting of an effect that could be attributable to backradiation as defined by the one time proponents of the 3rd grader radiation model.

            But as this experiment shows there is no surface temperature effect arising from it. This has convinced you the hot surface has actually abso.rbed energy, which may or may not be true, but the point is that the surface didn’t warm even though we know the effect was observed.

            You are just so convinced it should have you consider the experiment flawed. . . .and yet you cannot produce an identical example of an insulated surface receiving this effect of actually warming. Of course you have doubly convinced yourself it should from your experiments with uninsulated surfaces which I have pointed out those experiments lacked the controls necessary to determine if a greenhouse effect occurred or not. (e.g. proper field of view documentation and intensity of the radiation from your light.)

            This experiment is well designed to control for that by insulating surfaces reflecting light from exiting gaps between the plates and noting no warming.

          • Nate says:

            “The technology is both varied and a bit complex using lenses….”

            So just unrelated BS.

            No explanation whatsoever for how the IR thermometer detects the T of a colder surface WITHOUT detecting its emitted blackbody radiation.

            Because it is simply not possible.

            Your denial of back radiation is falsified, Bill.

            Sorry.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate if you know the temperature of the sensor and you know the cooling rate of the sensor all you do is use Stefan-Boltzmann to calculate the temperature of the target. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote stuff, including:

            But as this experiment shows there is no surface temperature effect arising from it. This has convinced you the hot surface has actually abso.rbed energy, which may or may not be true, but the point is that the surface didnt warm even though we know the effect was observed.

            No, Hunter, you claimed that back radiation does not exist, when the S&O experiment in fact provides evidence that it happens. Regarding the data for Figure 9, S&O comment that:

            From Equation (5) we then expect a temperature rise of 2.4˚C, due to IR backscatter from CO2.

            This calculated rise in temperature does not represent the true physics of gasses, only that of a black body with a continuous spectrum of emissions. And, the case they refer to is the one with the aluminum foil heated by a high intensity lamp. They make no mention of the temperature control for this version of their experiment, stating simply that:

            A black-painted Al-plate (or a black-painted Al-foil) is heated by a 500 W halogen lamp. The distance to the lamp was adjusted to warm the plate to about 100˚C.

            Think about what this implies. If the plate (or foil) exhibits heating from the “backscatter”, did they move the light to a different location to compensate, thereby eliminating the heating effect from said backscatter?

            Your comments appear to refer to my Green Plate Demo, claiming that there’s no insulation, when none is necessary in the high vacuum environment of the bell jar. You really have no clue, do you.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate if you know the temperature of the sensor and you know the cooling rate of the sensor all you do is use Stefan-Boltzmann to calculate the temperature of the target. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?”

            Missing the point, Bill.

            The temperature of the cold object is a piece of information. How the device processes that information is not the point.

            The point is about how does that information get from the cold object, perhaps far away, to the sensor?

            Hint: that information is encoded in the EM emission of the cold object.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Well you will need to show me how your IR sensor does that.

            My IR sensor knows what the ambient temperature is of my sensor. It also knows how much energy its is losing.

            Stefan Boltzann says T1 the ambient temperature would cool at X watt/m2 to absolute zero. But knows it is actually cooling at Y watts/m2. y-X gives you the net cooling rate to the target thus the target T2 must have a temperature that would emit y-x watts.

            Thus you don’t need any information from the target, everything you need to know is inside the sensor and a lens that allows net energy to escape in a narrow beam. Saying its sensing photons is simply an academic extrapolation made to enforce consistency with the academic scriptures and comic books.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            But as this experiment shows there is no surface temperature effect arising from it. This has convinced you the hot surface has actually abso.rbed energy, which may or may not be true, but the point is that the surface didnt warm even though we know the effect was observed.

            No, Hunter, you claimed that back radiation does not exist, when the S&O experiment in fact provides evidence that it happens. Regarding the data for Figure 9, S&O comment that:
            ————————
            No I didn’t claim backradiation doesn’t exist. I never have. I ascribe to the Einsteinian view on the matter.

            If you think the Seim experiment is done wrong submit something that shows it being done right.

          • Nate says:

            “Thus you dont need any information from the target, everything you need to know is inside the sensor and a lens that allows net energy to escape in a narrow beam. Saying its sensing photons is simply an academic extrapolation made to enforce consistency with the academic scriptures and comic books.”

            Bill, it seems you imagine that the remote sensor ‘knows’ information about a distant object, without ever having received information from that distant object.

            We already know that the cold object’s temperature can be measured locally at the object by placing a thermometer in contact with it.

            We already know that all bodies emit radiation according to their temperature, as described by Planck’s law and the SB law.

            You propose two implausible things:

            1. The cold body’s emitted EM radiation somehow NEVER reaches the sensor.

            2. The sensor still knows the temperature of the cold object, by some intelligence, and knows therefore how much energy to emit.

            Physically, logically, philosophically, these speculations make no sense whatsoever.

            Occam’s razor says it is much simpler:

            The sensor receives and abso.orbs the radiation that we know was emitted by the cold body by the SB law.

            The sensor emits radiation that we know it emits by the SB law.

            The NET of this input and output is its energy gain or loss.

            The NET gain or loss is used with the sensor’s measured temperature to calculate the cold body’s temperature.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”Bill, it seems you imagine that the remote sensor knows information about a distant object, without ever having received information from that distant object.”

            Well I am simply not assuming I know anything at all about the nature of that information or how it was obtained. I am applying the electromagnetic principle of potential is all. There is a potential difference between the detector and the target and thus when I fire the beam from the detector I get a flow of energy.

            Nate says:

            We already know that all bodies emit radiation according to their temperature, as described by Plancks law and the SB law.

            You propose two implausible things:

            1. The cold bodys emitted EM radiation somehow NEVER reaches the sensor.

            2. The sensor still knows the temperature of the cold object, by some intelligence, and knows therefore how much energy to emit.

            Physically, logically, philosophically, these speculations make no sense whatsoever.

            Occams razor says it is much simpler:
            ———————
            Occam’s razor is just another scientific convention as is the idea that all objects are losing energy toward warmer objects.

            Conventions are not facts. They are a way of doing business that some dullards can’t see the difference between that and a fact.

          • Nate says:

            “Well I am simply not assuming I know anything at all about the nature of that information or how it was obtained.”

            So you admit you don’t know. But ordinary physics does know, and the explanation is straightforward: the information came from the cold object’s emitted radiation.

            But for some unknown reason you believe the emitted radiation from the cold object vanishes and never arrives at the sensor.

            Where’d it go?

            ” I am applying the electromagnetic principle of potential is all. There is a potential difference between the detector and the target and thus when I fire the beam from the detector I get a flow of energy.”

            This is sciency sounding gobbldegook. Potential is used in electrostatics and circuits. It does not apply to EM waves and the information or energy they carry at the speed of light.

            The method we all use regularly to communicate over long distances.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”So you admit you dont know. But ordinary physics does know.”
            ———————
            Well from the guy that discovered the photo-electric effect and won a Nobel Prize for it. . . .you are mistaken.

            Nates says:

            ”This is sciency sounding gobbldegook. Potential is used in electrostatics and circuits. It does not apply to EM waves and the information or energy they carry at the speed of light.”
            ————————————-
            Well from the guy that discovered the photo-electric effect and won a Nobel Prize for it. . . .you are mistaken.

            And in typical Nate fashion you have no science to prove your point.

            I will as usual await your offering of proof but as usual I will not be holding my breath.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            And once again your argument is not based on science.

            Occams razor is just another scientific convention as is the idea that all objects are losing energy toward warmer objects.

            Conventions are not facts. They are a way of doing business that some dullards cant see the difference between that and a fact.

          • Nate says:

            Bad analogies to potential in electrical circuits are no substitute for the real physics of radiative heat transfer. If you think it is applicable, show us a source! Otherwise it is just obfuscation.

            For some unexplained reason you believe the radiation that we know must be emitted from the cold object, by the SB law, vanishes and never arrives at the sensor.

            Whered it go?

            You have no answer. This is magical thinking.

            The sensor has obtained information about the cold object’s temperature, though it could be very far away, and therefore knows what NET energy to emit.

            You have no sensible explanation for how it obtained this information. This is also magical thinking.

            You offer no alternative theory that makes a bit of sense or agrees with ordinary physics, which you dismiss with derogatory terms.

            You prefer magical thinking.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate you are real dullard.

            It doesn’t make any difference if light travels via potential differences or if cold objects emit radiation received by warm objects. The net effect is the same. The only point here is you believe fervently in a cartoon depiction of photons and their behavior that you may have once seen in a textbook on light and the effect that would have per the 3rd grader radiation model.

            The sensor in your IR detector is going to cool in either case. Yet you seem to think it would not if one does not believe as you do and believe everything printed in a physics text book as gospel.

            So there is nothing whatsoever magical about what I said about your IR detector.

            What we are talking about here is answering the question: Does the hot plate heat if exposed to a greenhouse gas being placed between the plate and a far cooler place?

            It did not. And you and Swanson are trying to make a lot of ridiculous ignorant excuses as to why not. And photons doesn’t change the fact that the damn insulated plate didn’t warm up.

            . . .and far worse you cannot come up with an experimental design that shows that it does.

            So the conclusion has to be that you and Swanson are a pair of ignorant boobs. Ask Richard Feynman!

          • Nate says:

            “It doesnt make any difference if light travels via potential differences or if cold objects emit radiation received by warm objects. The net effect is the same.”

            It does, because the first of these is made-up gibberish, for which you can cite no source. And the second is based on an actual laws of physics, the SB law and Planck’s law, that has been repeatedly tested and proven.

            In addition we have Causality. The sensor cannot know how much net radiation to send to the cold object unless and until it receives that information, via an EM signal, from the cold object.

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

            Your original assertion,

            “You are incapable of making a consistent argument because you have zero physical evidence of backradiation.”

            is FALSIFIED. Oh well.

            “The sensor in your IR detector is going to cool in either case. Yet you seem to think it would not if one does not believe as you do and believe everything printed in a physics text book as gospel.”

            You have no logical alternative explanation, that does NOT involve detecting the radiation coming from the cold source to the sensor.

            Naturally, now you say it doesnt matter.

            Classic Bill!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            It doesnt make any difference if light travels via potential differences or if cold objects emit radiation received by warm objects. The net effect is the same.

            It does, because the first of these is made-up gibberish, for which you can cite no source. And the second is based on an actual laws of physics, the SB law and Plancks law, that has been repeatedly tested and proven.

            ———————————
            Sure there are plenty of sources related to the search for aether. The fact it hasn’t been found doesn’t mean it won’t be found. It remains a possibility.

            Also Plancks Law and Stefan’s Law were both established decades before somebody suggested it was a photon based on Einstein’s work and Einstein disagreed. To this day that issue has not been resolved. But this is all a bunny trail that you latch onto because you think mythical photons warm surfaces when it fact they don’t. The only thing that can warm a surface is a net positive flow of energy.

            Anyway Plancks law only applies to object in equilibrium with zero flow of energy from the object to the environment. How can you reconcile that with your belief system? And all that Stefan’s Law does is ascribe a certain radiance or radiance potential to an objects temperature. Must you take everything so literally without examining the experimental evidence?

            In addition we have Causality. The sensor cannot know how much net radiation to send to the cold object unless and until it receives that information, via an EM signal, from the cold object.

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

            Your original assertion,

            You are incapable of making a consistent argument because you have zero physical evidence of backradiation.

            is FALSIFIED. Oh well.

            The sensor in your IR detector is going to cool in either case. Yet you seem to think it would not if one does not believe as you do and believe everything printed in a physics text book as gospel.

            You have no logical alternative explanation, that does NOT involve detecting the radiation coming from the cold source to the sensor.

            Naturally, now you say it doesnt matter.

            Classic Bill!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Sure there are plenty of sources related to the search for aether. The fact it hasnt been found doesnt mean it wont be found. It remains a possibility.

            Also Plancks Law and Stefans Law were both established decades before somebody suggested it was a photon based on Einsteins work and Einstein disagreed. To this day that issue has not been resolved. But this is all a bunny trail that you latch onto because you think mythical photons warm surfaces when it fact they dont. The only thing that can warm a surface is a net positive flow of energy.

            Anyway Plancks law only applies to object in equilibrium with zero flow of energy from the object to the environment. How can you reconcile that with your belief system? And all that Stefans Law does is ascribe a certain radiance or radiance potential to an objects temperature. Must you take everything so literally without examining the experimental evidence?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”In addition we have Causality. The sensor cannot know how much net radiation to send to the cold object unless and until it receives that information, via an EM signal, from the cold object.”

            ——————————

            Hmmmmmmmmmmm, here is how electricity controls current:

            ”The purpose of the resistor is to decrease the current in the circuit. How does this happen? Firstly, a resistor is made of material that is less conductive than the wire. As a result, electrons aren’t able to move as quickly in the resistor as they are in the wire.”

            So what kind of EM signal is the resistor sending out Nate?

          • Nate says:

            “Also Plancks Law and Stefans Law were both established decades before somebody suggested it was a photon based on Einsteins work and Einstein disagreed. To this day that issue has not been resolved. But this is all a bunny trail that you latch onto because you think mythical photons warm surfaces when it fact they dont. ”

            I believe it is you who is pursuing this bunny trail, not me.

            Why do you think photons, which are regularly observed in experiments, are mythical?

            “Hmmmmmmmmmmm, here is how electricity controls current:”

            Information travels through wires at the speed of light or less. They have known about this since the telegraph days.

            In any case, this is doubling down on a bad analogy.

          • Nate says:

            “And all that Stefans Law does is ascribe a certain radiance or radiance potential to an objects temperature. ”

            ‘radiance potential’?

            Your endless attempts to man-splain physics to me are quite
            entertaining.

            “Must you take everything so literally without examining the experimental evidence?”

            Must you keep forgetting that all the laws of physics became laws only after passing numerous experimental tests?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ”Why do you think photons, which are regularly observed in experiments, are mythical?”

            What is observed is light quanta according to Einstein. Its an effect we observe when its hot enough or when high frequency light gets reflected. Really high frequency light overloads our systems and can cause severe damage.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            And all that Stefans Law does is ascribe a certain radiance or radiance potential to an objects temperature.

            radiance potential?

            Your endless attempts to man-splain physics to me are quite
            entertaining.
            ———————
            You mean you disagree with what I said? Where is your evidence?

            Nate says:
            Must you take everything so literally without examining the experimental evidence?

            Must you keep forgetting that all the laws of physics became laws only after passing numerous experimental tests?
            ————————-
            Come on Nate stop being so dense. I didn’t say their was a problem with the laws. I said the laws predated the belief in photons. When the laws were created it was classic physics and everything about the laws were consistent with wave theory. Then somebody figured it were waves they should find the medium upon which the waves travel. So don’t give me this crapola that the laws depend upon your idea of what a photon being some kind of detectable particle.

            You pretend to know physics but you can’t even hold a candle to a non-physicist inquirer and you start making stuff up about little photons flying all around the place. All photons are is a cartoon description to explain light to children. Einstein laughed at the idea.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Testing time…

          • Nate says:

            “Then somebody figured it were waves they should find the medium upon which the waves travel. ”

            Nope, didn’t need one, as Einstein showed.

            “So dont give me this crapola that the laws depend upon your idea of what a photon being some kind of detectable particle.”

            Wrong. I never said that the SB law depends on photons. You are very confused.

            “You pretend to know physics but you cant even hold a candle to a non-physicist inquirer and you start making stuff up about little photons flying all around the place. All photons are is a cartoon description to explain light to children. Einstein laughed at the idea.”

            Loser talk.

            By declaring your made-up fizuks is just as good or superior to actual physics facts found in textbooks, you automatically lose the debate.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            So what kind of EM signal is the resistor sending out Nate?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate your claim was:

            ”The sensor cannot know how much net radiation to send to the cold object unless and until it receives that information, via an EM signal, from the cold object.”

            Your response to a resistor in an electrical circuit doing that was:

            ”In addition we have Causality. The sensor cannot know how much net radiation to send to the cold object unless and until it receives that information, via an EM signal, from the cold object.”

            We also know from the Stefan Boltzmann equations that the flow of energy from a hot object to a cold object is resisted by the cooler object as long as it isn’t absolute zero in value.

            An electric circuit that has a resistor does the same thing.

            So why does light require a signal from the cold object but we are perfectly comfortable with not even asking what kind of EM signal a resistor send back up the wire to the power source?

            The answer is obviously it isn’t important to know.

            Yet the theory is different for these two types of EM energy transfers. Yes electricity requires a wire because it is sending far and a way larger amounts of energy that what just automatically flies through space whether it has a substance to it or not.

            So now that question is better framed why is it required that the sensor in your IR detector receive a signal from the cooler object

            but the powersource in the electric circuit isn’t acknowledged as requiring such a signal.

            You are the one making a claim for this major difference so what do you have in defense of your claim? Or were you just extrapolating as usual from what you heard?

          • Nate says:

            “flow of energy from a hot object to a cold object is resisted by the cooler object as long as it isnt absolute zero in value.

            An electric circuit that has a resistor does the same thing.”

            You are transparently using the word ‘resisted’ to make it seem radiative heat transfer is similar to an electrical circuit.

            It is not an electrical circuit, and it is a poor analogy.

            It is showing that you cannot make a sound argument using the real physics of the real phenomena, radiative heat transfer, the SB law, and causality.

            Thus you obfuscate by trying to discuss a different phenomena.

            That said, causality applies to electric circuits. You cannot respond to a telegraph message through the wires, from far away, which travel at a maximum speed (light speed), telling you the temperature of a surface, and then respond to that, BEFORE RECEIVING that message.

            In the case of the IR T sensor, the sensor surface is not intelligent. It only emits flux according to its OWN temperature and the SB law. Its T can also be measured with a regular T sensor.

            When it receives input flux emitted by a cold object, its NET energy loss is the difference between the output and the input fluxes.

            By measuring this energy loss, it can calculate the T of the cold object.

            It cannot do that without first receiving EM flux from the cold object, whose magnitude is determined by the T of the COLD object.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            flow of energy from a hot object to a cold object is resisted by the cooler object as long as it isnt absolute zero in value.

            An electric circuit that has a resistor does the same thing.

            You are transparently using the word resisted to make it seem radiative heat transfer is similar to an electrical circuit.

            It is not an electrical circuit, and it is a poor analogy.
            ———————–
            They are both EM.

            Where is the evidence that the way they transfer energy is fundamentally different other than the medium upon which the energy travels?

            Nate says:
            It is showing that you cannot make a sound argument using the real physics of the real phenomena, radiative heat transfer, the SB law, and causality.

            Thus you obfuscate by trying to discuss a different phenomena.
            ———————-
            I asked you the difference in causality that you claimed for electricity and you still haven’t answered the question. You answer that question, I will comment on it then it will be your turn to answer a question.

            Nate says:

            By measuring this energy loss, it can calculate the T of the cold object.

            It cannot do that without first receiving EM flux from the cold object, whose magnitude is determined by the T of the COLD object.
            ——————–
            My question was how does radiation’s cousin electricity do it with a passive object (resistor) inline. Answer that question and we can discuss something about that rather than you trying to operate from the position of you thinking you are a a know it all and expecting me to refute your requirements for the transfer of EM energy.

            Lets face it, it is very difficult to contain energy. Its constantly escaping at various rates. Your photon model by its cartoonish representation begs that you think of it the way you think of it. But your huge mistake is prima facie in believing you know what a photon is.

            You extrapolate a whole lot of unproven qualities about them. To me I can clearly see that you are just ignorantly inculcated into a belief system that likely no professor worth shiit ever intended for you to believe.

            You have no science papers proving that photons are what you think they are. Einstein agrees with me and said so near his death saying for more than half a century he had unsuccessfully tried to figure out what real nature of light quanta (ignoring the word photon even though the word had been around for about 25 years at the time of his comment) was.

            And here you are believing you hold Nobel Prize winning knowledge that you are keeping secret. I have no problem with using the idea to figure outcomes of net energy loss as it doesn’t mathematically differ from any other concept of what they might be. But that doesn’t entitle you to start thinking they are real and that you can start extrapolating that the subtrahend will warm the warmer object nor does it give you a clue that it can warm something at equilibrium because radiative equilibrium cannot exist in your world. . . .as it will always result in the warmer object being hotter than the object the warmer object is warming.

            Right off that bat that runs contrary to the works of several famous scientists, especially Stefan and Boltzmann.

          • Nate says:

            “. Your photon model by its cartoonish representation begs that you think of it the way you think of it.”

            YOU are the only one bringing up photons. Not me. Different topic.

            The SB law, radiative heat transfer, and causality do not rely on the existence of photons.

            “I asked you the difference in causality that you claimed for electricity and you still havent answered the question.”

            I answered you. Did you miss it? Both obey causality. Not sure what your problem is.

          • Nate says:

            “Einstein agrees with me”

            Nonsense.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”. Your photon model by its cartoonish representation begs that you think of it the way you think of it.”

            YOU are the only one bringing up photons. Not me. Different topic.

            The SB law, radiative heat transfer, and causality do not rely on the existence of photons.

            ———————————

            Causality can be a pressure differential. Voltage = Pressure. they flow all the time at a rate depending upon the pressure differential and that pressure differential (voltage) can be estimated using Stefan Boltzmann equations. photon energy is measured in electron volts.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate believes in the 3rd grader radiation model where if you slow cooling of a surface at equilibrium with its power source will continue to warm.

            But that belief is a complete denial of the concept of equilibrium and simply as shown by many experiments just doesn’t work. Though it does seem at one time the vast majority of scientists in the world strangely believed it does work.

            The fact it doesn’t work is proven by their inability to show it working. The GPE is simply an experiment that changes the field of view factor to obtain warming.

            And that believe is changing one scientist at a time including Vaughn Pratt and the scientists at various universities that used to feature diagrams of the 3rd grader radiation model but since has been quietly expunged from their websites. Nate simply hasn’t gotten the memo yet.

          • Nate says:

            “Causality can be a pressure differential. Voltage = Pressure. ”

            This is yet more indecipherable gobbldegook.

            Read up on Causality if interested, and come back when you have an actual point.

            The argument about the existence of back radiation is clearly over, and you are moving on to other worn-out topics.

            No thanks.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Stop playing hide and seek Nate.

            If voltage isn’t causality in the electrical flow of energy what is?

          • Nate says:

            “If voltage isnt causality in the electrical flow of energy what is?”

            You do realize that acusality is a noun?

            ‘If voltage isnt causal in the electrical flow of energy what is?’

            might make sense.

            Yes voltage is causal, but a far away change in voltage cannot cause anything nearby to change until the signal arrives here.

            And that signal propagates through the wire at some speed, which is typically less than the speed of light.

            As I noted, telegraph operators know all about this. And later, on ships there was wireless telegraphy which used radio waves.

            Temperature far away cannot cause anything nearby to happen until the signal from it arrives, and that signal is in the form of EM waves, IR flux.

            This is what Causality is all about.

          • Nate says:

            “Stop playing hide and seek Nate.”

            You obviously have an interest in talking to me.

            Why should I have any interest in talking to you when mostly all I get is venom.

            A steady stream of ad-homs and childish nonsense like this:

            “Nate believes in the 3rd grader radiation model”

            Then random substitution of political BS for science facts in a science discussion.

            I have no interest in participating in that anymore.

            There you have it.

            You decide.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”As I noted, telegraph operators know all about this. And later, on ships there was wireless telegraphy which used radio waves.”

            And what is this signal as recognized by science?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”A steady stream of ad-homs and childish nonsense like this:

            ”Nate believes in the 3rd grader radiation model”

            ————————————–

            You have acknowledged you believe in the 3rd grader radiation model Nate.

            this experiment is the 3rd grader radiation model set up with CO2
            https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
            You claimed that the fact it didn’t work was because the experiment was flawed.

            R.W. Woods did a 3rd grader model experiment using glass and rocksalt. You claimed it was flawed.

            Vaughn Pratt did a 3rd grader model experiment that didn’t return signification results and you have avoided saying what you think of it.

            And now you call the 3rd grader radiation model childish? Nate you are all over the place like a soup sandwich.

          • Nate says:

            “And now you call the 3rd grader radiation model childish? ”

            Yes. Keep it up. Maybe I need to call you Penis-Face from now on.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Sure go ahead Nate. I don’t have a penis complex so you are just projecting that I do.

            If you want to actually discuss science here and the failed tests of the effect you so want to believe in with zero evidence you will always be welcome.

          • Nate says:

            “zero evidence”

            or not, depending on the prevailing winds at the time.

            “Bindidon I have freely acknowledged that CO2 among other things have an effect on climate.”

          • Bill Hunter says:

            The fact that you believe those statements to be inconsistent just shows how little you know about science.

            I have acknowledged that CO2 is part of the GHE. But your belief in how it works isn’t supported by any evidence.

            And I suspect you have too little experience with the topic to realize that there are other possibilities.

            A clue is in the fact that many things are necessary for a good stew but a good stew isn’t made by one ingredient.

            More concisely, CO2 is a necessary part of our GHE, but there is no evidence that it is sufficient as a cause.

            Correlation does not equal causation.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Still waiting for you to explain the sort of EM signal that electricity sends out. Einstein proved that light curved around the sun. Shouldn’t those photons have been absorbed by the sun?

    • Nate says:

      It is used to mislead people. It has different properties that make it a poor substitute for analysis of the real Earth/atmosphere, as discussed at length in the previous article.

      • RLH says:

        Radiation is considered to be just a small part of heatsink/radiator design in the 0C-50C range. See any book/source on this factor.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Well Nate is a liar.

        He endorses the 3rd grader radiation model then claims the models consider the effects of convection. . . .when its abundantly clear that convection has no effect on the 3rd grader radiation model.

        Indeed one might infer that Manabe in MW is detailing an effect via a restriction of convection but nobody says so. Thats because nobody has an iota of science suggesting thats the case and thus convection is considered in models as a nil effect and X watts absorbed in the upper atmosphere creates 3X watts affect at the surface.

        Trenberth set this albatross up with his 3rd grader radiation model and radiation budget. All phony. Yet it convinced a lot of people. Did it convince Nate? Probably not but he recognizes the importance of the lie so he straddles two boats one the Trenberth 3rd grader radiation model where convection is clearly a negative feedback and two the models which probably allow convection but don’t use it as a negative feedback and just ignore it. . . .if not the restriction of it has the mode. We don’t know because the models are black boxes and the exact mechanism of the GHE in the models isn’t revealed. Used to be Univ of Chicago Modtran spit out the surface effects. But too much criticism such as this post got it erased.

        and two the modeling exercise where he c

      • Nate says:

        Im going to ignore my stalker-troll and his off-topic rants.

        “Radiation is considered to be just a small part of heatsink/radiator design in the 0C-50C range. See any book/source on this factor.”

        I already made this point, which RLH seems to ignore. Every heat transfer problem has its unique properties.

        Pirani gauges use polished metal wires. As a result, they emit very little radiation. Conduction is the main heat transfer mode.

        Home radiators have fin structures designed to maximize convection.

        Neither of those apply to the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. To pretend these differences don’t matter is misleading.

        OTOH, the Earth’s surface also radiates through the IR window direct to the extreme cold of space, which is not applicable to Pirani gauges or home radiators.

        It is misleading to pretend analysis of very different problems is just as good as analysis of the actual problem.

        It is also intentionally misleading for Tom Shula to misrepresent the one-way SB emission from the Earth as its radiative heat transfer.

        • Bill hunter says:

          Nate has to ignore me because he can’t argue both the 3rd grader radiation model and how it ignores convection while claiming that convection effects are included in the models.

          He has his two feet in two different boats and if he addresses the subject those damn boats are going to go two different directions.

        • RLH says:

          If a heatsink is polished or black to IR seems to provide very little difference in the 0C to 50C range.

        • Bill hunter says:

          Nate says:

          ”It is also intentionally misleading for Tom Shula to misrepresent the one-way SB emission from the Earth as its radiative heat transfer.”

          SB transfer laws apply to a non-cooling receiving object.

          So if we say that the surface of the earth had a mean emissivity of .96 due to IR being a better emitter than higher frequencies which would suggest that it might be .7.

          Lets also say that the atmospheric window is only 20w/m2 as some have suggested.

          Then the upwelling radiation absorbed by atmosphere would be 396-20*.96=360. 360 minus the 199 lost to space would be the 161wm2 received by the sun.

          Nate is locked into the idea that the losses to space by the atmosphere does not need to be replaced, that that loss can occur without accepting more radiation from the surface. I have asked him repeatedly for a statistically sensible argument that that isn’t true and he can’t produce it.

          Leaves you wondering what we really do know about the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere.

          In a bank account you have to account for all the debits and credits. Not just the ones you authorize.

          I mean that some folks have estimated that the mean sky temperature emits around 200w/m2 back toward earth but thats a big problem as Trenberth claims it emits 333w/m2 as backradiation a figure he acknowledges as a ‘plug’ figure.

          The numbers are all over the place and make little sense.

          • RLH says:

            Any unexplained difference from S-B is simply met by a change in emissivity.

          • Nate says:

            Nothing is unexplained if one analyzes the real problem.

          • RLH says:

            The real problem being that heatsink/radiator designers consider that radiation is only a small part of their calculations.

          • Bill hunter says:

            This should be simple to explain if its settled science. After all you need is a full description of the experiment that established the science. But I guess everybody just believes what they believe without any evidence but instead based on authority.

          • Bill hunter says:

            Stefan Boltzmann came up with their laws of radiation by the use of a powered filament in their lab. Funny how they never explained the effect of backradiation on their results isn’t it?

      • Tim S says:

        I have to agree with Nate on this point. Nate is a politician and is willing to use any tool to push his agenda, but he is correct about this gauge. It measures vacuum from a source, and that is it. It has zero relation to the atmosphere and does not represent the complexity of the atmosphere in any way. It is time to move on from this proposal.

        • RLH says:

          “It measures vacuum from a source, and that is it.”

          The gauge works from mTorr to one atmosphere. Or say say those who actually manufacture them.

          • Tim S says:

            The “source” being measured is connected by a hose and thus the hose connection on the instrument.

    • Herb Duncan says:

      I don’t think it’s being used to mislead anyone. It seems reasonable that conduction and convection could be 250 times more effective at transferring heat from the surface than radiation, and the Pirani gauge gives empirical evidence towards that.

      • Ken says:

        As Nate said, the Pirani gauge has different properties that make it a poor substitute for analysis of the real Earth/atmosphere.

        • Herb Duncan says:

          Such as?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Convection is suppressed. There’s no gravity gradient to support anything like natural convection.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            So you think conduction and convection could actually account for more than 250 times the amount of heat transfer than radiation?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Why would anyone think that?

          • Herb Duncan says:

            You just said you thought convection was suppressed in the gauge.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Convection is the result of a gas moving across a surface with a temperature difference between the gas and the surface. What causes that motion within a Pirani gauge?

          • RLH says:

            The presence of a gas which allows for the convection to take place.

          • Bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”Convection is the result of a gas moving across a surface with a temperature difference between the gas and the surface. What causes that motion within a Pirani gauge?”

            But we measure the gas and hypothesize warming of the surface by radiation and give no allowance for convection as a negative feedback?

          • Herb Duncan says:

            If convection is suppressed in the gauge, and the gauge tells us that radiation only accounts for 0.4 % of the heat transport, then in the atmosphere, where convection is not suppressed, radiation would account for even less of the heat transport.

          • E. Swanson says:

            HD, Perhaps you should take notice of the fact that the geometry in the gauge (a thin wire)is vastly different from the large radiating surface area of the Earth. You continue to ignore the question about what causes motion of the gas within the gauge, lacking which means there’s no convection.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            About convection, thank you for providing a reason that the gauge might be overestimating the heat transfer role of radiation in the atmosphere.

            I have taken notice of the geometry difference. Fortunately a Pirani gauge does not function by having an Earth inside it. That would make them rather difficult to carry around.

          • RLH says:

            Convection causes motion of the gas within the gauge. It there is a vacuum there is no convection.

          • E. Swanson says:

            RLH wrote:

            Convection causes motion of the gas within the gauge.

            No, convection is the result of the motion of the gas when considering natural convection. In the closed tube, convection is suppressed, just as it is in a double pane window.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            So AGW has it even more wrong than we thought.

          • Ken says:

            Such as:

            a. The radition spectrum of the earth is full spectrum and therefore rather different from the narrow IR spectrum of the Pirani gauge filiment.

            b. The Pirani gauge filiment power is much lower than the radiation level in the atmosphere. Liken CO2 to a Sponge and the radiation it a b s o r b s to a puddle; Pirani is like a cat dish next to a kitchen sink.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            Neither a nor b is relevant to the functioning of the Pirani gauge or the argument being made by Shula.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            I would defer to Shula himself:

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-3711901

            “If we were looking at the Earth from the Moon or Mars, we could look at it as a modified black body because the only energy transport we would detect would be radiation. That’s not what we’re doing here.

            It is invalid to treat the SURFACE of the Earth as a black body. It is enveloped in an atmosphere, and that changes the energy transport dynamics completely. That is what is demonstrated here.”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-3713661

            “Phil, you don’t seem to understand that the emissivity of the sensor is irrelevant, because the radiative loss in the Pirani gauge is a constant, not a variable. A low emissivity sensor is chosen to improve the sensitivity/SNR. That does not change the operating principle.“

          • Nate says:

            “It is invalid to treat the SURFACE of the Earth as a black body.”

            A different issue the whole Pirani gauge.

            “A low emissivity sensor is chosen to improve the sensitivity/SNR. That does not change the operating principle.

            Exactly. So his point about its low relative radiation as compared to the Earth seems moot.

          • RLH says:

            “In the closed tube, convection is suppressed, just as it is in a double pane window.”

            So why does adding a variable amount of gas alter the energy requirements of the filament? If it is not the added convection that is the cause, what is it?

          • RLH says:

            Nate: The gauge operates form mTorr to a full atmosphere. So say those who actually manufacture said gauges.

          • RLH says:

            P.S. A small change in emissivity overcomes the range that the SB ‘constant’ may actually be.

          • RLH says:

            Convection is not fully suppressed in double glazing.

            “A small amount of heat is lost through convection within the glazing cavity. “

          • Nate says:

            Conductivity of air varies with pressure only well below atmospheric pressure.

          • RLH says:

            Convection is large when the pressure gets close to one atmosphere.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            “A different issue the whole Pirani gauge.”

            Not sure what this means.

            “Exactly.”

            So you agree that the gauge filament’s emissivity being low is irrelevant.

          • Nate says:

            Herb,

            ‘Exactly.’

            “So you agree that the gauge filaments emissivity being low is irrelevant.”

            On the contrary. I said:

            “Exactly. So his point about its low relative radiation as compared to the Earth seems moot.”

            With a low emissivity, the Pirani gauge is a poor model for the Earth/atmosphere, which has different properties, such as a high emissivity.

            “It is invalid to treat the SURFACE of the Earth as a black body. It is enveloped in an atmosphere, and that changes the energy transport dynamics completely. That is what is demonstrated here.”

            This statement has nothing to do with use of the Pirani gauge.

            When he says:

            In the climate models, radiation is assumed to be the primary mechanism of heat transport from the Earths surface

            this is a FALSE PREMISE.

            Heres actual mainstream climate sciences view of what transports heat from the Earthss surface:

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml?tab_body=pdf

            Table 2b.

            Latent heat (water evaporation): 80 W/m^2
            Sensible heat (convection, conduction) 17 W/m^2
            LW radiation (Net) 63 W/m^2

          • Herb Duncan says:

            I don’t see how it’s a false premise. Out of conduction, convection and radiation, even with the figures in that table, they are still treating radiation as the major heat transport mechanism (of the three). Only evaporation is higher, but that is not a part of the Pirani gauge argument.

            You can’t say the Earth/atmosphere has a high emissivity. The emissivity of the various gases in the atmosphere is very low. You could say the surface itself has high emissivity, though it is covered by an atmosphere, which changes the heat transport dynamics completely, as he said.

          • Nate says:

            Herb,

            “I dont see how its a false premise.”

            With this from a Climate Science review of the issue:

            “Latent heat (water evaporation): 80 W/m^2
            Sensible heat (convection, conduction) 17 W/m^2
            LW radiation (Net) 63 W/m^2”

            it should be obvious that this statement:

            “In the climate models, radiation is assumed to be the primary mechanism of heat transport from the Earths surface”

            is a false premise.

            Look the numbers for Earth with its unique properties are what they are. And they are not the same as those of a Pirani gauge.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            Seems you ignored my comment and just repeated yourself.

          • Nate says:

            Seems you ignored what he actually claimed.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            I can see that a good faith discussion will not be possible.

          • Nate says:

            Perhaps there is confusion, by me also, about what he originally claimed.

            Lets go back to that:

            “From the energy budget diagram, there are four red arrows corresponding to (average) longwave (Infrared) radiation flux. They are as follows:

            398.2 Watts/m2 longwave radiation upwelling from the surface
            18.4 Watts/m2 upward from conduction/convection
            86.4 Watts/m2 upward from evapotranspiration
            340.3 Watts/m2 longwave radiation downwelling from the atmosphere as Back Radiation

            According to the greenhouse effect, it is the downwelling Back Radiation that traps the heat in the atmosphere to keep the Earth warm.

            For purposes of this exposition, we will consider only first two components above, as we will be investigating the relationship between upwelling longwave radiation and conduction/convection at the Earths surface. According to the model explained above, 398.2 W/m2 represents approximately 95.5% of shared heat transport and conduction/convection approximately 4.5% of shared heat transport.”

            This part

            “According to the model explained above, 398.2 W/m2 represents approximately 95.5% of shared heat transport and conduction/convection approximately 4.5% of shared heat transport.”

            is already misleading.

            The 398.2 W/m^2 is the UW, one-way Stephan-Boltzann emission from the Earth. It is NOT HEAT TRANSPORT. The actual HEAT TRANSPORT (Heat Loss) by radiation is the NET UW-DW which is ~ 58 W/m^2.

            So this is misrepresenting already what Climate Science is claiming.

            Then he goes on to discuss the Pirani gauge.

            “The red line in the chart represents the (constant) total radiative and end losses of approximately 0.4 mW. ”

            Now this is the Heat Loss = NET = UW- DW radiation from the filament.

            “Since the radiative and end losses are 0.4 mW, this means that the heat transport by gas is 99.6%, with only 0.4% due to radiative and end losses.”

            So he should not compare the NET radiation for the Pirani Gauge to only the UW one-way emission from the Earth.

            But that appears to be what he is doing!

            This is dishonest.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            I don’t see why it must be "dishonest" as opposed to just "mistaken".

            In any event, whether you are comparing 398.2 to 18.4 or 63 to 17, the dominant heat transfer mode (out of conduction, convection and radiation) is radiation. That is what AGW proposes. So, I don’t think it’s a false premise. If you could agree that it’s not a false premise, that would be progress.

          • Nate says:

            “Conclusions

            The Pirani gauge provides a method to measure the relative contributions of radiation vs. conduction/convection to heat transport in a gaseous environment as a function of pressure. At pressures relevant to the lower atmosphere (troposphere + stratosphere) radiation accounts for less than 1% of the upward heat transport. This does not refute the existence of said radiation in the lower atmosphere, it only demonstrates experimentally that its role in upward heat transport is insignificant.

            It has been demonstrated via the Pirani gauge operating principle that upward heat transport via radiation plays an insignificant role in the transport of heat at atmospheric pressures from the surface to the upper stratosphere.”

            Obviously False!

            The main error here is that there is NO convection nor conduction in the atmosphere above the tropopause. Radiation is the ONLY mechanism for transport of heat from the tropopause to the upper stratosphere.

            The Pirani gauge has other several differences from the Earth and atmosphere that oddly go unmentioned.
            -The emissivity of the polished wire and shell are designed to minimize radiation.
            -The atmosphere has an ‘IR atmospheric window’ direct to space at 3K, not so the Pirani gauge.
            -The heat transfer in the Pirani gauge is dominated by conduction, while conduction plays a minimal role in the atmosphere.

            “The greenhouse effect, if it exists, is based on upward heat transport via radiation in the lower atmosphere.”

            This is a False premise. As we have seen, the greenhouse effect includes heat transport in the lower atmosphere by convection, radiation, and evapotranspiration, which is largest.

            “Therefore the greenhouse effect, if it exists, plays an insignificant role in heat transfer and, by extension, the energy balance of the atmosphere.”

            Nonsense.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            So you cannot agree that what you initially said is a false premise, is not a false premise. Instead you have moved onto challenging a different premise.

          • Nate says:

            Herb,

            On the one hand we have research reviews which report data and analysis of the properties of the real Earth/atmosphere, by folks with expertise in that area.

            There are many such papers, and textbooks in agreement.

            On the other hand we have a non-expert reporting data on a lab device, which is NOT the Earth/atmosphere.

            Based on on no analysis of the real Earth and atmosphere, he concludes the data/analysis on the real Earth atmosphere must be wrong.

            On its face, his claims should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.

            Some of us are appropriately skeptical, and have already identified several flaws in his facts and reasoning.

            Can you consider that maybe you give this guy passes because his claims confirm your beliefs?

          • Nate says:

            “So you cannot agree that what you initially said is a false premise, is not a false premise. ”

            Shula appears to agree that latent heat transport is strong. Climate science puts it as the largest component of heat transport from the Earth’s surface.

            So,

            In the climate models, radiation is assumed to be the primary mechanism of heat transport from the Earths surface

            is a still a false premise, in my view.

            However, heat transport from the tropopause to space is dominated by radiation. And that is the region where the so-called radiative forcing takes place, according to climate science.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            Out of conduction, convection and radiation, do the models treat radiation as being the primary means of heat transfer from the surface?

          • Nate says:

            “Out of conduction, convection and radiation”

            So for no reason other to give the guy a post-hoc pass, latent heat transport is ignored?

          • Herb Duncan says:

            No, for the simple reasons that the three modes of heat transfer are conduction, convection and radiation, because the Pirani gauge does not measure latent heat transfer, and so we can have some semblance of a reasonable discussion where not every single tiny detail is met with extreme resistance.

          • Nate says:

            Herb, it seems you are in denial about the meaning of plain english.

            “In the climate models, radiation is assumed to be the primary mechanism of heat transport from the Earths surface”

            This statement is wrong and indefensible, in two ways.

            -Radiant heat transfer from the surface is NOT assumed to be the largest mode in climate models.

            The largest is Latent heat transfer by evaporating water (a form of convection).

            -In climate models radiation is only assumed to be primary at the top of the atmosphere, as I explained, but you ignored.

            If actually interested in the facts, read and try to understand what climate science actually claims.

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

          • Herb Duncan says:

            The statement is entirely defensible, because after latent heat, which is not a part of the argument, comes radiation. The point is that they put radiation above conduction and convection.

      • Tim S says:

        The gauge measures vacuum from a source. Period. It is simple. It does not represent the complexity of the atmosphere. The problem with climate science is the complexity, not the basic scientific principles.

        • Herb Duncan says:

          It is not necessary for it to represent the complexity of the atmosphere. All it needs to show is that conduction and convection are far more efficient at heat transfer than radiation. 250 times more efficient. That’s enough to throw a huge spanner in the works for AGW.

          • Tim S says:

            The gauge argument does not prove anything. All of the basic scientific principles are well understood. Convection is not the most important issue anyway. The important issue is latent heat. Cloud formation leading to rain is a near adiabatic process. latent heat is converted to sensible heat, and that temperature leaves the atmosphere by radiation to outer space. This cooling process is difficult to model accurately because it is random to some extent. The route is evaporation to convection to condensation to radiant heat loss.

          • RLH says:

            “Many Pirani vacuum gauges measure pressure from below 1 mTorr up to atmosphere and are a very good choice for a wide variety of applications:”

            So say those who actually manufacture said gauges.

          • Nate says:

            “conduction and convection are far more efficient at heat transfer than radiation. 250 times more efficient” for the Pirani gauge but not for the Earth. They are not the same.

          • RLH says:

            Heatsink/radiator design and operation do not follow AGW/SB even though they both operate in the same temperature region.

          • Nate says:

            Facts are stubborn things. Even more than you.

          • RLH says:

            “Facts are stubborn things”

            Are you saying that heatsink/radiators designers are wrong in their contention that radiation is only a small part of their calculations in the 0C-50C range?

          • Nate says:

            The stubborn facts are that different heat transfer problems with different parameters give different results.

            TO claim that a Pirani gauge DESIGNED to minimize radiative heat transfer, OR a heat sink with fins designed to enhance convection, in a room, should behave the same as the Earth’s surface in the atmosphere, with its lapse rate, and IR window to space, is ignorant, no matter how often you repeat it.

    • RLH says:

      Of course Blinny is well versed in the design and use of heatsinks/radiators in the 0c to 50c range.

      • Nate says:

        And you ignore the differences from the Earth/atmosphere.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1507126

        Just analyze the real problem.

      • Tim S says:

        Some people get upset when I bring industrial furnaces into the discussion, but this concept also applies to residential furnaces and hot water heaters. The primary heat transfer in a furnace is radiant heat transfer because the temperature is high, but also because the products of combustion, CO2 and water vapor, have very high emission (safe word?). Pure nitrogen has very poor emission and would require a massive increase in area or temperature because it is only effective in convection. The point I want to make is that many industrial furnaces have a convection section to capture the remaining heat from the flue gas, but the first row or two of tubes have to be bare because finned tubes don’t work. Radiant heat will over heat the fins and actually slow the radiant heat transfer. Finned tubes are used in the remaining rows after temp is below effect radiant temp. This has nothing to do with climate except that it demonstrates the radiant effect from CO2 and water. Temp to the fourth power is still the primary effect in a furnace while the large surface area of outer space is the primary effect in climate.

        • Herb Duncan says:

          The large surface area of outer space!?

          • Tim S says:

            I never know if people are trolling or just stupid. The concept of “projected area” could also be called a surface and certainly understood by intelligent people. The relevant equations involve a term for area. I will let you try to figure that out.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            Yes, I know what you mean. With you, I think you are trolling. Though you might be stupid.

          • Tim S says:

            Message received Herb. If you wanted to be treated with respect, you could try being respectful.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            Anyone who understands what Tim S means by “temp to the fourth power is still the primary effect in a furnace while the large surface area of outer space is the primary effect in climate”, let them speak now.

          • Nate says:

            “Anyone who understands what Tim S means by ‘temp to the fourth power is still the primary effect in a furnace while the large surface area of outer space is the primary effect in climate'”

            And radiation is proportional to the difference in Temp to the fourth power, so radiation to space @ 3K, from Earth and troposphere is strong.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            Weird way to say it if that is what he meant. Also, that is not what is being disputed.

          • Nate says:

            I think it is.

            ” At pressures relevant to the lower atmosphere (troposphere + stratosphere) radiation accounts for less than 1% of the upward heat transport.”

            and

            “upward heat transport via radiation plays an insignificant role in the transport of heat at atmospheric pressures from the surface to the upper stratosphere.”

          • Herb Duncan says:

            I don’t think it is. I think the dispute is about the amount of conduction and convection from the surface as opposed to the amount of radiation. I don’t think Shula is disputing that, ultimately, the only exit for heat from the Earth to space is via radiation. That’s why he said:

            “As one goes higher in altitude a larger proportion of the heat transport is attributable to radiation, and that is how all the heat eventually returns to space in the extreme upper atmosphere”.

          • Nate says:

            If so, then he needs to realize that when Climate Science talks about radiative forcing being the cause of climate change, that is taking place not at the surface, but rather at the top of the atmosphere.

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

            So in his efforts to diminish climate science’s claims, he is misrepresenting it, whether he is aware or not.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            If the numbers are wrong for conduction and convection vs. radiation from the surface, that is a problem for AGW theory regardless.

        • Tim S says:

          The furnace environment delivers a very large amount of radiant heat to a relatively small surface area because of high temp. and a very high percentage of combustion gases. Those same gases, primarily water vapor, are present in the atmosphere at very much small amounts than furnace flue gas, but with a much larger area for heat transfer. Both examples represent the effect of greenhouse gases in different ways and with different configurations.

          The furnace is a “well mixed” environment. The atmosphere is mixed chaotically and not well at all. The thickness of the atmosphere changes the basic mechanism of heat transfer to produce a layered effect of decreasing temperature with altitude. The furnace and the atmosphere both demonstrate radiant heat transfer, but in very different ways. The science is well understood except for the fools who claim “you can’t prove it”.

          The Pirani Gauge is an entirely different situation that does not involve greenhouse gases and has no relation to any discussion of radiant heat transfer by gases.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            All that is being suggested is that the amount of heat transfer by conduction and convection from the surface, as reported in the energy budgets, might be severely understated. There is really no need to complicate things or talk about furnaces.

  3. skeptikal says:

    I can’t see this month’s anomaly being good for the new Monckton Pause.

  4. Antonin Qwerty says:

    Second warmest June, +0.51 on the old scale.

  5. Bellman says:

    2nd warmest June on record, but it’s only really that 1998 spike that stops the overall record.

    Top 10 warmest Junes

    1 1998 0.44
    2 2023 0.38
    3 2019 0.34
    4 2020 0.30
    5 2016 0.21
    6 1991 0.18
    7 2010 0.18
    8 2015 0.18
    9 2002 0.17
    10 2014 0.12

    • Bellman says:

      Monckton’s pause starts in September 2014, which means it stays the same length.

      For all his protests about the El Nino destroying the pause, I cant see much changing much until next year at most. At best the start date might move into the middle of 2015, but even if the anomaly is 1C for the rest of this year, the pause won’t disappear, by the end of the year.

      • Bellman says:

        My 2023 prediction is looking increasingly bad, compared to other years. The problem of having a very cold start.

        Current prediction based is now 0.22 +/- 0.09C. This is up from 0.19 last month, but it’s surely going to finish higher.

    • RLH says:

      “it’s only really that 1998 spike”

      Damn El Nino.

      • angech says:

        All indications are that instead of going up at this time of year for the next 6 months the temperature anomaly will drop making Bellman s original prediction much more likely.
        The benefit of a cold start and a cold finish to the ear.
        Reason for the confidence?
        The ENSO readings are not behaving as predicted making an El Nino , that is 5 continuous months of raised temps, extremely unlikely.

  6. JMurphy says:

    What has happened to that global cooling which some people have been predicting for years? Have they given up the ghost and come to their senses yet?

    • RLH says:

      So do you believe that this year will be hotter overall than 2016?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Of course it won’t. There was a weaker El Nino carrying over from the previous year, while this year started with La Nina. 2023 is the beginning of the El Nino, 2016 was the end. But there is a chance that the 12 months July-June will be a record. ENSO events are really only comparable for July-June as that is the ENSO season.

    • Richard M says:

      I can’t speak for anyone else, but my future predictions of cooling are based on ocean cycles. The AMO started the transition to the most recent warm phase in 1995. It was completed by 1997. Assuming the historic ~30 year phases continue, we are still in the warm phase and hence warming is to be expected.

      In addition, it will take some time for the cool phase to undo the effects of the latest warm phase. The biggest impact is in the Arctic where sea ice should increase over time. It took 10 years for the sea ice to melt (1997-2007), so I don’t see it returning immediately.

      The PDO will also come into play. The previous cooling period was most obvious when both the AMO and PDO were in their cool phases at the same time.

      The bottom line is, cooling is not likely not be obvious until the 2030s. What we are likely to see is another extended pause for several more years.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        2010s average: +0.12
        2020s average so far: +0.22 after three La Nina years.
        No pause there.

      • Tim S says:

        We used to have something called the Medieval Warm Period based on a very large body of science. Then one guy (no names please) erased the whole thing. That same person is in the process of erasing the AMO. Yogi said it best: It ain’t over until it’s over. Only time will tell.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Indeed, Salvatore was predicting here back in 2010 that the 2010s would see drastic cooling. He then predicted that by mid-2018 the monthly anomalies would be permanently sub-zero. And that was on the old baseline – so below about -0.12 on the current baseline.

      Thankfully Salvatore finally had the good grace to admit he was wrong and walk away. I doubt anyone else here has the ability to do the same.

      Adapt2030 predicted on Youtube that temperatures would plummet after 2015. He “proves” his claims by relying on the fact that there is always going to be cold weather somewhere in the world and presenting only those regions as representing the planet as a whole. He once showed a photo of a mass of broken up ice sitting in a small depression in the ground in Scotland, and surrounded on all sides by open country, and tried to claim that this was the first year-round ice, and would lead to glacial formation. He clearly has no idea.

  7. RLH says:

    Has anyone noticed that Winter in the Northern hemisphere is shorter than Summer?

    • Ken says:

      I drove across Canada in May.

      Near Edson, the location of the hotspot for the recent fires, the lakes were frozen even as the temperatures were high 20s C.

      There was snow alongside Hwy 17 in Ontario.

      So no, I haven’t noticed.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      That would depend on arbitrarily chosen thresholds for the seasons.

      The only somewhat non-arbitrary mathematical method would be to fit a sinusoidal curve to the data (absolute temperatures, not anomalies), determine the threshold temperatures from the model 1.5 months either side of the peak and trough, then see when those threshold temperatures are actually achieved (on average, not in particular years), thus defining the boundaries for the 4 seasons.

      I did this for Sydney about 25 years ago, and I got something like:
      Spring: 4 months
      Summer: 3.5 months
      Autumn: 2.5 months
      Winter: 2 months

      But all that means is that the distribution is not symmetrical. There might be more practical reasons for defining the cut-offs differently, and that would depend on the region.

      • RLH says:

        I use the metrological seasons of

        Dec/Jan/Feb for NH winter.
        Mar/Apr/May for NH spring.
        Jun/Jul/Aug for NH summer
        Sep/Oct/Nov for NH autumn.

        • RLH says:

          edit: …meteorological seasons…

        • RLH says:

          Astronomical seasons will show the same deficiency.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          As you are DEFINING the seasons to be three months long, what does “Winter in the Northern hemisphere is shorter than Summer” even mean?

          • RLH says:

            Count the days.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            So all you are claiming is a 90-92 split?
            Why waste people’s time with such useless trivia?

            And YES – EVERYONE has noticed that.
            Except you before just now apparently.

          • RLH says:

            So the NH Summer is 92/90 longer than the NH winter. And the SH is the opposite. Thus the ‘average’ NH summer/winter day is not directly comparable to the ‘average’ SH summer/winter day.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Are you serious?

            For Sydney’s long-term averages:
            Average of June 1 to August 29: 17.032
            Average of June 1 to August 31: 17.075
            Average of June 3 to August 31: 17.056

            You’re joking, right?

          • RLH says:

            92/90 is not directly comparable to 90/92.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            I just showed you that it makes bugger all difference. But you have never admitted to being wrong, so I know nothing will change now.
            I guess 2023 can’t be directly compared to 2024 due to the leap day – is that right?

          • RLH says:

            “bugger all difference”

            is what 0.1c is also.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Where does 0.1 come from?
            Judging by the middle figure I gave, it is clear that most of the difference comes from randomness.

            And who wants to compare NH vs SH summers anyway.

          • RLH says:

            HN to SH comparisons are done all the time. Usual explained by the percentage difference in land and oceans.

  8. CO2isLife says:

    If you look at all the different temperature graphics, NP, NH, EQ, SH, SP, Land and Sea, they all show different trends in temperature. CO2 evenly blankets the globe, so the differentials can’t be due to CO2. Has anyone bother to try to explain why the S Hemi has a different temmp trend than the N Hemi, or why temperatures trend differently over land than sea? If they do, that will go a long way to debunking the claim that CO2 is causing the warming.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      A major reason is that the SH is 81% ocean compared to 61% in the NH, and the ocean is more resistant to temperature change than land.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Antonin, that is a great observation, but the question is how does CO2, which is of equal concentration over both land and sea, N and S Hemi, cause that difference? Both land and sea emit 15-Micron LWIR. Oh, and while you are at it, how is CO2 warming the oceans?

    • E. Swanson says:

      Your complaint has been answered numerous times.

      The NH has more land than the SH and ocean waters tend to hold thermal energy deeper than land surface. The SH includes the Antarctic, which has a considerable area of high altitude ice coverage at around 4,000m, which intrudes into the UAH satellite measurements. RSS excludes data poleward of 70S for that reason, but Roy and John include it, perhaps so they can claim to be providing global coverage. The NH and NP both are strongly influenced by the sea-ice and snow positive feedback, thus the greatest warming at the surface appears there.

      Some folks posting around here are actually interested in science, not some politically oriented effort to “debunk” AGW. Get a life.

      • CO2isLife says:

        E. Swanson, no one disagrees that a temperature differential. Science is all about explaining differentials. Anyone in science would understand the real question is how does CO2, a constant at all locations cause differentials? That is unique in science. Only is climate science does a constant cause a variation. Somehow CO2 warms land differently than ocean? Your comment about the altitude in the S Pole is pure nonsense because I’m pretty sure the data set is for the same altitude for all regions, and much of Antarctica is literally at sea level. Anyway, I see nothing in your explanation that would explain how CO2 causes the differentials, how CO2 can warm the land and ocean differently, how CO2 warms the oceans at all, and why locations such as deserts show no warming at all. Evidence of warming isn’t evidence that CO2 is causing the warming, and if something is understood it can be modeled, and no model effectively relates CO2 to warming, none, in fact the IPCC Models are the greatest evidence that CO2 doesn’t cause the warming, no mater how much money you spend trying to build models to prove it does. BTW, real science wouldn’t try to prove CO2 causes anything, they would attempt to identify the factors that impact the climate by rejecting the Null. If you set up a model with the NULL CO2 causes warming, it would be extremely easy to disprove. Simply use the IPCC Model results.

        • Norman says:

          CO2isLife

          Different warming trends would not disprove the warming aspect of added CO2. There are other mechanisms in play in the process. CO2 is only one of the many factors in determining trends. Changes in cloud cover, aerosols in the atmosphere, evaporation rates which can change based upon wind conditions, changes in WV in areas, this is definitely not a uniform concentration in the atmosphere and it is a more effective GHG so changes in its concentration can change warming or cooling trends. That is why global temperature graphs go up and down because there are multiple things which contribute. The science behind CO2 is that it can only cause a warming trend if the amount is increased but other things can cool or warm regions. Wind patterns, stalled pressure systems, ocean currents. Lots of other factors. Not sure how you see differentials in trends convinces you that CO2 has no warming effect. Not sure I follow your logic in this case.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, CO2’s 15μ photon has less energy than the WDL photon from an ice cube. That means it is completely ineffective to a 288K surface.

            THAT is science.

            Your own words — “The science behind CO2 is that it can only cause a warming trend if the amount is increased but other things can cool or warm regions.” — don’t even make sense.

            That ain’t science.

          • CO2isLife says:

            “CO2s 15μ photon has less energy than the WDL photon from an ice cube. That means it is completely ineffective to a 288K surface.

            THAT is science.”

            Thank you Clint. I’ve been saying that for years, but no one seems to understand what that means.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            YOU: “Norman, CO2s 15μ photon has less energy than the WDL photon from an ice cube. That means it is completely ineffective to a 288K surface.”

            No that is not science. It is just made up opinions.

            CO2isLife, I hope you do not think in any way Clint R is a credible source of science information. He rejects established physics and posts his endless opinions that no one with a science background will ever accept.

            Clint R here is science (another link you will not be able to understand or even attempt to understand what it means).

            https://open.library.okstate.edu/rainorshine/chapter/11-2-radiation-basics/

            Science and reality (not your opinions) show that the 15 micron photon will be absorbed by the Earth Surface. The overall effect is to reduce the heat loss of the surface.

            CO2isLife, it also works for oceans, the surface will absorb the CO2 DWIR and this will act to reduce the radiative heat rate loss.

            It is all well explained in real science that Clint R can’t or will not accept for reasons only he understands.

          • Norman says:

            CO2isLife

            It is well known by most on this blog that Clint R does not care at all about science. He is interested in trolling and annoying posters.

            If you are not an annoying troll but interested in real science here is a calculator on this page. You can put in different values and understand what is taking place and how the GHE works.

            People like Clint R, Gordon Robertson, Swenson and others do not care about science they have their own agendas when they post. Gordon claims no one has used science to prove his posts wrong but that is not a correct statement. He does not accept established science (based upon multiple experiments over long period of time done by multiple researchers).

            https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

            With the calculator on this page you can change the surrounding temperature. You will see the amount of heat transferred from the hot to cold drops as the temperature of the surroundings increases.

            This is similar to the GHE. As you add GHG they will transmit energy to the surface which slows the cooling rate. If you slow the cooling rate of a heated object its temperature will go up. Which is what happens with the Earth Surface.

            If you reduce any of the cooling mechanisms of the surface, the temperature will rise. In the Desert areas evaporation is reduced and the temperature increases. If you lower convection the temperature increases. It is all similar, reduce the rate of cooling with a heated surface and the temperature rises.

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            You wrote –

            “If you reduce any of the cooling mechanisms of the surface, the temperature will rise. In the Desert areas evaporation is reduced and the temperature . . .”

            Don’t be a complete idiot. Deserts are hot during the day because there is a lack of “GHGs”.

            Deserts are cold at night for the same reason. The Moon provides the extremes which occur when there are no GHGs at all!

            You are an idiot because you refuse to accept reality, and prefer fantasy.

            Keep it up.

          • CO2isLife says:

            “Clint R

            YOU: Norman, CO2s 15μ photon has less energy than the WDL photon from an ice cube. That means it is completely ineffective to a 288K surface.

            No that is not science. It is just made up opinions.”

            Clint, you clearly don’t know how to read a black body curve/Stehpan Boltzman Curve, or use the black body calculator available on SpectralCalc. Your comments demonstrate ignorance and arrogance at a level that is truly astounding.

          • Clint R says:

            The comment above is obviously from a braindead cult idiot, NOT “CO2isLife”.

            You can tell because the imitator can’t spell the names correctly!

            It’s just another troll tactic because the cult has NOTHING.

          • CO2isLife says:

            Clint Says: You can tell because the imitator cant spell the names correctly!

            Really my spelling? I spelled StefanBoltzmann wrong? I have trouble spelling my own name. I have a math brain.

            Anyway, please prove how smart you are by using this BlackBody Calculator and enter in 15 microns and -80 C. Please tell everyone what you find. Also, you may want to explain how that finding ties into CO2 sublimating at that temperature.

            Here is the link. Have at it Einstein.
            https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

          • Clint R says:

            studentb it’s not hard to figure out who you really are. Not even Norman would be as stupid and immature as you.

            Quit using other peoples screen name, and grow up.

          • CO2isLife says:

            BTW, any of you climate alarmists want to explain how the 2008 GFC and COVID shut down the global economy but did absolutely nothing to the trend is atmospheric CO2? How does that work in your religion? If Man is the CO2 Demon, and the CO2 Demon stops spewing CO2, why does the CO2 keep increasing at the same OR GREATER Rate?

          • CO2isLife says:

            Norman Says: Not sure how you see differentials in trends convinces you that CO2 has no warming effect. Not sure I follow your logic in this case.

            Every Science I know of, 100% of them, use controlled experiments to isolate the impact of a single independent variable on a single dependent variable. Even the social sciences use statistical methods to “control” for various factors. I have never seen any Climate Science Study that does what any normal science would do, that being perform a study the impact of CO2 on Temperatures controlling for Water Vapor, Solar Activity, and the Urban Heat Island effect. I’ve done that, and Deserts both Hot and Cold, are ideal locations to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures. Guess what? When you control for those factors you literally get no warming over the past 120 years. The only way you get warming is by childishly claiming that you have a very corrupted data set that shows warming and you blindly associate it with the rise in CO2. That isn’t who real science works.

          • Richard M says:

            Norman claims: “Science and reality (not your opinions) show that the 15 micron photon will be absorbed by the Earth Surface. The overall effect is to reduce the heat loss of the surface.”

            Your first sentence is true. The second sentence is false. This is one major areas where climate science has gone wrong. While it seems obvious at first glance that the claim should be true, real science isn’t always easy.

            The logic isn’t all that difficult one you consider it. Current CO2 concentrations are saturated near the surface. This means almost all the CO2 generated photons directed at the surface come from very low in the atmosphere. Those higher in the atmosphere and directed downward get absorbed before reaching the surface.

            This low layer is called the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL). It is this layer that also participates in massive conduction with the surface skin (SS). The two layers continually are trying to establish thermodynamic equilibrium.

            This process means whenever one side gets warmer or cooler conduction tries to offset the change. A CO2 molecule which has just been energized and radiates a 15 micron photon towards the surface has upset equilibrium. This will increase the amount of energy conducted from the surface back into the atmosphere.

            As a result, no actual warming of the surface takes place for the 99.99% of DWIR photons that originate in the ABL.

            There is one little caveat in this scenario. If the 15 micron photon is absorbed by an H2O surface molecule, it may caused evaporation to take place. The newly created water vapor molecule may also be convected out of the ABL. IOW, a cooling effect.

            So, the complete science shows us that increases in CO2 downwelling photons have a cooling effect.

          • Nate says:

            And the highest layer whose upward emission that isn’t abs.orbed shifts higher and colder, emitting less OLR. That is the radiative forcing.

            “Those higher in the atmosphere and directed downward get absorbed before reaching the surface.”

            And each lower layer thus warms. Thus the whole Temp-height profile warms to, eventually, return the system to balance. This is the basis of multi-layer climate models.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate claims: “the highest layer whose upward emission that isnt abs.orbed shifts higher and colder, emitting less OLR. That is the radiative forcing.”

            The emissions height is independent of CO2 concentration. The only warming effect from CO2 is from slightly expanding the 15 micron frequency width due to pressure broadening. It’s just enough to compensate for the cooling effect I mentioned in my response to Norman.

          • Ball4 says:

            “The emissions height is independent of CO2 concentration.”

            That statement is physically wrong, Richard M 5:40 pm.

            Physically, the emission height is a function of mass absorp_tion coefficient which is proportional to the probability that a photon will be absorbed when colliding with a molecule.

            The more CO2 ppm the higher the probability. An easier way to understand that physics is the atm. optical depth sets the emission height & more CO2 ppm affects the atm. optical depth.

            For the entire atm., the cooling effect of added CO2 does cancel its warming effect. The problem is that the warming effect occurs near the L&O surface and the cooling effect occurs at the altitude long range airliners cruise. Those planes are mostly warmed by engine exhaust so humans don’t care up there.

            ——

            “If the 15 micron photon is absorbed by an H2O surface molecule, it may caused evaporation to take place.”

            That 11:33 am is physically incorrect also. Translational velocity of an H2O surface molecule isn’t quantized.

          • Nate says:

            “The emissions height is independent of CO2 concentration. The only warming effect from CO2 is from slightly expanding the 15 micron frequency width due to pressure broadening.”

            Why is that?

            CO2 density decreases with height. Yes?

            There will be a height such that above it, there is not enough CO2 to make the CO2 bands opaque, as they were at lower heights. Yes?

            With increasing CO2, logically, this height must increase.

            Why not, Richard?

          • Richard M says:

            Nate states: “With increasing CO2, logically, this height must increase.”

            You are looking at only half of the problem. The absorbing part. There’s also the emitting part.

            While there’s a better chance of CO2 absorbing a photon, there’s also more photons. That is based on Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation. All those extra CO2 molecules don’t just get in the way. They also emit more photons towards space.

            Both sides of the equation increase as a log function. They cancel out.

          • Nate says:

            “also more photons. That is based on Kirchhoffs Law of Radiation.”

            Uhhh…

            “All those extra CO2 molecules dont just get in the way. They also emit more photons towards space.”

            They emit equally upward and downward. The net upward radiation thus gets reduced. Otherwise a layer could never become opaque.

            “Both sides of the equation increase as a log function. They cancel out.”

            Nope. Absor.ption is a real observable effect.

            And there is a lapse rate.

            At low CO2 concentration, photons pass through a layer coming from lower altitude and from warmer molecules. With higher concentration of CO2, the emitted photons come from higher elevation colder molecules. As a result, their flux is further REDUCED.

            And of course the spectrum of Earth observed from space shows this as a deep depression in the CO2 bands.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate doesn’t understand how the atmosphere sheds energy. It appears he thinks it works like a flashlight. Guess I need to provide more detail.

            First of all, almost all surface radiation gets absorbed very low in the atmosphere. I believe Heinz Hug found 99.94% was absorbed within 10 meters and that was 30 years ago.

            The energy absorbed is then passed to other atmospheric molecules via collisions. However, because of Kirchhoff’s Law we know the same CO2 molecules that absorb surface energy can also be excited via collisions and spontaneously emit photons in a random direction. These photons can also be reabsorbed by different CO2 molecules. The process repeats over and over again.

            Since the density of the atmosphere declines going away from the surface, the CO2 generated photons that are directed upward go further before being absorbed than the downward directed photons. This is why energy eventually ends up in space.

            The energy that is moving upward at any time is a mixture of recently absorbed photons and energy absorbed previously.

            You can view this as a massive photon cloud moving up through the atmosphere and thinning as it moves upward. Within the cloud photons are moving in all directions as they are absorbed and new emissions occur. The reason the cloud thins is there are fewer CO2 molecules to absorb the energy as you move higher in the atmosphere. That allow some energy to escape to space at all layers of the atmosphere.

            So what happens as you increase the amount of CO2? The distance a photon travels between being emitted and reabsorbed shortens. It takes more of these events before a photon escapes to space.

            This slows the process of removing energy which would cause warming except for the fact the entire photon cloud grows. The probability of a photon energy emissions increases as the log of the number of photons. Which is exactly the same as photon cloud movement slows.

            What we end up with is a slower but bigger energy cloud moving up through the atmosphere. The total energy that escapes to space remains the same.

            The entire concept of an emissions height is pseudo science. It is based on viewing surface radiation as a flashlight. The correct view of an ever changing photon cloud demonstrates why the energy transmission is independent of CO2 concentration.

          • Nate says:

            “massive photon cloud moving up through the atmosphere and thinning as it moves upward.”

            Yes.

            But then somehow you decide that it doesnt thin afterall?

            Illogical, Richard.

            How then, do you account for the deep hole in the OLR spectrum?

            https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2010_schmidt_05/curve_s2.gif

          • Nate says:

            “The total energy that escapes to space remains the same.”

            The total energy that escapes to space remains the same only after the Earth’s surface and all layers of the atmosphere have warmed.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate asks: “How then, do you account for the deep hole in the OLR spectrum?”

            We need to get back to surface.

            That spectrum is surface radiation. It’s the black body spectrum. As more CO2 surface IR is absorbed, this hole becomes larger due to pressure broadening. But that’s not all that happens.

            As I stated previously, this compensates for the evaporative cooling which is also increasing.

            You have increased IR energy absorbed but also more energy being transported upward via convection. You have to look close to see what happens next. In addition, this doesn’t affect the energy that CO2 absorbs within the old, smaller frequency range. It is still radiated to space at the same rate. Average emission height stays the same.

            It turns out the increase in evaporation (latent heat creation) also increases the speed of the energy transport. This is because water vapor is a lighter molecule. More low level evaporation reduces the density of the air and drives convection speeds up.

            Now the cooler, higher troposphere comes into play. As the water vapor moves upward faster, more of it condenses out due to reaching those cooler, higher altitudes. Thicker clouds, more rain and less left over water vapor.

            The reduction of high altitude water vapor is precisely where the water vapor greenhouse effect becomes unsaturated. You get less IR energy blocked in the water vapor frequencies.

            As a result, the total IR heading to space through water vapor increases. Of course, you also get more solar energy reflected via the thicker clouds. The total energy remains constant.

            Is this all an accident? As CO2 increases you also get an increase in precipitation. That is exactly what plants need to take advantage of the increased CO2. Mother Nature is quite an amazing engineer.

            This larger view is required to understand total energy changes. That is why simplistic views via radiation models will never provide the complete picture.

          • Nate says:

            “The total energy that escapes to space remains the same.”

            This is falsified by the OLR spectrum, with its deep hole at the CO2 band.

            The rest of your post is speculations about water evaporation, which is another topic altogether.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate claims: “This is falsified by the OLR spectrum, with its deep hole at the CO2 band.”

            LOL. OLR measurements to not show an overall reduction in energy radiating from the surface. The “hole” relates only to surface IR window radiation. I explained that this loss is compensated by more radiation in the H2O bands.

            Then Nate practices science denial: “The rest of your post is speculations about water evaporation”

            The “speculation” comes from world famous scientist Dr. William Gray.

            http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

            His views are based on decades of experience working with NOAA and NASA data. I think this man’s views are far closer to real science than anything from the climate science field.

          • Ball4 says:

            “I explained that this loss is compensated by more radiation in the H2O bands …”/i>

            … at a “small” (Dr. Gray term) higher global surface temperature as measured over climate timeframes as explained by Dr. Gray: “the influence of a doubling of CO2 should lead to a global surface warming”.

            Thus it is Richard M that remains wrong 5:40 pm (writing “The emissions height is independent of CO2 concentration.”) and not Dr. Gray.

          • Ball4 says:

            Oops:

            “I explained that this loss is compensated by more radiation in the H2O bands…”

            … at a “small” (Dr. Gray term) higher global surface temperature over climate timeframes as explained by Dr. Gray: “the influence of a doubling of CO2 should lead to a global surface warming”.

            Thus it is Richard M that remains wrong 5:40 pm (writing “The emissions height is independent of CO2 concentration.) and not Dr. Gray.

          • Nate says:

            “The hole relates only to surface IR window radiation. I explained that this loss is compensated by more radiation in the H2O bands.”

            No Richard. The hole Im referrring to is, as I noted, in the CO2 bands, such as 15 5microns, which is certainly not in IR window.

            https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2010_schmidt_05/curve_s2.gif

            Your entire argument up to now was about how IR propagates up thru the atmosphere and whether CO2 causes it to be reduced, which has nothing to do with water vapor.

            So talking about water vapor is a change of subject, and must be an admission that your initial argument cannot be supported.

          • Richard M says:

            Ball4, I realize Dr Gray allowed for the possibility of CS in the .2-.3 C range. That came from using IPPC assumptions and his knowledge of proper hydrology. IPCC assumptions don’t take into account the boundary layer feedback I described earlier.

            Boundary layer feedback is based on the 2LOT and saturation of CO2 frequencies in the lower atmosphere. I believe both of these are pretty simple to verify. If I’m wrong, then there could be a small and completely beneficial amount of warming.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate is getting desperate: “Your entire argument up to now was about how IR propagates up thru the atmosphere and whether CO2 causes it to be reduced, which has nothing to do with water vapor.”

            There are two parts to my argument. The first relates to energy propagation through the atmosphere and the second relates to what happens to the additional water vapor created by increasing CO2 downwelling IR.

            For your quote we only need to deal with the first part.

            As I stated before, there is some additional energy that will be absorbed due to pressure broadening. This mostly affects the atmospheric window but there are also other minor effects. That energy is absorbed very low in the atmosphere since that is where pressure is greatest.

            If that energy led to more warming low in the atmosphere then there would be an effect IR propagation through the atmosphere just like anything that warmed the surface. However, as I also explained, that energy gain is compensated for by boundary layer feedbacks.

            The first feedback is the 2LOT which leads to changes in the amount of energy conducted between the surface and the atmospheric boundary layer. This eliminate any surface warming.

            The second feedback is increased evaporation which removes energy from the ABL/surface and moves it higher in the atmosphere via convection.

            The net result is no warming in the lower atmosphere which then means there is no change in energy propagation.

            It’s good to keep these two parts of the problem separate as they each have there own impacts. Without any warming of the lower atmosphere the question then becomes, do CO2 increases by themselves create additional warming by raising the emissions height. The answer to that question appears is no.

          • Ball4 says:

            2:52 pm: “The answer to that question appears is no.”

            Richard M, that’s physically wrong since can’t get around the physics that CO2 (or any IR active gas) ppm increases create additional near surface warming (though for Earth “small” as discussed in your Dr. Gray piece) in raising the planetary emissions height. The planetary emission height is a function of atm. mass absorp_tion coefficient which is proportional to the probability that a photon will be absorbed when colliding with an air molecule.

            The more atm. CO2 ppm the higher that probability. Thus, more planetary atm. IR opacity & more atm. optical depth.

            Physically, the effective emission height corresponds to the optimal trade-off between high density (which gives high emissivity) in underlying atm. IR opacity and little overlying atmosphere IR opacity to permit the emitted radiation to escape to deep space.

            Richard M’s own source, Dr. Gray, explains why an answer of “no” is incorrect.

          • Richard M says:

            Ball4 claims: “thats physically wrong since cant get around the physics that CO2 (or any IR active gas) ppm increases create additional near surface warming”

            There is no doubt that increases in CO2 will create a warming effect. However, physics also demands that additional evaporation will create a cooling effect. You have two opposite effects. You want to accept one of them while denying the other one.

            OTOH, I’m willing to accept both of them will occur. And, my view is supported by experimental evidence. NOAA radiosonde data shows no increase in the overall greenhouse effect since 1948.

            https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

            I realize some pseudo-scientists have tried to hand wave away this finding. Their arguments are easily dismissed. I have explained the physics that supports this kind of result.

            If the two effects cancel each other out as the radiosonde data demonstrates, there is no warming at the surface. The optical depth remains unchanged as does the emissions height.

          • Ball4 says:

            “However, physics also demands that additional evaporation will create a cooling effect.”

            Richard M again misses that atm. physics also demands the resulting additional condensation (rain, snow) will create a near surface warming effect which over climate timeframes is measured with 95% confidence to meaningfully offset that singularly mentioned near surface cooling effect.

            “NOAA radiosonde data shows no increase in the overall greenhouse effect since 1948.”

            When the radiosonde data are assessed in effect in terms of “the various cloudy conditions of the actual atmosphere are regarded as maintaining their established average state, which forms a stable steady background for the present analysis.” So if a study has no change in optical depth assumed in the data, the result will be no change in optical depth found in the data.

            With modern day satellite era data, that do include the effect of all the natural “various cloudy conditions”, the trends in net TOA flux trends due to changes in clouds, changes in trace gas ppm, changes in solar irradiation et. al. are each now meaningfully known with 95% confidence in the era showing natural atm. optical depth does change as well as the emission height.

          • Nate says:

            “The first relates to energy propagation through the atmosphere”

            Yes indeed.

            Leta go back to this:

            “While theres a better chance of CO2 absorbing a photon, theres also more photons. That is based on Kirchhoffs Law of Radiation. All those extra CO2 molecules dont just get in the way. They also emit more photons towards space.

            Both sides of the equation increase as a log function. They cancel out.”

            My point with showing the deep hole in the OLR spectrum is that it shows that energy has been removed from the outgoing IR.

            And you agree that it can be:

            “there is some additional energy that will be absorbed due to pressure broadening.”

            There is not a cancellation. This is because that while UW IR from lower/warmer elevations is abso.rbed, the emitted radiation is in all directions, not just upward, and from cooler layers.

            As for adding more CO2, the OLR the hole is slightly widened according to calculations.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png/300px-ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png

            And indeed if the optical depth increases at the TOA, as BAll4 discussed, the emitted photons that make it to space must come from a higher/colder elevation.

          • Richard M says:

            Ball4 claims: “Richard M again misses that atm. physics also demands the resulting additional condensation (rain, snow) will create a near surface warming effect”

            No, I already mentioned this in one of my comments. This is essentially the additional energy that was absorbed by CO2 due to pressure broadening. It was moved to the surface by increased DWIR which increased evaporation. It is now released by condensation.

            But remember, we also have reduced high altitude water vapor as part of the enhanced convection. We also have thicker clouds. These effects are cooling effects which offset the warming effect from the condensation.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate claims: “There is not a cancellation. This is because that while UW IR from lower/warmer elevations is absorbed, the emitted radiation is in all directions, not just upward, and from cooler layers.”

            We are only interested in net energy flow.

            Yes, energy is radiated in all directions as I have previously stated. This can be averaged out. One way to think about it is to define an average photon. Call it Joe. Joe is what you get with all the considerations you mentioned. Joe moves upward.

            As CO2 increases the photon path length until being reabsorbed is reduced. The net result is that Joe’s path length (still upward) is decreased as a log function. It is based on the gravitation force.

            All of those other directions are irrelevant to the discussion of energy flow. It is only net energy flow that matters.

            You end up with increased energy flow upward and a slower movement. Both are log functions relative to the concentration of CO2. Your attempted obfuscation fails.

          • Ball4 says:

            “This is essentially the additional energy that was absorbed by CO2 due to pressure broadening.”

            Wrong yet again 10:27 am. Richard confuses two independent physical processes. Condensation release of enthalpy of vaporization is not “pressure broadening” (which is a misnomer anyway, it is physically collisional broadening which ought to be a clue for Richard’s further learning).

            Since Richard now writes there exists “pressure broadening” (Richard term) with “thicker clouds”, Richard M is now admitting to increasing optical depth and emission height increases with added CO2 ppm atm. IR opacity. That’s decent progress. Now Richard needs to learn about collisional broadening.

            NB: For the radiance spectra near the 22.2 GHz water vapor line frequency even a cloudy atmosphere is not IR opaque, collisional broadening occurs to high altitudes, and the line shape can be resolved.

          • Nate says:

            “As CO2 increases the photon path length until being reabsorbed is reduced. The net result is that Joes path length (still upward) is decreased as a log function. ”

            Ok.

            It is based on the gravitation force.”

            ??

            “All of those other directions are irrelevant to the discussion of energy flow. It is only net energy flow that matters.”

            “You end up with increased energy flow upward and a slower movement.”

            I don’t see any logic leading to this conclusion, Richard. It doesnt appear to follow from the previous statements.

          • Richard M says:

            Ball4 claims: “Wrong yet again 10:27 am. Richard confuses two independent physical processes.”

            I’m not confused. It’s pretty obvious you haven’t made any attempt to understand what I have said. With just a little effort you could have known I was referring to completely separate processes which both happen to relate to energy. The pressure broadening and condensation happen in totally different parts of the atmosphere.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate claims: “I dont see any logic leading to this conclusion, Richard. It doesnt appear to follow from the previous statements.”

            I was assuming you still remembered what I stated in a previous comment. I guess that is asking too much. There are two parts to the energy flow question.

            1) the speed of flow and
            2) the amount of energy.

            My latest comment was correcting your error related to 1).

            I did not go back and repeat my description of the amount of energy as that is pretty simple. It increases as a log function of the concentration of CO2.

            My conclusion was a simple repeat of what I stated previously. With 1) decreasing and 2) increasing and both log functions, the net flow remains unchanged as concentration of CO2 changes.

          • Nate says:

            Richard,
            Your claim that there is more upward photons, thus more energy is so far just assertion.

            It is not consistent with this:

            “while UW IR from lower/warmer elevations is abso.rbed, the emitted radiation is in all directions, not just upward, and from cooler layers.”

            Which you assert, without any rationale, that it is irrelevant.

            Sorry you are simply not connecting the dots to make a sound argument.

          • Ball4 says:

            However 4:01 pm, modern-day calibrated, precision instruments show with 95% confidence 1) and 2) do not cancel. The trend in net TOA energy flux is meaningfully measured up (positive/decade) in the satellite era contrary to Richard M’s logic. Nate and I have bothered to comment to point out some reasons.

          • Nate says:

            Richard,

            I can agree with one thing you said. The emitted energy from a layer will ~ conserve what it receives, but only for layers low in the atmosphere. Because their temperature is ~ the surface T.

            They abs.orb in the CO2 band, but emit the same amount, so the hole is ‘filled’.

            But owing to the lapse rate, layers higher in the atmosphere are colder, which doesnt affect their ability to abs.orb, but does affect what they emit. So they emit less. And the hole begins to form.

            Finally the highest opaque layer is quite cold, and emits an OLR spectrum with a deep hole it at the CO2 band. As you can see the OLR spectrum CO@ hole matches that of a 220 K blackbody.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png/300px-ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png

          • Richard M says:

            Nate claims: “But owing to the lapse rate, layers higher in the atmosphere are colder, which doesnt affect their ability to abs.orb, but does affect what they emit. So they emit less.”

            That would violate Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation. Try again.

          • Nate says:

            Not at all. Kirchoff’s law is about emissivity = abso.rbtivity.

            Emission is emissivity*T^4. The T of the layer matters for emission only.

            In any case using Modtran one can see this effect happening as a I described.

            http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot

            Set to Radiance, Atm. Model:US standard 1976

            Sensor altitude:

            try 1 km then 5 km then 20 km.

            Spectral Range 5-20 microns.

            You will see that at altitude 1 Km, the upward radiance spectrum (OLR) looks like a blackbody with no holes in it.

            But for 5 km a shallow hole has formed in the spectrum at 15 microns.

            And for 20 km, a deep hole has formed at 15 microns.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate has provided a very interesting result. He just missed one thing. He didn’t set the resolution low enough. Try setting it at .031 and something amazing happens. Look at 20 km and the hole disappears.

            Do you know why?

          • barry says:

            “CO2's 15μ photon has less energy than the WDL photon from an ice cube”

            Ice at 0C emits at about 10μm: CO2 at 1C and 10C emits equally around 15μm.

            Energy increases with amplitude, thus radiation at a given wavelength can carry more or less energy depending on its intensity.

            Analogy with playing the same note at different volumes, for anyone that’s looked at an oscilloscope.

          • Nate says:

            Hole dissapears?

            Not what I see. The hole is really there.

          • Richard M says:

            I see what happened. The vertical scale was changed. haven’t used the tool very often.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate states: “But for 5 km a shallow hole has formed in the spectrum at 15 microns.

            And for 20 km, a deep hole has formed at 15 microns.”

            I don’t think your interpreting the data correctly. The model is showing the upward emission of energy from the specified altitude (radiance) as well as the total energy (flux).

            As you get higher in the atmosphere there are fewer CO2 molecules and they are colder. Hence, they radiate less energy. The flux itself does not change much as you rise.

            The reason the flux stays the same is that each layer altitude is absorbing and radiating equal amounts based on Kirchhoff’s Law. Less and less energy is involved as you rise.

          • Nate says:

            Richard,

            If you are talking about the fluxes at the bottom of the page, those are, unfortunately, all at fixed heights. 50 Km or 0 km. So they don’t change with the sensor altitude.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate, I agree the total flux won’t change. Every layer follows Kirchhoff’s Law and would absorb and radiate equal amounts of energy. The total flux would be unchanged.

            All that you are seeing in the radiance value is the changing emissivity of each layer.

            IOW, MODTRAN doesn’t provide anything that disagrees with what I have stated.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Every layer follows Kirchhoffs Law and would absorb and radiate equal amounts of energy.”

            That’s measured physically true only in the midlatitude tropics lower stratosphere where each layer is isothermal for about 9km in z. In the troposphere, there is a T lapse rate with z height AGL so each layer is cooler on the top and warmer on the bottom.

            Line by line radiative transfer codes iteratively balance each layer and resulting T(z) is computed in very close agreement with actual soundings.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate, I agree the total flux wont change.”

            You are not agreeing with me. The fluxes emitted from colder layers is lower. The hole gets deeper with height.

            “Every layer follows Kirchhoffs Law and would absorb and radiate equal amounts of energy. The total flux would be unchanged.”

            No. That is not what Kirchoff’s law states.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation

          • Richard M says:

            Nate says: “The fluxes emitted from colder layers is lower.”

            Yes, that is true but the biggest factor is the decreasing number of CO2 molecules as the density of the air decreases. This is all a part of what’s called emissivity.

            “The hole gets deeper with height.”

            There is no “hole”. The flux remains nearly the same at all altitudes. It is just the part of that flux being absorbed and reemitted that changes. The rest of it just passes through.

          • Nate says:

            “Yes, that is true but the biggest factor is the decreasing number of CO2 molecules as the density of the air decreases. This is all a part of whats called emissivity.”

            An opaque layer has some minimum number of number of CO2 molecules. At higher altitudes, a layer needs to be thicker to have this minimal number of molecules.

            “There is no hole. The flux remains nearly the same at all altitudes.:

            So, even after seeing with your own eyes the hole appearing in the spectra with increasing height, and seeing it even in the final OLR flux spectrum, you deny that its there?

            That is high level denial, Richard.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate goes off the rails immediately: “An opaque layer …”

            The Earth still doesn’t work like a flashlight.

            The flashlight view ends within about 10 meters of the surface. That’s where CO2 has enough thickness to absorb almost 100% of the surface IR in the appropriate frequencies. There’s your hole.

            The energy is then shared with the rest of the atmospheric molecules through kinetic collisions. The important question is how does this layer of the atmosphere cool.

            That’s what I have been talking about.

          • Nate says:

            “The Earth still doesnt work like a flashlight.”

            I never claimed any such thing.

            “The flashlight view ends within about 10 meters of the surface. Thats where CO2 has enough thickness to abs.orb almost 100% of the surface IR in the appropriate frequencies. ”

            IOW it is opaque for CO2 wavelengths.

            “Theres your hole.”

            No. You are mixing up the abs.or.ption spectrum with the radiance spectrum.

            There is a CO2 hole in the abs.or.ption spectrum for this layer.

            In Modtran you can look at the abs.orp.tion spectrum at 1 km. It has a hole in it.

            But the emission from CO2 molecules in this warm layer fills the hole, so the upward flux emitted or passing through this layer is that of the surface, a blackbody.

            There is no hole in the upward radiance spectrum, as you saw in Modtran at a height of 1 km.

            Only as we rise in the atmosphere does the hole reappear in the upward radiance spectrum. At the TOA, the OLR flux has a deep hole. Because the upward radiance at the CO2 wavelengths comes from CO2 molecules in the highest opaque layer that are COLD, and thus don’t emit enough to fill the hole.

            But you need to deny what your eyes plainly saw in Modtran.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate claims: “Only as we rise in the atmosphere does the hole reappear in the upward radiance spectrum.”

            And why is that meaningful? The overall upward radiance spectrum is unchanged.

            The hole you are seeing in the radiance also exists in the energy absorbed. Good old Kirchhoff’s Law. As you can see from the lower level radiance, there is energy emitted upward at those frequencies. If it isn’t absorbed, what happens to it?

            The answer is obvious. It continues upward into space. You also know this from Modtran because the flux doesn’t change. This means all the frequencies really are present at higher altitudes, they just aren’t available to CO2’s colder, less dense molecules.

            So, there is no hole in the spectrum, just reduced amounts of energy being absorbed and reemitted which also fit into a tighter window in the spectrum.

            Energy absorbed/reemitted is reduced as a function of the density of the molecules. For well mixed gases that means it changes relative to the force of gravity.

            This is how the atmosphere cools itself. Energy is lost to space from all altitudes. I’ve been saying this for years.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Energy is lost to space from all altitudes. I’ve been saying this for years.”

            On the contrary, Richard M was writing “almost” the opposite just a few days ago July 9 6:38 am:

            “… almost all surface radiation gets absorbed very low in the atmosphere.”

          • Richard M says:

            Ball4 claims: “On the contrary, Richard M was writing almost the opposite just a few days ago”

            If Ball4 was paying attention they should realize I was talking about surface energy at that time. Now I am referring to energy being radiated from the atmosphere.

            By the way. As I’ve also stated many times, that energy is absorbed emitted many times on its way to space.

          • Ball4 says:

            Trouble for Richard M 11:53 am is that I am paying attention or wouldn’t notice contrary statements of his or simply wrong statements like:

            “As I’ve also stated many times, that energy is absorbed emitted many times on its way to space.”

            No Richard. Some (~ 60%) of certain IR band atm. radiant energy goes straight thru our entire atm. from near surface to deep space.

            Earth’s global atm. from 4 micron to 1 mm has absorp_tion by water vapor, with contributions from CO2 and ozone, being often so strong that the transmissivity IS nearly zero over broad ranges within this region. One important exception is 8-12 micron, where its transmissivity often exceeds 0.6.

          • Ball4 says:

            But from 1 mm to 10 cm atmospheric transmissivity generally increases, approaching 1 at 10 cm. No wonder weather radars operate at 10 cm!

          • Richard M says:

            Ball4 once again shows poor reading comprehension: :No Richard. Some (~ 60%) of certain IR band atm. radiant energy goes straight thru our entire atm. from near surface to deep space.:

            And, yet again I was referring to energy already absorbed in the atmosphere. If you’re not sure what I’m referring to, then ask.

          • Ball4 says:

            Readers can only see & physically correct what you actually write in comments Richard, not what you have in mind.

          • Nate says:

            “The hole you are seeing in the radiance also exists in the energy absorbed. Good old Kirchhoffs Law. ”

            Which you work so hard to misunderstand. Look up Kirchhoff’s and learn what it actually means. And show us.

          • Bill hunter says:

            Nate you are just ignorantly extrapolating again. Your topic of ‘holes’ here is in the spectral analysis of that which goes through the atmosphere.

            So its a ‘hole’ in the spectrum. And that hole exists both for what you see from a satellite and what you see from the surface looking at the solar spectra.

            So those frequencies are absorbed high in the atmosphere for both incoming and outgoing radiant spectras.

            Further since we know that the 3rd grader radiation model doesn’t work despite your totally unsupported protestations the theory you believe in still maintains it doesn’t matter where energy is absorbed in the atmosphere, it will warm the surface if it contains more energy than the surface. And of course it does because we have a greenhouse effect but the real question is what is the mechanism of that warming and that has never been fully explained by science.

            As I see it the mean light from impinging on the surface is one fourth that of the solar constant. And the light impinging on the atmosphere is one half of the solar constant. That leaves a large number of ways that the surface can be heated above the level of the surface’s direct solar impingement. Science just plays a shell game to come up with an authority based way of determining how that happens by, in the past, making stuff up that you still believe after if being whitewashed from the internet over the past decade or so.

            Now we are only told the means exists in the great variation of computer models regarding this atmospheric effect and CO2 has been scapegoated as the only possible culprit like Dr. Richard Kimble.

            So while you either play dumb here or are dumb it doesn’t matter as your purpose is obfuscation if you are playing dumb and you have been obfuscated if you are dumb. Of course once obfuscated its not really possible to know. So you only do know which it is by being playful.

          • Nate says:

            “So those frequencies are absorbed high in the atmosphere for both incoming and outgoing radiant spectras.”

            Solar input is at very different frequencies. A negligible fraction solar input is @ 15 microns Richard.

          • Bill hunter says:

            Nate frequencies don’t matter.

            Its estimated that somewhere between 65 and 89 watts of sunlight is absorbed by the atmosphere or more depending upon the selection of sources you select.

            thats far more than what is attributed to CO2.

            So any compositional change of molecules in the atmosphere, water, O3, CO2, ash and aerosols of various kinds, SO2 from volcanoes that is a strong absorber particularly of UV light. And we know all these go through massive natural changes. CO2 is probably the most incapable of them all.

            Ozone overrides any effects from CO2 in the stratosphere. CO2 can’t take over until the mesosphere where the other elements seldom reach. HTE though was the first volcano ever observed to reach the mesosphere sending vast amounts of ash and water up there.

          • Nate says:

            Not Richard, Bill.

          • Nate says:

            Bill “So those frequencies are absorbed high in the atmosphere for both incoming and outgoing radiant spectras.”

            Me: Solar input is at very different frequencies. A negligible fraction solar input is @ 15 microns

            Bill “Nate frequencies dont matter.”

            And so it begins, playing whack-a-mole with Bill’s nonsensical unsupportable assertions.

            Here’s your ‘3rd grader’, model. See the section ‘Calculating the effect on radiation’.

            Lets see if you are smarter than a 3rd grader.

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

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Bill Nate frequencies dont matter.
            e
            And so it begins, playing whack-a-mole with Bills nonsensical unsupportable assertions.

            —————————
            Thats nonsense Nate. You guys have to acknowledge that a joule of energy is a joule of energy. Its not a specific frequency, though some will argue low frequencies can’t warm much of anything, which makes sense as you can’t create a higher vibration rate, necessary for high energy emissions with a lower vibration rate.

            So the 65 to 89/m2 watts absorbed in the atmosphere from incoming light plus the 334 watts/m2 allegedly absorbed by water products of surface radiation puts a lot of energy into the atmosphere add in 24 watts/m2 absorbed by CO2 and its all accounted for. So without CO2 we have between 399w/m2 and 423w/m2 being absorbed by the atmosphere. Why isn’t that capable of keeping the surface at 390w/m2 to 396w/m2 with variation being in the realm of uncertainty with that of co2 being impotent by virtue of final absorbing too distant from the surface up in the mesosphere.

            as to your third grader reference the variation could come from unsaturated o3 and unevenly distributed waster vapor both of which are shown to be varying as well. the 3rd grade wiki article just avoids addressing those points.

          • Nate says:

            Look at the reference to your ‘3rd grader model’.

            It has optics that you will likely not comprehend. So your ‘3rd grader’ label is nonsense.

            Absor.bed solar in the atmosphere is warming the system.

          • Bill hunter says:

            You didn’t disagree with anything I said Nate. You just handwaved it away.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate complains: “Which you work so hard to misunderstand. Look up Kirchhoffs and learn what it actually means. And show us.”

            It’s really quite simple. The law as it applies to the atmosphere states a molecule will absorb and emit radiation equally within the same general environment. The last caveat means equal pressure and temperature.

            Therefore, given we are talking atmospheric layers, the temperature and pressure are the same throughout the layer. Hence the two sides of the radiation coin are also equal.

            See, not really all that difficult. Once you understand this a lot of mysteries of energy flow disappear.

          • Nate says:

            “states a molecule will absorb and emit radiation equally within the same general environment.”

            Richard, That is still not accurate. Find a source with a definition.

            It is about the FRACTION of incoming radiation that is abs.orbed, which is abso.rbtivity. There is no T^4 involved in that, as there is with emission.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            nate argues the unlimited warming theory implied by the 3rd grade level radiation model not having an equilibrium and being disconnected from t4 equilibrium limits. its amazing how many people are so attached to a never demonstrated model that is little more than a product of the imagination.

          • Ball4 says:

            “… given we are talking atmospheric layers, the temperature and pressure are the same throughout the layer.”

            No Richard 9:11 pm, that’s wrong. You’ve even been physically corrected before.

            In the troposphere, there exists a temperature lapse as a function of z so T(z), same with pressure P(z) in each hydrostatic layer. T(z) IS constant in the lower stratosphere for about 9km of z height, but in that region still P(z) is NOT constant in each layer.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate continues his science denial. Here’s how Wiki says it:

            For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the abs…

            Oh wait, that’s almost exactly what I stated. as anyone can see, Nate is now trying to deflect from his previous misunderstanding of the Modtran data.

          • Nate says:

            Richard,

            You left out some key details in the quote.

            “For an arbitrary body emitting and absor.bing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absor.ptivity.”

            “Here, the dimensionless coefficient of absorp.tion (or the absorp.tivity) is the fraction of incident light (power) that is absor.bed by the body when it is radiating and absor.bing in thermodynamic equilibrium.”

            The fraction of incoming radiation absor.bed is not determined by temperature.

            “the emissivity: the ratio of the emissive power of the body to the emissive power of a black body of the same size and shape at the same fixed T”

            As we know the emitted SB flux is sigma*emissivity*T^4.

            Temperature IS a strong factor in emission.

            Are you just going keep denying these facts?

          • Richard M says:

            Nate states: “Temperature IS a strong factor in emission.”

            Yes, and equally affects how the entity absorbs energy. What part of the words “thermal equilibrium” and “equal” did you fail to understand?

            Both sides of the IR coin are dependent on temperature. Just because you quote words you don’t appear to understand doesn’t change the meaning of those words.

            Since we know the amount of CO2 and the temperature of the atmosphere drops as you move upward. We know the energy emitted from lower layers cannot all be absorbed by the higher layers. It must pass through and head onward to space.

            This explains why Modtran shows a narrowing of the radiance spectrum as you move upward. It also means the absorbed energy must have been equally reduced due to Kirchhoff’s Law.

          • Nate says:

            Richard,

            So you insist on making up your own physics? Even after seeing the definition of Kirchhoff’s Law, and absorp.tivity.

            Why?

            There is a T^4 factor in emission, because the SB law is all about emission.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

            “For an ideal absorber/emitter or black body, the StefanBoltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time (also known as the radiant exitance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s temperature, T”

            There is no SB Law for absorp.tion.

            If you have evidence there is one, show us! From a legitimate source, please.

            I predict you won’t find one, Richard.

            Then we will be done with this silliness.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate projects: “So you insist on making up your own physics?”

            Nope, I am following Kirchhoff’s Law as it is clearly stated. You are the one making stuff up. Here it is again straight out of Wiki:

            the emissivity is equal to the absor.ptivity

            It really doesn’t get any more clear than this. Your continued denial of century old physics puts you in a unique group of science deniers.

          • Richard M says:

            I should add one additional thought. There’s nothing in Kirchhoff’s Law that says an object will absorb as much energy as it emits. There may not be any energy to absorb. That’s why there’s no defined relationship like T^4 which exists with emissivity.

            However, if there is equal to or greater amounts of energy then the body can only absorb an amount equal to what it emits. That is my point.

            Since we know there is more energy radiating upward from the denser, warmer atmosphere below than can be absorbed at higher altitudes, there is always plenty of energy available. Therefore, in the situation being discussed, the radiance always matches the energy absorbed.

          • Nate says:

            “However, if there is equal to or greater amounts of energy then the body can only abso.rb an amount equal to what it emits. That is my point.”

            No Richard that would suggest no body could ever cool or warm by radiation, which is obviously not the case.

            emissivity is a dimensionless FRACTION of BB radiation emitted, IOW the FRACTION of sigma*T^4. Clearly there will be a T^4 in emission.

            absorp.itivity is the FRACTION of incoming radiation absor.bed. There is no T^4 in absorp.tion.

            Kirchhoff says Emissivity = absorp.tivity is only talking about FRACTIONS of different things being equal, not the AMOUNTS being equal.

            Example. A body at temperature T has emissivity 0.5 = absorp.tivity.

            Its emitted Flux is sigma*(0.5)*T^4

            Its absor.bed flux is 0.5*(Flux input). Do you see T of the body in there?

            No. It can be very different from emission.

            And you offer no source that says there is an SB law for absor.ption.

            That should tell you that you are mistaken.

          • Nate says:

            “Theres nothing in Kirchhoffs Law that says an object will absorb as much energy as it emits. There may not be any energy to absorb. Thats why theres no defined relationship like T^4 which exists with emissivity.”

            I somehow misread this.

            Then we agree now on what Kirchhoff’s law states, and this is obviously a change of your prior stance.

            Then this:

            “However, if there is equal to or greater amounts of energy then the body can only abso.rb an amount equal to what it emits. That is my point.”

            does not follow from your above statement.

          • Nate says:

            “Since we know there is more energy radiating upward from the denser, warmer atmosphere below than can be absor.bed at higher altitudes, there is always plenty of energy available. Therefore, in the situation being discussed, the radiance always matches the energy absor.bed.”

            No Richard, that doesnt follow from Kirchhoff.

            And doesnt agree with the radiance spectrum we saw in Modtran, which has a hole in it at high altitudes that isn’t present at lower altitudes.

            Any absorp.tion in the CO2 band just equilibrates via collisions with the surrounding air to reach the air temperature at that altitude.

            Then the emitted radiance need not match energy absor.bed.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate persists in his science denial: “Then we agree now on what Kirchhoffs law states, and this is obviously a change of your prior stance.”

            No, I’ve quoted Wiki to state my position several times. You still are denying the truth.

            “emissivity is equal to the absor.ptivity”

            Notice the words end in “ity”. This means the ability to absorb energy or emit energy is equal. It’s talking to the capability. In the atmosphere this leads to emittance = absor.ption which I have been telling you and you have been denying.

            “Then this:

            However, if there is equal to or greater amounts of energy then the body can only abso.rb an amount equal to what it emits. That is my point.

            does not follow from your above statement.”

            It follows perfectly well and fact you don’t understand this is tied to your continued denial.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate says: “And doesnt agree with the radiance spectrum we saw in Modtran, which has a hole in it at high altitudes that isnt present at lower altitudes.”

            The radiance spectrum is tied to the temperature/density of the atmospheric layer. As that combination goes down, the radiance spectrum narrows. This is where the term “pressure broadening” comes from. Almost all of the energy absorbed is converted to kinetic energy. The emission also comes from kinetic excitement and that is what determines the spectrum.

            There is no hole in the absor.ption. Only a reduction due to fewer CO2 molecules and lower temperature.

          • Nate says:

            “The radiance spectrum is tied to the temperature/density of the atmospheric layer. As that combination goes down, the radiance spectrum narrows. ”

            No Richard. That is not what the Modtran spectra showed. It showed a hole forming in the OLR. Deeper at higher elevations. No narrowing at all.

            Your stance makes little sense.

          • Nate says:

            ’emissivity is equal to the absor.ptivity’

            Yep

            “Notice the words end in ity. This means the ability to absorb energy or emit energy is equal.”

            Except only one of these also depends on T^4.

            “Its talking to the capability. In the atmosphere this leads to emittance = absor.ption which I have been telling you and you have been denying.”

            How? You have not explained how, nor shown evidence that it is true. OTOH you deny the evidence that I show you.

            You STILL have not shown any source that agrees that absor.ption is proportional to T^4.

            That means you are making up your own physics.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate persists in his science denial: Then we agree now on what Kirchhoffs law states, and this is obviously a change of your prior stance.

            No, Ive quoted Wiki to state my position several times. You still are denying the truth.”

            Prior Richard:

            “The reason the flux stays the same is that each layer altitude is absorbing and radiating equal amounts based on Kirchhoffs Law. ”

            Current Richard:

            “Theres nothing in Kirchhoffs Law that says an object will absorb as much energy as it emits. There may not be any energy to absorb. Thats why theres no defined relationship like T^4 which exists with emissivity.”

            Current Richard is correct.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate is still confusing reality with his imagination. While Kirchhoff’s Law doesn’t define absor.ption, we already know that energy is being radiated upward and we know it reaches space. Yeah, it’s been measured. That’s how we know.

            This tells us the higher altitudes have plenty of energy to absorb. Hence, we know emission = absor.ption. It can’t be more or less without violating Kirchhoff’s Law. Basic math.

            The radiance keeps dropping as the air gets colder and thinner. It’s not a hole. It’s a reduction in emissivity. There’s still plenty of IR passing through from lower/warmer layers. If not, there’d be almost nothing measured in space.

          • Nate says:

            “The radiance keeps dropping as the air gets colder and thinner.”

            Gee, finally you agree with what has been plainly obvious.

            “Its not a hole. Its a reduction in emissivity.”

            Ugggh, no.

            This is quite simple: emissivity doesn’t need to change. Because temperature changes. It drops a lot, to 220 K. And EMISSION depends on T^4.

            “Theres still plenty of IR passing through from lower/warmer layers. If not, thered be almost nothing measured in space.”

            Yes, outside the CO2 and H2O bands, the atmosphere is mostly transparent.

            I don’t see why you are having so much trouble with this.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate spews more denial: “This is quite simple: emissivity doesnt need to change. Because temperature changes. It drops a lot, to 220 K. And EMISSION depends on T^4.”

            Emissivity is not T^4 for a gas. It’s a combination of temperature and the density of radiating gases. Why am I not surprised your understanding is so poor.

            “Yes, outside the CO2 and H2O bands, the atmosphere is mostly transparent.”

            And even within the CO2 bands there are insufficient quantities to absorb all the IR radiating upwards from lower in the atmosphere.

            This is not difficult yet Nate seems unable to understand even the simplest concepts.

          • Nate says:

            “Emissivity is not T^4 for a gas.”

            Again for the perpetually confused, emissivity is a unitless parameter, e, between 0 and 1. It is not emission, nor emitted flux.

            Absor.ptivity is also a unitless parameter
            a, between 0 and 1 and equal to e by Kirchhoff.

            It is not absor.bed flux.

            Only emitted flux is proportional to T^4.

          • Nate says:

            Richard, of course density matters. But as you agree, there will be layers in the atmosphere which contain enough CO2 molecules to abs.orb 100 % at the CO2 wavelengths.

            The are opaque, and a = 1 = e at those wavelengths.

            But emitted flux upward from such a layer will be e*sigma*T^4.

            If T is colder than the surface, it will emit less than the surface at the CO2 wavelengths.

            Finally the highest such layer emits with T=220K. Much less that the 288 K of the surface.

            While for other wavelengths the atmosphere can be transparent, will have a BB spectrum matching the surface T.

          • Richard M says:

            Once again Nate goes back to talking about generalities when I’ve been discussing the specific circumstances of the atmosphere.

            We know that two adjacent layers of the atmosphere will emit and absorb Upward-IR around the 15 mm frequency based on their temperature and number of CO2 molecules. We also know that both of these values decrease as you move upward. Simple, long verified facts.

            This tells us that there will be more U-IR absorbed and emitted by the lower layers of the atmosphere. Hence, as we move upward there’s more U-IR available to all the layers than they will be able to absorb. Some of the U-IR must bypass the next layer above it. This continues as we move upward.

            This means the percentage of U-IR that cannot be absorbed increases at each layer. More and more of the upward flux bypasses each higher layer.

            This simple fact based reality tells anyone not in denial of basic science that emissivity = absor.ptivity for every layer of the atmosphere above the atmospheric boundary layer.

            Of course, this also explains the Modtran results. There is no “hole”, there are simply changes due to very basic physics.

          • Nate says:

            “back to talking about generalities”

            Not at all, Richard. I gave you specific, pertinent details, such as the equations that apply, the values that go in to them, and why those are the values.

            I suggest you quote me and point out what, specifically, you disagree with, and why.

            Your last post is hand-waving with no values, no equations, no real physics.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate complains: “Your last post is hand-waving with no values”.

            I provided you basic inequalities that provide 100% of what you need to understand the science (A>B, B>C => A>C). It’s actually very simple math. Feel free to continue denying easy math because no one will hold your hand.

            For anyone else interested, I have demonstrated that the flow of energy upward through the atmosphere is independent of CO2 concentration. There is only a slight decrease in OLR due to pressure broadening.

            When you add in the surface evaporation driven by increasing CO2 levels that drives the high altitude reductions in water vapor, it is obvious that CO2 provides no warming of the atmosphere above very low levels (100-200 ppm).

          • Nate says:

            I don’t see you accounting for the observed OLR spectrum with the CO2 hole in it. Nor do you account for the development of the hole with increasing height. In fact your hand-waving seems always to be trying to make the hole vanish. Nor do you quote me and tell me what specifically you disagree with. Do you disagree with my equations and the values, and why?

            Seems that the discussion is over.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate persists in denial: “I dont see you accounting for the observed OLR spectrum with the CO2 hole in it. Nor do you account for the development of the hole with increasing height.”

            There is no “hole with increasing height”. All you are seeing is a reduction in emissivity due to the the colder/thinner atmosphere. Won’t change no matter how often you repeat your denial.

            The CO2 hole in the OLR spectrum is also related to the decreasing emissivity/absor.ptivity as you move higher. Once again the key is the absorbed energy in each layer is passed on to other molecules quickly. As a result the spectrum of emissions change within each layer. Since it gets colder, more energy is move to colder frequencies.

            Keep in mind the Earth’s OLR is 240 w/m2. not the surface black body spectrum. If you are comparing to the surface spectrum that doesn’t make any sense. When you just look at total flux, it stays the same.

          • Nate says:

            “There is no hole with increasing height. ”

            Only if you forget to open your eyes and look.

            “All you are seeing is a reduction in emissivity due to the the colder/thinner atmosphere. Wont change no matter how often you repeat your denial.”

            You don’t see it as a contradiction that you try to offer an explanation for a hole that you think does not exist?!

            There is a T^4 term SEPARATE FROM emissivity.

            Cold affects temperature…rather directly…and a lot more so when it is raised to the fourth power.

            Pretty basic and undeniable math.

            ‘Thinner atmosphere’ yes that affects emissivity only at high altitude where it is much colder, and mainly in the wings of the peak.

            It is explained in quantitative detail here. Enjoy.

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

          • Richard M says:

            Nate repeats his confusion: “You dont see it as a contradiction that you try to offer an explanation for a hole that you think does not exist?!”

            A “hole” indicates something is missing. What you see is what you should be expecting. If you’re not expecting a reduction then that’s your problem.

          • Nate says:

            “If youre not expecting a reduction then thats your problem.”

            Ok Richard, whatever soothes you. The hole is not a hole, it’s a ‘reduction’.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate originally claimed: “My point with showing the deep hole in the OLR spectrum is that it shows that energy has been removed from the outgoing IR.”

            Nate also said: “I dont see you accounting for the observed OLR spectrum with the CO2 hole in it. Nor do you account for the development of the hole with increasing height.”

            I tried. Obviously, I didn’t get my point through.

            Look at the 14-16 micron frequencies at 2, 10 and 50 km. Look at the flux diagram. See any difference? I don’t either. Yet, the radiance changes significantly. There’s no reduction/hole in the flux.

            The initial absor.ption occurs below 2 km. The transfer of energy to the rest of the atmosphere occurs there. What we see above there is the spectrum of gases. The claimed OLR hole is simply a difference between a blackbody spectrum and one comprised of gases.

            In reality, this spectra change mainly occurs within the first 10 meters. This is where almost all the surface energy is absorbed. Above that level the energy changes are due to the reduction in energy reabsorbed allowing some energy to pass through. The flux remains nearly constant.

            Energy is removed at every layer, passed on to other molecules and then reemitted sometime later based on the emissivity of that layer. Because higher layers are thinner/colder, we see a reduction in the width of the CO2 radiance as you go higher.

            The outside frequencies pass through thus showing up in the flux values and the OLR measured from space. This is verification of the continued absor.ption/reemission of energy as you move upward in the atmosphere.

            So, if your only point was that energy is removed. Yeah, that’s true. It happens immediately and the surface skin and boundary layer continually exchange energy. It doesn’t happen “with increasing height” as you claimed. You were confused by the changes in radiance.

          • Nate says:

            “Look at the 14-16 micron frequencies at 2, 10 and 50 km. ”
            Look at the flux diagram. See any difference? I dont either. Yet, the radiance changes significantly. Theres no reduction/hole in the flux.”

            As explained, No.

            Read the Legend! It clearly is only showing flux for 0 Km, and 100 Km. Nothing in between.

            The 0 Km has no hole. The 100 km has a deep hole. It is the OLR flux spectrum.

            What happens in between is what you see in the radiance spectrum. There is no hole in it at 1 km, a moderate hole at 5 km, and a deep hole at 20 km.

            The hole develops in the cold upper troposphere, for the reasons discussed.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate claims: “What happens in between is what you see in the radiance spectrum.”

            Nope. It doesn’t include the IR that bypasses the layer. The amount absor.bed would be equal to the radiance. Good old Kirchhoff’s Law. That’s not the total IR.

            If what you say is true then Modtran doesn’t provide enough information to prove either one of us right.

            Simple logic is all that is needed to see I am right.

          • Nate says:

            “Nope. It doesnt include the IR that bypasses the layer.”

            FALSE. Radiance includes transmitted and emitted radiation.

            “In radiometry, radiance is the radiant flux emitted, reflected, transmitted or received by a given surface, per unit solid angle per unit projected area.”

            “The amount absor.bed would be equal to the radiance. Good old Kirchhoffs Law.”

            FALSE.

            You seemed to understand Kirchhoff, but now again reverting back to getting it wrong.

            Why?

            Facts just don’t seem to matter to you.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Near as I can tell from mean outgoing spectra a good deal more than half the spectra effects of CO2 are occurring in the stratosphere and mesosphere As we know CO2 has no definable effect in the stratosphere because it is totally overwhelmed by a gas far rarer than CO2.

            So bottom line without a model for CO2 being the keystone gas that properly accounts for where its being absorbed in the atmosphere its just all BS.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Plus you need a model that actually works. Your 3rd grader radiation model doesn’t work and here is the proof.

            https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

          • Nate says:

            “Near as I can tell”

            Enough said.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nates physics model is 100% comprised of flapping gums.

          • Richard M says:

            Here is the part Nate left out.

            “Radiance is used to characterize diffuse emission and reflection of electromagnetic radiation”.

            In this case we have specified an altitude. Seems to me the radiance would be emissions from that altitude.

          • Nate says:

            Richard,

            As you can see the radiance spectra at all heights fully includes the IR window wavelengths, 8-13 microns, which can only come direct from the Earth surface. So the radiance spectra must include TRANSMITED radiation.

            Oh well, sorry.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”As you can see the radiance spectra at all heights fully includes the IR window wavelengths, 8-13 microns, which can only come direct from the Earth surface.”

            Nate makes the ridiculous claim that the atmosphere cannot absorb heat from the sun or other molecules in the atmosphere and reradiate it back to space in the 8-13 micron wavelengths.

          • Nate says:

            As usual, stalker Bill has no idea what’s going on, but butts in anyway.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate claims: “As you can see the radiance spectra at all heights fully includes the IR window wavelengths, 8-13 microns, which can only come direct from the Earth surface. So the radiance spectra must include TRANSMITED radiation.”

            No, it’s a software package and can be anything the programmers want it to be. With that said, let’s assume you are right.

            Each layer absorbs IR based on its absor.ptivity (concentration of gases + temperature). It also emits based on them. However, concentrations of various gases change as you move up in the atmosphere. This means you will see a difference in what the gases add to a layer and what they emit from the layer.

            Low in the atmosphere you have lots of water vapor. Very little at higher altitudes. As a result the absorp.tion spectrum and emission spectrum probably change.

            There is also convection moving energy upward. Not sure one can look at the radiance at any layer and draw conclusions.

          • Nate says:

            “Each layer absorbs IR based on its absor.ptivity (concentration of gases + temperature). It also emits based on them.”

            Seems like you will never get Kirchhoff, Richard.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate says: “Seems like you will never get Kirchhoff, Richard.”

            Your denial of a physical law will continue to be humorous to actual scientists. As long as more energy is radiated upward than any atmospheric layer can absorb, Kirchhoff’s Law will operate as expected.

            The only “hole” that exists is within your understanding of the physics of the atmosphere.

          • Nate says:

            “Your denial of a physical law will continue to be humorous to actual scientists.”

            Considering that you were unable to produce any source that agrees with your erroneous interpretation of Kirchhoff’s law, this is rather childish, Richard.

          • Richard M says:

            Nate says: “you were unable to produce any source that agrees with your erroneous interpretation of Kirchhoffs law”

            Wiki agreed with my interpretation. Here it is again:

            “For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absor.ptivity.”

    • gbaikie says:

      “Has anyone bother to try to explain why the S Hemi has a different temmp trend than the N Hemi, or why temperatures trend differently over land than sea?”

      People have been trying to explain southern Hemisphere ocean for more than century.
      I can’t say that they have made much progress.

  9. Clint R says:

    The question here is — how much of this is due to the Hunga-Tonga Effect?

    My guess is 0.15-0.25C.

    The next question is — how long will the HTE last?

    If it lasts many more months and coincides with an El Niño, we will see record anomalies.

    • Richard M says:

      While Hunga_Tonga could be having some effect, my view has been low Antarctic sea ice is one of the major reasons for warmer anomalies.

      The ocean current around Antarctica has also slowed which appears to be reducing the amount of cold, upwelling water. Not sure if this is an effect or the cause. However, the effect on the global temperature appears to be consistent with the level of sea ice.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Let’s make it clear just how low it is.

        Based on the 1981-2010 baseline for July 4, it has a z-score of -6.5.

        The lowest z-score I could find in a table was -4.0, and it indicated the probability of going under this value as 0.00003.

        I would suggest this would need at least 4 more zeros.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Grammie clone throws out a claim of possible effects of the massive HT eruption. Has he any data to support his claim, or is he just attempting to spread denialist information, as usual?

      For example, the latest TLS data from NOAA STAR thru February 2023 shows little influence from the HT eruption.

      • Clint R says:

        E. Swanson, you must have missed the new rules for trolls. Immature nonsense like “Grammie clone” and “denialist information” won’t pass.

        You’re welcome to revise and re-submit.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Grammie clone is using grammie’s claim to authority. Sorry, troll, the post stands. You are still acting like a moron.

          • Clint R says:

            Thus the need for rules —

            E. Swanson has no respect for reality or science. His link to TLS chart has NO connection to the HTE. He gets to remain ignorant, by his own choice.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Grammie clone should take the time to look at the graph, which shows the very obvious spikes in temperatures after the El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo eruptions. Of course, the proposed effects of water vapor from the HT eruption may present a different result, but one wonders where it is. Perhaps grammie clone has some other data to offer demonstrating his claimed impacts for our edification.

          • Bill hunter says:

            Thats Swanson’s style. Just throw something out there and make a ridiculous claim about it. Like when he wrote an entire paper on how Roy has summertime Arctic temperatures too cold. He didn’t even know Arctic summertime temperature have cooled during the ice retreat.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Grammie clone should take the time to look at the graph, which shows the very obvious spikes in temperatures after the El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo eruptions. Of course, the proposed effects of water vapor from the HT eruption may present a different result, but one wonders where it is.

            Perhaps grammie clone has some other data to offer demonstrating his claimed impacts for our edification.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Grammie clone and Hunter, If you don’t like my plot of the NOAA STAR TLS data, you can analyze the data from higher up.

            https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/emb/mscat/data/SSU/SSU_v3.0/SSU_AMSU_ATMS_Monthly_Layer_Temperature/

            Have fun!! I hope your programming skills are up to the challenge.

          • Bill hunter says:

            Swanson says:
            ”Of course, the proposed effects of water vapor from the HT eruption may present a different result, but one wonders where it is.”

            https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming

            Don’t play coy Swanson. HT is expected to increase global warming over the 5 years subsequent to the explosion. So that would have the warming effect in place through 2026.

          • Clint R says:

            Because E. Swanson is ignorant of the science, he believes everyone else is also as ignorant.

            THAT is what “braindead” looks like.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter suggests that the HT-HH eruption will make a big difference in global temperature. Yet, quoting from his referenced EOS article, we find this:

            The model calculated the monthly change in Earths energy balance caused by the eruption and showed that water vapor could increase the average global temperature by up to 0.035C over the next 5 years. Thats a large anomaly for a single event, but its not outside the usual level of noise in the climate system, Jenkins said.

            In other words, not a big deal. That’s so small that it’s only 1/10 this month’s jump in the UAH TLT.

            grammid clone chimes in with one of his usual grade school putdowns to cover up his inability to analyze the data I referenced.

          • Bill hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”Hunter suggests that the HT-HH eruption will make a big difference in global temperature.”

            Strawman alert! Swanson looking bad for playing coy is now making up shit. But hey he makes up shit all the time.

            ”The model calculated the monthly change in Earths energy balance caused by the eruption and showed that water vapor could increase the average global temperature by up to 0.035C over the next 5 years.”

            Well I don’t expect it will be exactly .035C the entire 5 years. I didn’t look to see what the range of temperatures would be if they reported any of that or not.

            E. Swanson says:
            ”In other words, not a big deal. Thats so small that its only 1/10 this months jump in the UAH TLT.”

            LOL! I think I have been on record suggesting that 3C isn’t that big of a deal.

            E. Swanson says:
            ”grammid clone chimes in with one of his usual grade school putdowns to cover up his inability to analyze the data I referenced.”

            Its only a put down when you know its true or you find out later its true. You knew in advance it was true.

          • Bill hunter says:

            And oh I have no idea why you posted that dataset. Was it for a distraction?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter says he has “no idea” why I posted the link to the NOAA STAR Stratosphere data set. I suppose that means he hasn’t been paying attention to the scientific discussion about the effects of the HHTH eruption, which dumped lots of water vapor into the Stratosphere. For example, he apears to have missed this quote from his EOA reference:

            Though seemingly innocuous, water vapor is the planets most common greenhouse gas. Whereas volcanic sulfates commonly block sunlight from reaching Earth, water vapor keeps it from leaving.

            Thus grammie clone’s comments claiming that the HHTH eruption is warming the Earth recently. Hunter’s lack of interest is similar to his rejection of my posting of a plot of the NOAA STAR MSU 4/AMSU 9 data, which represents the lower Stratosphere.

          • Bill hunter says:

            Swanson it dumped a lot into the mesosphere also. Typical for you guys to look at one thing and extrapolate.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter, Within 1 1/2 months, most of the water vapor was down to the 20-30 hPa level. It had spread into a narrow band of latitude circling the globe by then.

            But, you seem to blame me for grammie clone’s insistence that the HHTH effects would produce warming which has recently appeared in some records. I just want to see some cause-and-effect work pointing to what claim. You, however, seem to grab onto any denialist claim without understanding the scientific support (or lack thereof).

          • Bill hunter says:

            Well the question is whether the greenhouse effect is the same if water vapor or co2 is laying on the ground when it absorbs sunlight or if it absorbs it somewhere up in the atmosphere. Since the theory has never been outlined beyond some vague talk about a hotspot somewhere in the atmosphere one has to wonder.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Sorry, Hunter, the GHG’s effects aren’t about “…water vapor or co2 is laying on the ground when it absorbs sunlight or if it absorbs it somewhere up in the atmosphere.” That you are ignorant does not prove the scientific foundation isn’t well known.

          • Bill hunter says:

            Well if Nate can’t explain the foundation its pretty hard to imagine you could Swanson.

            You claim that little influence is shown from the HT eruption when you don’t even know how the atmosphere changes naturally and you can’t give a detailed statistically sensible argument how HT or GHEs would change anything.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter troll, I think my point was that neither grammie clone nor you have provided evidence to support the claim that the HHTH eruption produced a surface warming effect as the result of the massive injection of water vapor high into the Stratosphere. I presented evidence in the form of a plot of the NOAA STAR TLS data, which clearly showed the effects of two large eruptions from sulfate injections, but show little effect from the HHTH eruption. It’s been reported that the HHTH event lofted relatively little sulfate, so my data is unsurprising.

            Of course, neither you nor grammie clone have produced any evidence to support grammie clone’s contention, just more empty troll poop to clutter the conversation. Your reference to a model study suggests the effect is rather small. Is there other evidence. if so, where is it?

          • Bill hunter says:

            Clint R said:

            ”The question here is how much of this is due to the Hunga-Tonga Effect?
            My guess is 0.15-0.25C.”

            Swanson responds:
            ”Grammie clone throws out a claim of possible effects of the massive HT eruption. Has he any data to support his claim, or is he just attempting to spread denialist information, as usual?”

            Hunter responds to Swanson:

            Dont play coy Swanson. HT is expected to increase global warming over the 5 years subsequent to the explosion. So that would have the warming effect in place through 2026. (including a link supporting that from a “Nature” journal.)

            To which Swanson responds:

            ”Hunter suggests that the HT-HH eruption will make a big difference in global temperature. Yet, quoting from his referenced EOS article, we find this:

            The model calculated the monthly change in Earths energy balance caused by the eruption and showed that water vapor could increase the average global temperature by up to 0.035C over the next 5 years. Thats a large anomaly for a single event, but its not outside the usual level of noise in the climate system, Jenkins said.

            In other words, not a big deal. Thats so small that its only 1/10 this months jump in the UAH TLT.”

            Well besides Swanson showing his incompetence in math the jump this month was .01 over last month which is 3.5 times smaller than the Nature study model suggests. Swanson builds strawmen like Chevrolet builds cars. Clint said “the question is” and “my guess is” which Swanson promptly turns into an attack of free speech and thought as if Clint was destroying the world. Then he calls my reference to the Nature study as my suggestion that there will be a ”big difference” in global temperature; then he promptly makes of ass of himself by saying “my reference ” suggests a very small amount of warming. . . .which promptly calls into question his sanity. Then he caps it off with a math error worthy of a 3rd grader doing his first multiplication exercise.

            And you actually wonder why everybody in here thinks you are an idiot?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter troll, Yes, I missed the comparison of 0.035C increase in average temperature with the 0.38C from this month’s TLT report. I realized after posting that I wasn’t clear, since the 0.38 is just a monthly value referenced to the base period.

            Maybe the HHTH volcano’s water vapor is the cause of the record local and global temperatures being reported of late. If so, then that strengthens the case for projections for warming from the continuing increase in CO2. But, you guys are still ignoring the evidence in the graph I posted, which one might think would give some indication of the effects of the HHTH eruption by now.

            Perhaps Hunter troll is embarrassed because he is unable to do the math himself, using the other NOAA STAR data I pointed to. That might explain his refusal to speak to the evidence, instead falling back to his usual personal attack.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            Maybe the HHTH volcanos water vapor is the cause of the record local and global temperatures being reported of late. If so, then that strengthens the case for projections for warming from the continuing increase in CO2.

            —————————

            well first let me recognize that you have enough self confidence to admit some mistakes. that still leaves your strawman construction business and your schizophrenic attack on me allegedly one minute championing huge effects from HTE and the next minute claiming my link suggested modest warming over a 5-year span. since i didn’t characterize the size of the effect it was like you saw it as huge when i offered it up one minute then you read it the next and minimized it then posted your schizophrenic take in a single post. and you did essentially the samething to Clint all the while insulting him. then you revert to shrill whine mode about getting an insult in return.

            you need to work on your emotional problem. perhaps its dietary.

            finally i don’t see the effects of water vapor warming the atmosphere of having much at all in common at all with how co2 does it. so i disagree that if water vapor happens to result in any effcts it does anything for the co2 claims. thinking it does is just another example of how you linearly extrapolate from your 3rd grader radiation model while completely ignoring anything else.

            as i have said the 3rd grader radiation model violates 2lot but the ghe does not.

          • Bill hunter says:

            Unfortunately Swanson you haven’t put in the necessary homework to understand the problem.

            Sulphur dioxide is a strong light absorber in the UV light ranges. Thus an injection of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere causes surface cooling by blocking the suns rays.

            This process can take 3 years as there isn’t hardly any water in the stratosphere to combine with the SO2.

            But overtime the SO2 does combine with water and produces sulphuric acid which is a very poor absorber of UV light and the sulphuric acid destroys ozone in the atmosphere letting more light hit the surface thus after the SO2 is absorbed 3 years later it leads to some warming because of the affects on O3. I am sure the Universities have no self interest in describing how long that might cause warming.

            Now before you complain researchers don’t understand much about what affects the climate. The official doctrine is aerosols reflect light increasing the albedo but the chemicals like SO2 are not thought to reflect light until they convert to sulphuric acid at which point they start eating ozone which does absorb UV light.

            But we do know that the ozone depletion peaked in 2000. Again I am sure Universities have no self interest in investigating this issue either.

            Plus the ozone hole was first discovered in 1985, like 3 years after El Chichon eruption that pumped huge amounts of so2 into the stratosphere and resulted in according to your chart resulted in blockage by SO2 for 3 years of not much less magnitude than Pinatubo, both eruptions resulting in ozone depletion that may not have began to reverse for 15 years after its discovery and 9 years after pinatubo.

            But I am sure none of this is of any self interest to the universities either.

            And there is an area yet to be researched regarding the unexpectedly low SO2 emissions of Hunga Tonga and that is it is a rare undersea explosion that reached the stratosphere and that the SO2 could have been combined with the water immediately. . . .which if so might explain the recent acceleration of stratospheric cooling.

            So I am sure Swanson you have all this already figured out and it precisely matches what your daddy told you.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          And I suppose

          “Have you sobered up?”

          “braindead cult idiot”

          “worthless willard”

          “troll barry ambles along side like Sancho Panza, as they chase them windmills.”

          “your keyboard got another case of diarrhea”

          are indications of maturity?

          And I must have missed Roy’s post on these new rules.

          • Clint R says:

            Wow Ant, I’m really impressed!

            You went to the trouble of saving my comments to trolls and idiots. I’m flattered.

            As impressive as that is, I would be even more impressed if you were interested in the science. For example, can you explain to E. Swanson why his link to TLS has NO connection to HTE?

            Take your time. Do some research. Let’s see if you can figure it out.

            That would be REALLY impressive.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            I’ll take that as a no, as further evidenced by that reply.

          • Clint R says:

            So you have no interest in learning science, Ant.

            At least you’re an impressive troll.

    • Nate says:

      “My guess is 0.15-0.25C.”

      For some, I guess science is just guessing.

      • RLH says:

        Still colder than 2016.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”My guess is 0.15-0.25C.”

        For some, I guess science is just guessing.

        ———————

        Well Climate can be predicted for about 10 days in advance. Beyond that its a guess.

        • Nate says:

          Weather, which is not climate, can be predicted about 10 days ahead.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate, not predicted – assumed.

            Naive “predictions”, based on the past, are right about 85% of the time in temperate regions, out to 5 days or so. At 10 days, a coin toss – 50%.

            I’m not aware of any “expert” forecasters who can beat a 12 year old using a pencil and ruler, given historical data.

            You may have noticed that hurricane path predictions, made by the “best and brightest”, backed by the finest technology can vary hour to hour.

            Chaos in action (quantum mechanics if you prefer).

          • Nate says:

            “Chaos in action (quantum mechanics if you prefer).”

            Tee hee hee!

      • Ken says:

        Science is all about making a guess and then trying to prove the guess wrong.

        • Bill hunter says:

          Well its really not about guessing if you follow the scientific method. . . .but the truth is the scientific method has never been the most popular pastime of scientists. I think accountants were like that before somebody decided that they needed to be disciplined.

        • Swenson says:

          Ken,

          I agree.

          Quote from Richard Feynman address transcript –
          “.In general, we look for a new law by the following process; first, we guess it Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what it would imply. Then we compare those computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience. We compare directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesnt make a difference how beautiful your guess is, to doesnt make a difference how smart you are or what his name is, its wrong. Thats all there is to it.”

          As you might be aware, GHE supporters cannot even describe the GHE in sufficient detail for anyone to even hazard a guess about it, if you accept that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and that the present surface cools at night, losing all the heat of the day.

          No “description” of the GHE acknowledges either fact.

          Oh well, it doesn’t really matter. A final Feynman quote –

          “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is – absurd.”

          Chaos theory can also lead to absurd results where the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future. Feynman came to the same conclusion in regard to the atmosphere – just using quantum mechanical theory.

          Who to believe? Richard Feynman, or a confused pack of delusional SkyDragon cultists who can’t even describe what they want you to accept! Hard choice for some – I choose Feynman.

          • bobdroege says:

            Your guesses don’t agree with the data

            “the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and that the present surface cools at night, losing all the heat of the day.”

            Nope, not true, so put it where Feynman says.

            In the circular file.

          • Bill hunter says:

            Yeah well its all speculation one way or the other as no evidence exists either way.

            Even the main propagandist for the scam originally neglected to put an imbalance in his estimates and recorded the budget just as specified by Swenson. His next addition tried to patch up the oversight but of course it was based on model output rather than observation.

  10. Darwin wyatt says:

    If Alaska was a precursor or canary for warming then surely that its freezing here must be an omen. Im still having to have a morning fire in the wood stove. Its so cold it feels like the ice age has come.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      darwin…I keep reminding anyone who will listen that as long as the Earth has its current axial tilt, and follows the same orbital path, the Arctic will be seriously cold each year. When you have no sunlight part of the year, it gets cold, really cold.

      Never lived in Alaska but I hear on the Arctic Ocean by where the Mackenzie River meets the ocean, the average temperatures get not much higher than 5C in summer.

      When explorers from Europe tried to find the NW Passage in the summer, in the years around 1850, they simply could not sail far before encountering ice that blocked them. Although it’s warmer today, due to unpredictable ice floes, it’s still not possible to get through much of the time in summer.

  11. bdgwx says:

    The 4m and 5m lagged ENSO anomalies are -0.46 and -0.71 respectively so 2023/06 was still under the La Nina influence. My expectation was 0.18 C. I missed by -0.20 C. Last month I missed by -0.19 C. Over the last 12 months my model has been biased by about -0.10 C. I’m still not expecting a new record this year. My expectation for 2023 is 0.29 +/- 0.08 which is well below the 0.39 C record from 2016.

    • Clint R says:

      Sorry you got it so wrong, bdgwx. Not everyone did…

      Clint R says:
      June 23, 2023 at 2:15 PM
      The Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE) hasn’t ended yet. We’re in for a couple more months of warming, even before the El Niño builds.

      Clint R says:
      June 28, 2023 at 8:53 PM
      The June UAH results come out next week. With the continuing HTE and the now-forming El Niño, a high Global anomaly should be expected. Certainly above 0.30C, and even above 0.40C wouldn’t be a surprise.

      Science always wins over cult beliefs.

      If the HTE holds, and the EN continues to build, 2023 will be a record year. The funny thing is that CO2 has NOTHING to do with it.

  12. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Understanding past mean changes to the east-west asymmetry is directly relevant to understanding tropical Pacific mean state changes under future warming. Virtually all climate models project a pronounced warming in the eastern equatorial Pacific relative to the western equatorial Pacific. However, these projections fly against recently observed trends that show the opposite to have occurred during the last decades, suggesting that the model projections may be in error. This potential error has strong implications for future regional projections of climate. Like interannual El Nio, multidecadal to multicentennial changes in sea surface temperatures (SST) in the tropical Pacific that mirror the ENSO pattern can lead to changes to regional climates throughout the globe mediated through atmospheric teleconnections. Paleoproxy information that documents changes to the tropical Pacific mean climate, in particular its east-west asymmetry, can provide a valuable perspective on this problem.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png

  13. Barry says:

    Am I correct in thinking that during a negative PDO, El Ninos bring COOLER temps to the US – I’m sure I read that (that they only raise US temps during a positive PDO). So we are likely to see descending temps across the US anytime soon, yes?

  14. gbaikie says:

    My guess was wrong by .13 C
    “Clint R says:
    June 28, 2023 at 8:53 PM
    …”Certainly above 0.30C, and even above 0.40C wouldnt be a surprise.”
    Was closer. He was not surprised. Nor was I.

    The Atlantic hurricane is about month old, and haven’t had much activity- they predicted normal hurricane activity, which also seems
    to be the case.
    Could the warmer June prevented more hurricane activity?
    Or is too soon to say anything about it?

    • gbaikie says:

      I was having problems posting anything- but that worked, so still watching the sun. In terms my history wildly predicting solar activity- June was lower than I had been guessing for months, but had about the right amount of sunspots in regards my guessing. And I though July would also have higher activity and more sunspots- I currently not very confident about that. I think July will go sideways and down significant from June sunspot number. In terms of others who might count themselves as “experts”:
      “Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
      03 July – 29 July 2023

      Solar activity is expected to be at low to R1-R2 (Minor-Moderate)
      levels throughout the forecast period.

      No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.

      The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
      expected to reach high levels on 03-06 Jul and 14-29 Jul due to CH
      HSS influence.

      Geomagnetic field activity is expected to reach unsettled levels on
      04-05 Jul, unsettled to active levels on 09-10 Jul with G1-G2
      (Minor-Moderate) levels likely on 12-13 Jul due to recurrent CH HSS
      activity. Quiet to unsettled levels are expected on 14-29 Jul.”
      https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast

        • gbaikie says:

          Yes. So, graph has two, one going flat for about 1 year.
          And one going up and falling for about 1 year.

          My guess was June and July would be highest spots and activity,
          and be dropping by August and be crashing down before end of 2023.

          And I don’t see much difference between either of two or my guess in terms of whether there is Solar Grand Min. Though what is said is:
          “which means there are ample opportunities over the next three years to surpass this months 20-year record. ”

          As I don’t it’s going to continue for 3 years- and might last for year rather than 6 months.
          But not say solar 25 is gone in 6 months, but going lower and stay lower for 2 to 3 years.
          Or it’s many years rather than many months which “count”.

    • gbaikie says:

      Daily Sun: 05 Jul 23
      Solar wind
      speed: 388.6 km/sec
      density: 9.25 protons/cm3
      Sunspot number: 121
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 167 sfu
      https://www.spaceweather.com/
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 20.44×10^10 W Warm
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -2.7% Below Average
      The much discussed 3354 sunspot is going to farside
      and can see spot coming from farside- it seems spot number will
      lower a bit next couple days

      • gbaikie says:

        Daily Sun: 06 Jul 23
        Solar wind
        speed: 459.3 km/sec
        density: 10.38 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 101
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 154 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 20.24×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -2.6% Below Average

        “BIG SUNSPOT ALERT: A new and apparently large sunspot is emerging over the sun’s southeastern limb,”

        The big spot will keep sunspot number higher for a week or more.

        • gbaikie says:

          Daily Sun: 07 Jul 23
          Solar wind
          speed: 472.6 km/sec
          density: 10.32 protons/cm3
          Sunspot number: 149
          The Radio Sun
          10.7 cm flux: 158 sfu
          “Sunspot AR3363 is very large, but so far very quiet. It has not produced a significant flare since it appeared two days ago.”
          Thermosphere Climate Index
          today: 20.14×10^10 W Warm
          Oulu Neutron Counts
          Percentages of the Space Age average:
          today: -2.6% Below Average

          Sunspot number is keeping high and could maintain or increase more
          in next week, but unless the sun gets much more active, it would not match my guess I made months ago. Of course, still some time in which it could get more active.
          But so far the sun in 25 Solar Max hasn’t been active enough to significantly reduce GCR hitting Earth or Mars. But if my guess was correct, it still wouldn’t have lower the GCR, enough {as compared to when we were in the Solar Grand Maximum during solar Max}.

          • gbaikie says:

            Daily Sun: 08 Jul 23
            Solar wind
            speed: 422.4 km/sec
            density: 5.64 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 167
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 161 sfu
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 20.19×10^10 W Warm
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: -2.6% Below Average

            At this point, I am just going to say my guess was
            correct- despite the low activity. Because sunspots
            were what we been counting and I just assume more spots
            is higher activity.
            But my interest in matter has been about cosmic rays.
            We have records of this, but in terms of periods time as short
            as a few years {rather than decades]- and I simple don’t know enough
            about it- and not sure how much there is to know about it.

            It seems what ParKer Solar Probe doing and the other solar missions will be doing is the best pathway towards predicting this.

    • gbaikie says:

      I had tried to post about this:
      Solar Activity: Solar Cycle 25 Surpasses Cycle 24
      https://judithcurry.com/2023/07/04/solar-activity-solar-cycle-25-surpasses-cycle-24/
      Which generally I think is overstating things- but see if posts

      • gbaikie says:

        So predicting July, August and etc for many months going very high.
        And claims no grand solar min.
        It seems to me than grand solar min is still likely

        • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

          Pay attention to the comments.

          • gbaikie says:

            Ok, I will start, here:
            “My hypothesis is that solar activity affects temperature also by a different mechanism, changing the amount of heat transported to the Arctic in winter. As that heat exists the planet through outgoing longwave radiation, transporting more leads to an energy content decrease in the climate system, while transporting less leads to an energy content increase in the climate system. As this effect on the energy budget is cumulative, it leads to important changes when solar activity deviates from average for a long period of time. Over the LIA it led to cooling, in the 20th century the Modern Solar Maximum led to warming.”

            Well, energy content in the system is the 3.5 C average temperature of the ocean.
            I agree with NASA, more than 90% of global warming is warming our cold ocean.
            But humans or “we” talk mostly about the weather.
            Is weather going to transport more heat to Arctic- probably- though we probably aren’t measuring very well, whether it can measured would my concern. But are going to get less polar sea ice in summer.
            I don’t think it’s going to be ice free within 10 years.

          • gbaikie says:

            Willis Eschenbach doesn’t trust models, the reply:
            “Javier | July 5, 2023 at 4:20 am | Reply

            Your opinion over models is just opinion. For non-experimental sciences, models are invaluable to increase knowledge. A lot of knowledge on climate has been gained through the use of models. Thinking that anything that comes out of models is tainted is not a very scientific stance.”

            If models are related to increased knowledge- we are doomed, as they are getting worse.

          • gbaikie says:

            Ah,
            ” Ireneusz Palmowski | July 5, 2023 at 2:56 am | Reply

            I remind you that 2009 was the year of the lowest solar activity in many years.
            https://i.ibb.co/xJPpnkz/onlinequery.gif
            This means that much of North America and Europe could be frozen in one winter.
            Impact of the 2009 major sudden stratospheric warming on the composition of the stratosphere
            Comparing simulations with and without mixing, we find that after SSW, polar air transport increases, not only through the vortex edge, but also through the subtropical transport barrier. Moreover, the SSW event at the same time accelerates the polar descent and tropical ascent of the Brewer-Dobson circulation. Accelerated ascent in the tropics and descent in high latitudes first occurs in the upper stratosphere and then propagates downward into the lower stratosphere. This downward propagation takes more than 1 month from a potential temperature level of 1000 to 400 K.”

            So, does this have anything to do Jan solar activity – “more than a month”
            I will keep reading the comments, but got to get more coffee and doing other important things, it will take a while.

          • gbaikie says:

            So during little Ice Age people in northern hemisphere were colder- and they get more sunburns?

  15. Robert Ingersol says:

    Appears that UAH agrees with the surface instruments that June 2023 was the warmest June on record. Looks to be about the 18th warmest (anomaly) month on record.

  16. Bindidon says:

    Clint R says:
    July 5, 2023 at 3:24 PM

    ” The funny one would be if the oceans ejected large amounts of CO2 to increase cooling! ”

    Perfect antiscience.

    If an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere increases cooling then an increase of H2O in the same atmosphere correspondingly should increase much more cooling, as H2O’s IR absorp tion and emission effect is about ten times higher than CO2’s.

    Since Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai pumped gigantic amounts of H2O up into the stratosphere, we therefore should expect drastic cooling, according to Clint R.

    *
    What sheer nonsense: the contrary happens, according to the same trash author:

    Clint R says:
    June 23, 2023 at 2:15 PM

    ” The Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE) hasn’t ended yet. We’re in for a couple more months of warming, even before the El Nino builds. ”

    *
    Pseudoskeptics like Clint R intentionally distort the effect of ALL IR sensitive gases like H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O etc, which is to absorb IR emitted by Earth and to reemit it in all directions, reducing the amount of IR reaching outer space.

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      Couple of points. Argon “absorbs and emits IR” quite nicely, and composes more that 9000 ppm of the atmosphere. “Surprisingly and contrary to the expectation of the greenhouse theory, the limiting temperatures of air, pure carbon-dioxide and argon were nearly equal . . . ” Allmendinger – research paper -International Journal of Physical Sciences.

      Experiment, not “expert opinion” founded on fantasy.

      As to the atmosphere “reducing the amount of IR reaching outer space”, you are confused. The rate at which energy is lost varies, affecting both the speed of cooling, and the minimum temperature, but the temperature still falls. No heating. For example, the less the amount of GHGs, the faster the temperature falls. But fall it does, at night.

      And the reverse applies during the day – the surface heats faster, and to higher temperatures, when the least amount of GHGs are present.

      The surface still heats during the day, and cools during the night (losing all the heat of the day of course, as Fourier and others have pointed out). The presence of an atmosphere merely decreases the diurnal variation. Good for some who don’t like extremes, bad for those who do.

      Have you managed to find a description of the GHE which reflects reality yet? No? I didn’t think so. You might as well fly off at a tangent, and go full Nazi or something.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “And the reverse applies during the day the surface heats faster, and to higher temperatures, when the least amount of GHGs are present.”

        No (or at least mostly wrong). Consider a simple (and reasonably good) analogy of a tank of water. The pressure at the bottom is analogous to temperature. If you put a big hole near the bottom, water escapes quickly (like no GHGs allowing heat to escape quickly at night). If you reduce the hole, the water escapes more slowly (like adding more GHGs). This agrees exactly with your conclusion at night. [And I will note, the average depth will be greater with the smaller hole.]

        The analogy during the day would be a hose adding water to the tank and refilling it. But the smaller leak still helps retain water (like GHGs still help retain heat).

        [There are other factors involved with climate, like clouds and evaporation, that limit the scope of the analogy, but GHGs ALWAYS limit the outflow — not just at night.)

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        PS The only “Allmendinger” I can find is a geologist at Cornell (primarily studying tectonics and faults, not climate and IR spectroscopy). I would be interested to know what publication he has that claims argon is a goo absorber of IR.

    • Clint R says:

      Bindidon, you’re trolling again. You don’t understand any of this. Take 30 days off (refrain from commenting here), come back and behave as a responsible adult and I’ll try to teach you some science.

    • Bindidon says:

      As usual, Clint R has nothing to say.

      And as usual too, Flynnson says something absolutely wrong:

      ” Argon ‘absorbs and emits IR’ quite nicely… ”

      The absorp tion / emission wavelength is 1.9 micron:

      – far away from the far-IR wavelength band which matters;
      – but its intensity is so inert to such an extent that it is even not present in the HITRAN2020 database.

      *
      I know of this Thomas Allmendinger guy since quite a long time.

      One just needs to find in one of his papers ‘refuting’ GHE

      https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-refutation-of-the-climate-greenhouse-theory-and-a-proposal-for-ahopeful-alternative.pdf

      places showing his thorough incompetence, like this

      The first error consists in the assumption that the Earth radiates on its total spherical surface exhibiting an area of 4πR2, i.e., also on the half side which is turned away from the solar insolation, while for its absorp-tion solely the half side which is turned towards the solar insolation is taken into account.

      or this

      The second error is related to the first one. It consists in the
      assumption of a disc profile instead of a hemisphere. The latter
      one exhibits an entirely different temperature distribution, due to
      the different solar radiation intensity which is given by the cosine-
      function of the incident radiation angle…

      and immediately understands that the rest will be of similar level.

      What a primitive idiocy!

      Flynnson’s rest – including of course ‘… and go full Nazi or something.’ is as ignorant as usual.

      What a dumb ass!

  17. Swenson says:

    Someone said –

    “For non-experimental sciences, models are invaluable to increase knowledge.”

    There are no none-experimental sciences, if you agree with Richard Feynman’s view “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.”

    No experiments – no science. Just speculation versus speculation.

    As to the GHE – nobody can even describe what it’s supposed to do!

  18. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim s and several others…

    “The gauge measures vacuum from a source. Period. It is simple. It does not represent the complexity of the atmosphere”.

    ***

    The Pirani gauge is a simple instrument that directly compares the level of heat dissipation from a heated filament in a vacuum to the heat dissipation when a gas replaces the vacuum.

    The gauge does not measure a vacuum, it has no means of measuring a vacuum. It can detect a vacuum simply by indicating a pre-determined level of radiation in a tube, which indicates little or no conduction/convection is taking place.

    Shula has told us radiation alone in an evacuated tube causes heat to dissipate very slowly. The moment a gas is introduced, the heat disappears quickly. That’s the point, Conduction/convection is 250 times better at dissipating heat from any surface. We have been told the opposite by climate alarmists.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “Conduction/convection is 250 times better at dissipating heat from any surface. ”
      First of all, his calculations have some problems.

      But beyond this, the value depends critically on the situation. Heat dissipation by radiation can vary by a factor of ~ 50 depending on the emissivity. Conduction depends on the type and pressure of gas. Even the arrangement makes a difference. For example, the Pirani gage should be mounted horizontally for best results. As another example, if you put a panel heater flat on the floor of a room, conduction/convection will be strong. If you put the same heater on the ceiling, conduction/convection will be almost nil and most of the loss will be by radiation.

      Imagining that “250” is some sort of constant for “any surface” is just silly. Imagining that a filament in tiny tube is a good analogy for the earth and its atmosphere is further silliness.

      • Swenson says:

        Timmy,

        Have you found a description of the GHE yet? One you can pass on, of course, without any worry about infringing someone’s intellectual property, or any similar nonsensical reasons for keeping it secret.

        I’m only asking you for it because I don’t believe you (or any of the other idiots) have a description of the GHE which agrees with reality. Go on, give it your best shot, and I’ll do my best to make you look stupid. Of course, if I can’t find anything wrong with your description, then I’ll look pretty pathetic, won’t I?

        How can a smart fellow like you wind up looking stupid?

        By the way, you might let everybody know what happens to the photons emitted by ice which is fully submerged in water. Tell everyone that the photons are absorbed by the water, which promptly cools as a result. Did I get that right, or should the water get hotter after it absorbs the energy from the ice?

        Only joking – you don’t understand any of this, do you? You can’t even describe the GHE!

        What a fool you are.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Tim, the 250 doesn’t come from a calculation but from a current reading through a Wheatstone bridge. It’s the ratio of the current required in a vacuum to compensate for heat dissipation via radiation to the current required with a gas to do the same.

        It’s actually a measure of the effectiveness of heat dissipation by a gas to heat dissipation by radiation alone in a vacuum.

        A factor of 50 for a value of 0.4 is 0.6. It’s still a very small value compared to 99.6, which represents the conduction/convection.

        • Nate says:

          Indeed emissivity is much lower for polished metal in the Pirani gauge, than the Earth’s surface.

          A factor of 50 changes the ratio of 250 into 5!

          The ratio of 250 has nothing to do with the atmosphere.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Again, there are factors that make this VERY different from the earth.
          * the filament is typically coated with gold, making the emissivity very small, minimizing the radiative heat loss. This could easily reduce loses by a factor of 10x or 20x. A high emissivity surface like the earth could easily would have radiative loses more like 5% to 10%. (It seems the walls are also polished metal, reducing radiative loses further).
          * the surroundings are room temperature walls (not cool clouds or cold outer space). This limits the radiative loses.
          * I disagree with some here, but I think convection will be LARGE. There is a gradient of many degrees from the hot filament to the cooler walls. I see nothing to limit convection within this device.

          You are comparing apples to oranges.

          Here is an actual weather condition to contemplate — a temperature inversion. Then there is NO loss of heat from the surface by convection/conduction — ALL of the loss is radiation (and maybe a bit of latent heat). That is a clear example for the real earth where radiation dominates, not a specialized device where conduction/convection dominates.

          • RLH says:

            “conduction/convection dominates”

            heatsinks/radiators in computers and analogue electronics also.

          • E. Swanson says:

            TF wrote:

            I disagree with some here, but I think convection will be LARGE. There is a gradient of many degrees from the hot filament to the cooler walls. I see nothing to limit convection within this device.

            I previously suggested that convection would be suppressed in the Pirani Gauge compared with the open atmosphere where natural convection occurs.

            Convection requires that the gas move between the hot source and some cool sink. The small distance between the wire and the walls of the tube and the fact that the walls of the tube would likely be the nearly the same at top and bottom would combine to minimize the formation of convection “cells” within the tube. Without such motion of the gas, there could be no convection heat transfer, only conduction across the small gap.

          • RLH says:

            Are you really saying that conduction in a gas is the difference measured in the gauge?

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “A factor of 50 for a value of 0.4 is 0.6.”
          No, a factor of 50 for 0.4 is 20!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      tim…another point. The selling point for me in Shula’s presentation was how long it took for a heated filament in a vacuum to cool. He claimed it took a long time but when a gas was introduced it cooled very quickly.

      Come on over to our side, Tim, we need another good skeptic.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “we need another good skeptic.”

        I am a skeptic! In this case I am skeptical that an unreviewed analysis of a vacuum gauge by some random guy on the internet somehow negates reviewed scientific research about the actual earth.

        I am skeptical that a device specifically designed to limit thermal radiation somehow proves that thermal radiation in general is not important.

        • RLH says:

          And I am skeptical that SB dominates at room temperatures.

          “Typically, chrome radiators and chrome heated towel rails emit between 20 and 30% less heat than radiators with paint finishes”

          That probably makes the emissivity vary from close to 0 to close to 1, chrome to paint. But the heat loss only varies by 30%! How is that possible?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “And I am skeptical that SB dominates at room temperatures.”
            As am I! With typical room temperatures, thermal radiation is almost certainly smaller in typical situations. I don’t think anyone has disputed that – certainly not me.

            Using your numbers for radiators, that means radiation is 20-30% of the heat loss. The difference in emissivity is not as great as zero to one, so that bumps up the relative heat loss by radiation. Now we are at least in the right ball park relative to typical energy budgets for earthy. Certainly closer than the “0.4%” from the Pirani gauge analysis.

            Also, intuition about “room temperature” can lead you astray for the earth. A radiator is surrounded by a “room temperature” room. The earth is surrounded by 2.7 K outer space. This greatly changes the effectiveness of radiation losses for earth. Around 2/3 of the radiation loss from the surface is to space, not to the ‘room temperature’ atmosphere and clouds.

          • RLH says:

            “The earth is surrounded by 2.7 K outer space”

            The Earth’s surface is surrounded by an atmosphere, not space. The Earth’s atmosphere is surrounded by space.

            I am glad that you admit that SB is not as simple as the IPCC says it is.

            In fact the temperature difference between the Earth’s surface and the tropopause is a more than 100C!

            I was just pointing out that emissivity can cover a lot of errors in SB usage.

          • RLH says:

            “The difference in emissivity is not as great as zero to one”

            Well polished metal (such as chrome finishes) is close to 0. Paint (at IR frequencies) is at least 0.9 if not 1 (“Most paints have an emissivity of about 0.9 to 0.95”).

          • RLH says:

            “Chrome has an emissivity of 0.04 while black paint emits radiant heat at a rate of 0.95.”

          • RLH says:

            “Quick question:
            Two identical cars are sitting in the sun in a parking lot for four hours in the summer. One car has a black bumper, the other, a chrome bumper. Which one is hotter?”

            https://www.savenrg.com/efactorfacts.htm

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “The Earth’s surface is surrounded by an atmosphere, not space.”
            Actually … when considering thermal radiation, the earth *is* ‘surrounded by space’ — at least for some wavelengths. For the ‘atmospheric window’, the correct temperature is indeed 2.7 K (or very close to it). For other wavelengths, the temperature can be considered the temperature of the atmosphere nearby. That is why IR thermometers measure the wrong temperature (too low) for the atmosphere. They are partially measuring the local air and partially measuring the 2.7 K background radiation and giving an appropriately weighted average of the two.

            “I am glad that you admit that SB is not as simple as the IPCC says it is.”
            Or perhaps thermal radiation is not as simple as you project onto the IPCC. Nothing in your discussion says IPCC is wrong about anything.

            “In fact the temperature difference between the Earths surface and the tropopause is a more than 100C!”
            While this is true (or a bit less than 100 C typically), I am not sure why you think this is relevant here. The ~ 200 K temperature of the tropopause is not really relevant to either convection or radiation from the surface.

          • RLH says:

            As has been mentioned elsewhere, a simple breeze will create more cooling than radiation will add warmth.

          • RLH says:

            “The ~200 K temperature of the tropopause is not really relevant to either convection or radiation from the surface.”

            Convection will increase with a temperature difference!

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            From your link –

            “Reality: The chrome bumper, tools and seat belt buckles are MUCH hotter (over time), than an identical surface painted black. Why? Emissivity.”

            Relative reality only. Hotter to touch, but same maximum temperature . Depending on exposure time, the chrome may actually be cooler when measured with a suitable thermometer.

            An example of feeling versus reality, is the feeling that your furlined slippers are somehow “warmer” than the cold stone floor they have been sitting on all night. The slippers are exactly the same temperature as the floor, but I know which one feels warmer!

            Measure the temperature of your hot seat belt buckle, and the seat belt webbing, and don’t be surprised if they are exactly the same temperature.

            All very tricky, subjective temperature measurements.

          • Nate says:

            For once I agree with Swenson, who made good points.

    • Tim S says:

      Simplistic and wrong arguments such as the Pirani Gauge give climate change believers (I love when people say they “believe” the science) a chance to claim that skeptics are simple minded, and probably some are. The only skeptical argument that works to rebut the claim, that the small increase in the total greenhouse effect is causing disaster for the earth, is to point out that the greenhouse effect is only one of many factors in a very complex atmosphere. The climate models are some of the most complex computer simulations ever developed, and they still fall short of a “consensus” with a very wide spread of results. That is the point. There is no clear answer on the future of climate, and simple minded arguments do NOT make the case for anyone on any “side”.

      • Herb Duncan says:

        The argument is indeed simple, though not necessarily wrong, it’s that the consensus science might just have the numbers wrong for conduction and convection, as basic human experience indicates (it’s far from only being the Pirani gauge). I’m not sure how anyone on that side of the fence can be sure that the numbers are correct when not one of them so far has been able to explain how they’re estimated. I’m assuming a climate model enters into it.

  19. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Norman tried to pretend he had a description of the GHE, but he’s refusing to tell anyone what it is.

    He wrote – “This is similar to the GHE. As you add GHG they will transmit energy to the surface which slows the cooling rate.”

    As you can see, he is claiming he knows that something is “similar” to the GHE. Unfortunately, his GHE only seems to slow the cooling rate – nothing about increasing temperature!

    Completely pointless – slow cooling is cooling, and no amount of semantic trickery and evasive tactics can change cooling into heating. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and the surface cools every night, radiating all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s interior heat, as Fourier pointed out.

    Norman may not accept facts, but they still exist. This makes Norman an idiot.

  20. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Another low from the north is approaching the British Isles. Temperatures will be autumnal, with rain.

  21. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The northern polar field appears to have reversed polarity in late March 2023. Solar max normally occurs 0.5-2 years after the first polar field reversal. We can expect solar max for cycle 25 sometime between September 2023 and March 2025.
    https://solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.png

  22. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate….[RLH]Radiation is considered to be just a small part of heatsink/radiator design in the 0C-50C range. See any book/source on this factor.

    [Nate]I already made this point, which RLH seems to ignore. Every heat transfer problem has its unique properties.

    Pirani gauges use polished metal wires. As a result, they emit very little radiation. Conduction is the main heat transfer mode.

    ***

    That’s a new one on me Nate, that each heat transfer problem has its own unique properties. I guess heat has a way of distinguishing one from the other and is able to change its properties to suit.

    To back up what Richard said, from my own experience, heat sinks are design largely to conduct heat to the atmosphere by using a number of fins that increase the cross-sectional area of the emitting body. Since most heat sinks are mounted on a metal chassis and surrounded by metal containers it would make little sense to rely on radiation since it won’t penetrate metal, especially grounded metal. A transistor mouted on a metal heat sink can only radiate in the opposite direction to the metal.

    The factor that increases the heat dissipation is ambient room temperature. That’s why computer rooms are air conditioned, to lower the air temperature and increases heat dissipation via convection. Newton’s Law of Cooling governs that aspect.

    Power transistors mounted on a heat sink use heat sink compounds to increase the thermal conductivity between the transistor base and the metal of the heat sink, usually made of aluminum to conduct heat better. From the transistor base to the heat sink and through the heat sink, the mode of heat transfer is conduction. In fact, the processor on computers is mounted to a heat sink using heat sink compound.

    That leaves only one direction for radiation, away from the metal heat sink. If radiation is effective why would they go to so much trouble trying to get heat to flow in the opposite direction through the metal sink?

    When the heat reaches the fins of the heat sink it contacts air molecules that dissipate the heat by conduction directly to the air molecules, then convection carries the heated air molecules away. In processors, the heat sinks have a fan that increases convection by forced air. The ultimate means of cooling is either by forced air convection or water-cooled heat sinks to carry off the heat by conduction and convection.

    With regard to the Pirani gauge, most metals have a low emissivity anyway. Tungsten has a low emissivity but that does not stop it lighting a room. It should be noted that tungsten lamp filaments operate around 3000C whereas the Pirani filament between 50C and 100C.

    I think its a red-herring argument to bring in emissivity. Platinum has a high emissivity. Besides, coating the surface improves its resistance to oxidation. When you run a current through a filament wire it will quickly oxidize if not coated with something.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      You have claimed if someone demonstrates you are wrong you will keep and open mind and change your statement.

      Well here is a very obvious one so we can put your values to the test.

      YOU CLAIM: “I think its a red-herring argument to bring in emissivity. Platinum has a high emissivity. Besides, coating the surface improves its resistance to oxidation. When you run a current through a filament wire it will quickly oxidize if not coated with something.”

      That is wrong!

      Here is the evidence:
      https://www.transmetra.ch/images/transmetra_pdf/publikationen_literatur/pyrometrie-thermografie/emissivity_table.pdf

      A Platinum filament at low temp has an emissivity of 0.036.

      And Platinum does not oxidize in oxygen until a high temperature.

      https://technology.matthey.com/article/19/4/135-140/

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      YOU: “I think its a red-herring argument to bring in emissivity.”

      No! The reason to choose very low emissivity material for your Pirani gauge is to greatly reduce the radiant heat loss so the conduction can dominate.

      On your heat dissipation with fans.

      Here:
      https://engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/convection.htm

      A calculator to determine heat loss via convection with forced air.

      Forced air convection can remove heat 10 times faster than radiant energy. Not a mystery and well established science. That does not negate radiant energy. Radiant energy does not go away just because there is a better form of heat removal.

    • Herb Duncan says:

      “No! The reason to choose very low emissivity material for your Pirani gauge is to greatly reduce the radiant heat loss so the conduction can dominate.“

      Wrong, the reason is:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-3713661

      “Phil, you don’t seem to understand that the emissivity of the sensor is irrelevant, because the radiative loss in the Pirani gauge is a constant, not a variable. A low emissivity sensor is chosen to improve the sensitivity/SNR. That does not change the operating principle.“

      You say:

      “Forced air convection can remove heat 10 times faster than radiant energy. Not a mystery and well established science.”

      If so, why are these the reported figures for AGW:

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml?tab_body=pdf

      Table 2b.

      Sensible heat (convection, conduction) 17 W/m^2
      LW radiation (Net) 63 W/m^2

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Herb, you were actually supporting Norm’s claim!
        “greatly reduce the radiant heat loss so the conduction can dominate.”
        and
        “to improve the sensitivity/SNR”
        are the same thing! The larger the (constant) radiant heat lost, the lower the sensitivity — particularly when pressure is low.

      • Herb Duncan says:

        It is not done so “conduction can dominate”.

        The second point I made is 250 times more important than the first, in any case. I will assume that is why you have ignored it.

        If the Pirani gauge argument does nothing more than alert people to the fact that the official AGW-approved numbers for conduction/convection vs. radiation are obviously not correct, then it will have been worth it.

        • RLH says:

          “the official AGW-approved numbers for conduction/convection vs. radiation are obviously not correct”

          Agreed.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “It is not done so “conduction can dominate”.”

          Yes, I am pretty sure that is the reason for low emissivity in the Pirani gauge. If emissivity was higher, radiation would be greater, and conduction would not ‘dominate’ until higher pressures. Ie the gauge would not be able to accurately measure low pressures.

          As to the second point, I am not sure you have a point. Forced air convection can remove heat better than radiation in many cases, as Norman claimed. Even natural convection can remove heat better in many cases.

          But that does not guarantee convection removes heat better in all cases. In some cases, radiation is actually better. Having convection be 3x or 4x better in some circumstances does not preclude radiation being 3x or 4x better in others. You have not made your case yet that ~60 W/m^2 for radiation and ~ 20 W/m^2 for convection are wrong for the earth.

          • RLH says:

            So what reasons do you have for believing that radiation trumps convection and evaporation (to the extent that the IPCC does) for standard Earth’s surface conditions of wind and relative humidity between air and surface?

          • Herb Duncan says:

            Conduction doesn’t need to dominate for the gauge to measure anything. It’s just what the gauge tends to show. That conduction/convection dominates.

            How about AGW enthusiasts make their case that ~60 W/m^2 for radiation and ~20 W/m^2 for conduction/convection are right for the Earth? I don’t see how anyone can argue that it’s right when all human experience tells us that even the slightest breeze can have a much greater cooling effect than radiation.

            I can see already, though, that anything to do with AGW must not be questioned. Funny, I thought this was a skeptic site.

          • RLH says:

            “I thought this was a skeptic site”

            With a lot of AGW proponents who try to dominate the conversation.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “How about AGW enthusiasts make their case that ~60 W/m^2 for radiation and ~20 W/m^2 for conduction/convection are right for the Earth? ”

            Read Trenberth’s papers that summarize the energy flows. (you could start here: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/27/9/jcli-d-13-00294.1.xml) Then read the papers that are referenced for more details. If you don’t understand, study the basic science behind the papers. If you disagree, contact the authors with your suggested corrections.

            There is no easier way to ‘make the case’ to you. There is no one-paragraph explanation. If you don’t think scientists are right, you need to do the hard work of understanding the details yourself.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Conduction doesnt need to dominate for the gauge to measure anything. Its just what the gauge tends to show. That conduction/convection dominates.”

            When radiation dominates, then the heat flow is fixed at the values from radiation. This mean you have no idea what the pressure is other than “too small to accurately measure”.

            The gauge shows that at low pressures, radiation dominates! In other words, the relative magnitude of convection vs radiation clearly depend critically on the experimental set-up. Different sizes, shapes, emissivities, pressures, gases, etc will impact how convection and radiation compare.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            The amount of radiation in the gauge is fixed, not variable.

            No, there is nothing in that paper on how the values for conduction/convection were estimated.

          • Swenson says:

            Timmy,

            You wrote –

            “The gauge shows that at low pressures, radiation dominates!”

            Well gee, surprise! surprise!

            That came as a shock to you, did it?

            Actually, electrons absorbing and emitting photons is all there is. Conduction, convection, advection, etc., are just handy shorthand for everyday use.

            Maybe you could waste your time attempting the impossible – describe the GHE in in a way that reflects reality. Or you could stick to trying to convince people how clever you are, I suppose.

            How you waste your time is your affair.

            Carry on.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Herb, this link might be more direct for answering your question.
            https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.pdf

            But, the basic answer still stands. You can accept what the experts say. You can become an expert yourself. Or you can question science for no particular reason. Those are basically the only three choices.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            No mention of conduction in that one, either. One mention of convection, but it didn’t lead to anything explanatory.

          • RLH says:

            TF: What do the experts say about domestic radiators? Especially in chrome finish.

        • RLH says:

          The ratio between natural (calm conditions) and forced (windy conditions) can be as much as 10 times or more.

  23. studentb says:

    The global average temperature has reached an unofficial record for the third day in a row, measuring 17.18 degrees Celsius on Wednesday.

    Give up cookers!

    • Clint R says:

      We’re going to see many more records broken in the coming months if the HTE and EN continue to work together. That will result in some REAL global warming, unlike anything CO2 could do.

      The interesting thing will be to watch how Earth’s cooling systems work to counter the unprecedented warming (at least in the satellite era). We’ll get to witness some REAL science.

      Of course the braindead cult idiots will not learn anything.

      • studentb says:

        “Of course the braindead cult idiots will not learn anything”
        !!!!PROJECTION!!!!!PROJECTION!!!

        The concept of projection was first described by Sigmund Freud. He argued that the unconscious mind often projects its own unacceptable qualities onto others.

        Freud believed that this process occurred when we recognize our own unacceptable qualities in someone else. This can happen because we are unable to accept ourselves for what we really are.

        • Swenson says:

          s,

          Sigmund Freud? The pseudoscience of psychoanalysis?

          No wonder you reject fact in favour of psychobabble. You braindead cult idiots want people to mindlessly believe in something you can’t describe – the GHE!

          The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and the surface does every night, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.

          Make sure that your non-existent GHE description agrees with these two facts.

          Otherwise, you might have to resort to trolling based on nonsensical pseudoscience.

          Carry on!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swenson…I agree that psychoanalysis is pseudo-science. Carl Rogers rated it as no better than no therapy at all.

            I think we need to cut some slack for Siggy. His contribution at the time was enormous. Most people before his insight were brain dead, believing they could control their lives through will-power, whatever that means.

            He noted that poor souls in mental hospitals who seemed deaf, could hear normally while under hypnosis. That started him on his theory about unconscious processes. Of course, like Bohr, he undid all the good he did initially by insisting on probing into mental disorders as being related to one’s relationship with mother and father. He got far out with the sexual innuendo he brought into it.

            All the same, he was the pioneer who got the process rolling. Not sure exactly what psychology has accomplished since but some seem to me more effective than others.

  24. Lawrence Jenkins says:

    Dr Roy or anyone: The recent bombardment record hot temperatures for the UK (UMMO) and the world (not sure of that source) exactly how much of the eraths surface can the satellite/s? cover in 24 hours. Thanks ever so much

  25. gbaikie says:

    Tropical ocean Heat engine dominates global climate and it’s a evaporative and convectional engine.

    This engine absorbs most of the sunlight reaching Earth.
    The rest of the world is control by ocean which has average temperature of 3.5 C.
    The average temperature of ocean has basically no effect on the tropics- it’s surface water are always warm and always evaporating.
    Though one make argument that the rest of world which is colder draws
    that evaporative energy towards it {and does} and in terms of weather
    it’s worth talking about, but tropical ocean isn’t particularly altered, it’s more of matter of it going about it’s thing, it’s warming the rest of world, but rest of world isn’t warming or cooling the tropics. Though does cause more driest- or rest of world is why there are deserts in tropics. And these deserts in tropics can have cold night- or deserts aren’t tropical and they have lower average night and day temperature.
    So if we weren’t in Ice Age we would far less deserts which includes deserts in the tropical zone.
    Or amount deserts earth has depends upon how cold Earth is.
    But the tropical heat engine is the tropical ocean- tropical land doesn’t warm the rest of world- whether it’s deserts or forests.

  26. gbaikie says:

    https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2023/07/05/simultaneous-sunlight-brightest-moment/5131688580638/
    99% of humans about to experience sunlight at same time

    On July 8 but at time it will twilight in California
    Linked from: https://instapundit.com/

    Also:
    “On Dec. 6, roughly 86% of the global population will experience darkness simultaneously with the sun appearing below the horizon across all of Africa, Europe and Asia. For people across the United States, the moment of darkness happens during the afternoon.”

    I would have imagined to would be more darkness- but I guess, mostly, people do choose to live in the light

  27. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A powerful cold low in the North Atlantic will cause a strong drop in ocean surface temperatures in the region.
    https://i.ibb.co/VYD6x5v/gfs-cape-eur45-1.png

  28. gbaikie says:

    Is Raptor Reliable? – SpaceX’s Starship Rocket Engine
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6GJVvwUEGk

    {short answer, obviously, yes. Long answer…}

    As I posted {it might not have actually post- I just remember I tried
    to make it post- oh maybe, probably at Space review blog- anyhow,
    NASA should think about whether we need bigger rockets than current Superheavy Starship- and they think this, they make it govt policy.
    And therefore need someway to test really big rocket engine and/or
    lots larger rocket engines firing which are much bigger and powerful than Raptor {Raptor III}. And one aspect is just the noise of it.

    But in terms of Starship, testing these engine is a part of the test launch. This is the case with any rocket’s first launch, but Starship is not like other rockets- they meant to be reuseable, and testing a reuseable rocket, is different to an expendable rocket.
    Though regarding the starship as an expendable rocket is sort of what Starship is doing, but most of what is being done is trying to be reuseable.
    Another NASA thing, is does NASA think reuseable rockets are the future {everyone does, apparently] but if this the general idea, NASA should do things, to enable it- which involve lots and long duration rocket engine tests- which will predictable have more interest in environment reviews {which waste a lot money and time}.

    So, I think the environment should be in the ocean and far away from people who aren’t space cadets.

  29. Bindidon says:

    No one should expect a strong El Nino coming soon.

    Firstly, forecasts like

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif

    or

    https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig1

    do not show this (otherwise, NCEP’s forecast wouldn’t start falling down by next November, and TCC wouldn’t forecast 10 % neutral so early).

    *
    MEI now just passed over the 0.0 line:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UxPxDzIUAb21NknjFDJVjQh5-bk4Pi2h/view

    In 2012, after a long recovery from a deep La Nina level around -2.5 in 2010, the MEI index reached about the same point over 0.0, but then felt down again for over two years, until it finally ramped up to the 2015/16 El Nino.

    *
    Thus, people claiming we would be right now in front a big El Nino might be ‘plain wrong’.

    • RLH says:

      So are you now saying that this year will NOT be a big El Nino?

    • studentb says:

      Interesting. There has been much hysteria in Australia about this El Nino event, much of it premature.

      The SOI had been trending upwards for over a month and the 30-day average is now +2.
      https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/

      Also, the long range rainfall forecasts for a dry winter(in Oz) have been absolute failures.

      • Swenson says:

        s,

        I agree. The BOM “climate experts” seem not fit for purpose. Even the constant rewriting of historical temperature data, plus ignoring WMO standards for thermometric recording to enable continual “record high” temperatures, has done them no good.

        They can’t describe the GHE, but then again, neither can you nor anybody else.

        Wasting your time, aren’t you? Pushing others to believe in something nobody can describe. Sounds like religious fanaticism to me.

        Carry on. Keep bagging the BOM. They richly deserve it.

  30. Bindidon says:

    Putting SC 25 in the right context? No problem!

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nXwN72HFEd0GzqlC0tQUYv5vsKCcBc3o/view

    The graph is about 8 months old but updating it wouldn’t change much: so great is the difference between the Modern Maximum in SC 19 and SC 24/25.

  31. gbaikie says:

    Martian dunes eroded by a shift in prevailing winds after the planet’s last ice age
    https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Martian_dunes_eroded_by_a_shift_in_prevailing_winds_after_the_planets_last_ice_age_999.html

    “Detailed analysis of data obtained by the Zhurong rover of dunes located on the southern Utopian Plain of Mars suggests the planet underwent a major shift in climate that accompanied changes in prevailing winds. This shift likely occurred about 400,000 years ago, which coincides with the end of the last glacial period on Mars.”

    Some might have thought Mars was in an Ice Age {and some might also think that Earth has not been in 33.9 million year Ice Age}

    ” “The exploration and research on the climate evolution of Mars has been of great concern for a long time. Mars is the most similar planet to Earth in the Solar System. Understanding Martian climate processes promises to uncover details of the evolution and history of Earth and other planets in our Solar System,” said Prof. LI Chunlai from the National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (NAOC), principal investigator of the study. ”

    Many don’t know that China average temperature is 8 C- making China colder than Earth.

  32. gbaikie says:

    Man’s Search for Meaning
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySm3_7gQ8Kw

    Of course I have thoughts on the subject.
    But I haven’t read the book.
    But it seems to me, Viktor Frankl -someone had dialogue with
    Freud- was far more significant than Freud.

  33. RLH says:

    Would someone from the IPCC corner tell me what wind speed they use to get their figures for evaporation and convection?

    • Norman says:

      RLH

      I do not know about convection but it is low because the rising air cools the surface at the Equator but then it sinks later which rewarms the surface so they are going by net convection. Local areas can have a considerable higher heat loss from convection than a Global value averaged out.

      The evaporation comes from estimating the global rainfall. What goes up must come down. They use this value to estimate the evaporative cooling.

      • RLH says:

        Well average wind speed is at least 8.5 knots here in the UK. Do you have a world wide figure? I think 7 knots is around correct.

        That is enough to give a significant uptick on calm values.

      • Swenson says:

        Norman,

        You wrote –

        “I do not know about convection but it is low because the rising air cools the surface at the Equator but then it sinks later which rewarms the surface so they are going by net convection.”

        You don’t know about anything much, do you? Why would rising air cool the surface? It’s rising because the Sun is making the surface hot. Not only that, if the surface pressure is high, the hot air will expand laterally, not vertically.

        Hence, in the hot humid tropics, not a breath of air. No convection, just hotter and hotter. Waxing poetic –

        “All in a hot and copper sky,
        The bloody Sun, at noon,
        Right up above the mast did stand,
        No bigger than the Moon.

        Day after day, day after day,
        We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
        As idle as a painted ship
        Upon a painted ocean.” – the Rime of the Ancient Mariner.

        Who do you expect to believe a delusional SkyDragon cultist like you? Not can you not describe the GHE, you don’t understand basic physics!

        Keep at it.

  34. Norman says:

    RLH

    In a post you linked to you say:

    “And I am skeptical that SB dominates at room temperatures.

    Typically, chrome radiators and chrome heated towel rails emit between 20 and 30% less heat than radiators with paint finishes

    That probably makes the emissivity vary from close to 0 to close to 1, chrome to paint. But the heat loss only varies by 30%! How is that possible?”

    Your post does not have even close enough information to try to determine “how is that possible?”. Do you have a source for this post? You assume emissivity but is that your guess or does your source have some actual values that one could plug in to equations and see the outcome.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Apparently, chrome conducts electrical current 13% poorer than copper. That should mean it has roughly the same effect on heat conduction.

        I am guessing that the plating effect of chrome causes resistance in the thermal path at the radiator surface.

        • RLH says:

          More likely the emissivity goes from nearly 0 (chrome) to nearly 1 (paint), making the radiation component nearly disappear. That appears to be only 30%.

    • RLH says:

      “In reality, the white and black models will produce approximately 20% more heat than the chrome version, with some chrome models offering 30% less heat than their painted counterparts.”

      https://www.justradiators.co.uk/advice-centre/chrome-radiators-provide-lower-heat-output

      “A chrome finish will reduce heat output by up to 30% of the exact same designer radiator in a colour”

      https://www.agadondesignerradiators.co.uk/news-events/2021/08/09/coloured-vs-chrome-towel-radiators/

    • RLH says:

      “Chrome has an emissivity of 0.04 while black paint emits radiant heat at a rate of 0.95”

      • gbaikie says:

        I was wondering what happens if pour liquid air on fire.
        Someone pour liquid Nitrogen on grease fire:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anCaLpLURno
        Pouring Liquid Nitrogen On A Grease Fire

        Well, I guess it’s, N2 is rocket fuel

        “Is nitrogen used in rocket fuel?
        Abstract. When liquid nitrogen and heated water are mixed in a chamber, pressure increase due to evaporation expansion inside the chamber becomes high enough to generate thrust force for rocket propulsion.”

        Well that one of way to use nitrogen.
        “Why liquid nitrogen is not used as a rocket fuel?
        Liquid nitrogen on the other side, it is difficult to store nitrogen as liquid. When nitrogen boils, excess pressure will be created which can explode the nitrogen tank. These limitations will stop liquid nitrogen from being a rocket fuel.”
        https://www.vedantu.com/question-answer/which-of-the-following-is-not-used-as-a-rocket-class-11-physics-cbse-5fa1055c13ca034d159b541d

        Wiki:
        “Proposed, remain unflown
        Chlorine trifluoride (ClF3) + all known fuels Briefly considered as an oxidizer given its high hypergolicity with all standard fuels, but ultimately abandoned in the 70s due to the difficulty of handling the substance safely. Chlorine trifluoride can only be extinguished by flooding the burning area with Nitrogen or noble gases. The substance is known to burn concrete and gravel.: 74  Chlorine pentafluoride (ClF5) presents the same hazards, but offers higher specific impulse than ClF3.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant
        So it put some fires out

      • Norman says:

        RLH

        I did some digging into your questions. It is not a new thing. I found this.

        https://tinyurl.com/27y8f7vw

        Since most the energy of a radiator in a home is from convection (70% convection but still 30% radiant energy). A change in radiant properties is not as big. Also with the chrome radiator it will emit far less of the 30% but in so doing it will reach a higher temperature and increase loss via convection above the painted radiator and end up with just an overall 20% reduction in heat flow.

        Anyway I do not think any of your points negates radiant energy effect on Earth Surface. It is measured values. No longer a guessing game.

        Here:
        https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_64a76c5bc281a.png

        That is a summer desert

        https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_64a76c859ace9.png

        Wet area in summer. Less surface emission but more DWIR and less surface heat loss via radiant energy.

        • Swenson says:

          Norman,

          You still can’t describe the GHE, can you?

          All your burbling about measurements can’t hide the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and that the surface cools every night – losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.

          If that’s true, then trying to get people to believe in something you can’t even describe, might be difficult.

          [laughing at braindead cult idiot]

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…the link supplied to verify their claim is from 1920. I cannot find a reference to the article or what they did to arrive at a 30% value.

          Even if it’s true, which I doubt, it is the reverse of what we are being told today, that radiation is the governing factor and conduction/convection is insignificant. They claim heat from a radiator is created 70% by conduction/convection and only 30% by radiation.

          The Pirani gauge would just have been developed in 1920 and they likely did not know about it. It would have done them no good to measure the radiation from a heating radiator with the gauge but it might have driven them to examine their 30% figure.

          Put me down as unconvinced.

          All your other links reveal is estimated radiation from a desert surface. They say nothing about the heat dissipation via conduction/convection.

          In link one, they have obviously made a mistake, claiming 400 w/m^2 of upwelling IR. I think they calculated that using S-B which does not apply at those temperatures.

          If you placed a real heat source radiating 400 watts/m^2, it would burn anything to a crisp placed on it, including human feet.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            You are so unscientific. You looked at a blog by a crackpot (Gary Novak) who claims, with NO EVIDENCE, that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not work at room temperature because you think 400 W/m^2 is a large amount and can burn feet. Do you know how big a square meter is? I think you are neglecting geometry with your conclusions. You might think 500 watts on a stove hot plate (with a considerably smaller surface area) that makes it too hot to touch is equivalent to 500 watts in a one square meter surface. There is much difference.

            I am not sure why you have chosen to believe the Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply at room temperature. I have linked you to experiments where it does but you reject them in favor of an idea you have in your head. Why do you hold on to this idea. It is not based on any evidence at all, just a belief. You said if you were challenged with evidence you would consider it but I find you do not. You hold some belief and then that seems to become some immutable truth. What is the reason you hold these beliefs?

          • RLH says:

            Do you know what the convection equation is for a square meter? Both vertical and horizontal. Natural and forced.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman criticizes Gordon for having cult beliefs and a lack of understanding of science!

            And he can’t see the almost exact parallels to himself.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Are you getting your quota of trolling in today? I see you troll me again.

            You are just trolling and wrong. I support posts with many links to evidence and science articles and textbooks.

            Maybe you should try this sometime instead of being infatuated with trolling. So far you have not supported any of your idiot ideas…

            1) Fluxes don’t add
            2) photons from a colder source cannot be absorbed by a hotter object
            3) the Heat Transfer Equation is “bogus”
            4) The Moon does not rotate on its axis

            Many others but I really don’t care about your trolling posts so I am not going out looking for them. All made up, not one supported.

            You do this all the time. Declare some point, don’t support it (even when asked to) and then call everyone cult minded idiots.

            I don’t think it is possible for a troll but you could consider supporting even one of your many made up ideas. I would like to see it happen but know it never will.

            Troll on, as you are a science denier, that is all you can do on this blog.

          • Norman says:

            RLH

            Here is one link that you will need to use to plug into another link.

            https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/convective_heat_transfer_coefficients__13378.htm

            You use these values when you use the convection calculator.

            https://engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/convection.htm

            The second link is the convective calculator. You plug in the value from the first link in the Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient and then you can choose your size and temperature differences to see the heat transfer in watts.

          • Clint R says:

            Troll Norman, I’m happy to correct your misrepresentations:

            1) Fluxes don’t [simply] add
            2) photons from a colder source [may sometimes] be absorbed by a hotter object, [but they could NOT raise the temperature].
            3) the Heat Transfer Equation is bogus [You got that one CORRECT!]
            4) The Moon does not rotate on its axis {Also correct! You’re improving.]

          • Clint R says:

            Also troll Norman, I have supported them, several times. You simply reject reality. There’s no better example than your rejection of the “ball-on-a-string”.

            And it’s NOT “cult minded idiots”. It’s “brain-dead cult idiots”. You need to understand who you are.

          • RLH says:

            Norman: Using reasonable values around that at Earth’s surface (and normalizing for 1 sq meter) I get 1000W for convection but less than 300W for radiation.

          • Norman says:

            RLH

            Using the calculators I do not see how you came up with 1000 Watts for convection.

            In the first link you can find the Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient for a plate in air with 30 C difference is 5 W/m^2 K.

            If you use this value and plug it into the calculator in the 2nd link (temp of hot object 60 C and of cold 30 C). The calculator comes up with a value of 150 Watts not even close to 1000. You would need forced air to get your values.

            https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

            This link has a radiant energy calculator. If you put in sand emissivity of 0.9 and use the same temperature, the hot value 60 C and the cold value 30 C you get radiant heat transfer of 197 watt which exceeds the convection heat loss.

            Let me know how you arrived at your values. They do not match the calculator outputs.

        • RLH says:

          “70% convection but still 30% radiant energy”

          As bright chrome has an emissivity of nearly 0 and paint has an emissivity of nearly 1, that 30% accounts for almost all of the radiant energy from a radiator.

          Slightly different to what the IPCC claims for the same temperature range.

        • RLH says:

          You images show what is seen from above and includes that from the hot air that is caused by convection, which is fairly strong in both cases. Wet areas also include evaporation to water vapor which will also include significant heat transfer.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      norman…at room temperature, the radiation from a towel rack would be miniscule anyway. Therefore the emissivity would not be a factor.

      If you hooked the towel rack up as a short circuit to a 347 volt source, before it exploded, it would glow through all the colours available as it heated. At those temperatures, greater than 2000K, radiation may be far more significant, but not at room temperature.

      • RLH says:

        The maths of the IPCC do not allow different SB for radiation based on temperature. As far as they are concerned all radiation output is based on SB. Mind you, that does include a forth power of Kelvin, but that is directly modified by emissivity. Small changes in emissivity mean large changes in energy transfer.

        It is just that convection and evaporation get so little contribution at room temperatures and below, that belies what simple heating engineers have known for centauries.

        Norman agrees that some 70% of the energy transfer from radiators comes from convection but, apparently only a few percent comes from Earth for the same reason.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      may be dup…

      norman…at room temperature, the radiation from a towel rack would be miniscule anyway. Therefore the emissivity would not be a factor.

      If you hooked the towel rack up as a short circuit to a 347 volt source, before it exploded, it would glow through all the colours available as it heated. At those temperatures, greater than 2000K, radiation may be far more significant, but not at room temperature.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        sorry about duplicate. My modem shut down for some reason and needed reset. Was not sure if this message had already posted since it did not show up after reset.

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    Some wag elsewhere commented that forest fires need to be banned since they emit millions of time more CO2 than the average car.

    • gbaikie says:

      Forest fires are banned.
      But politicians passing laws doesn’t effect reality.
      What would be interesting is counting in terms making list of all the things your politicians have banned.
      It would require a lot of effort.
      The other part of it, is enforcing what is banned.
      Some people who have started forest fires have been caught and
      punished.
      But I have no idea of this batting average.
      But it does sometime get in the news if forest fire fighter, starts a forest fire.
      And if was reported enough it might even deter fire fighters from starting forest fires- though depending how it’s reported, might encourage more of it.
      It seems the news has spent a lot effort, promoting police car chases, but it doesn’t seem to cause more of them.

      In terms of global temperature it is remarkable about how little it changes. Or anywhere and every day it changes quite a bit, but globally, it doesn’t.
      It also seems “people forget” why measure it and why we measure it over, say, a 30 year period. Though some wanted to do it over a 17 year period.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gb…that’s the point, it is illegal to start a forest fire but Mother Nature doesn’t care for our laws, she starts them anyway. We can make it illegal all we want, it doesn’t stop the fires.

        We can’t change that but we think we can change warming due to natural variability. So, we get hung up on a trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere while Mother Nature shoves it up our hoops with forest fires, reeking swamps, out-gassing oceans, etc., which account for about 96% of global emissions of CO2.

        In other words, we humans are a load of losers.

    • Ken says:

      All that smoke is coming from France.

      The stories about forest fires is a ruse. There are forest fires every year. There is not usually much smoke.

  36. Eben says:

    Eye of the Storm – La Nina

    https://youtu.be/DVpmzXel_0k

  37. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The Great Barrier Reef will not be affected by this circulation. Upwelling will remain and food for corals.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf&timespan=24hrs&anim=html5

  38. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    I’m sure the high temperature in June in Canada shows surface radiation during the long period of high pressure over Canada.
    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
    Few people realize that the ozone zone in the stratosphere floats the circulation in the troposphere. Even in summer, this influence can be seen. The graphic shows large amounts of ozone in the tropopause in the north and moist ozone-free air in the south. The ozone wave pushes water vapor out of the tropopause, so this air is very dry. In such air, temperatures can change between summer and winter extremes.
    https://i.ibb.co/9y6wqKv/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f024-1.png
    Of course, such dry air is conducive to fires in Canada.

  39. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim f…”The [Pirani] gauge shows that at low pressures, radiation dominates! In other words, the relative magnitude of convection vs radiation clearly depend critically on the experimental set-up. Different sizes, shapes, emissivities, pressures, gases, etc will impact how convection and radiation compare”.

    ***

    Come on Tim, it’s not that complicated. When the tube is evacuated to the point of vacuum, there is no conduction/convection because heat transfer requires atoms/molecules. With no atoms/molecules the only means of heat dissipation is via radiation. According to Shula the level of radiation is very low under those conditions (0.4).

    When a gas is gradually introduced, conduction/convection starts to play a role in heat dissipation. At altitudes of 45+ miles, the number of molecules are still so low that radiation equals conduction/convection. That’s a low pressure situation.

    At sea level, where air pressure is 1 atmosphere, the gas increases to the point where it dominates in a ratio of 99.6 to 0.4. Heat dissipation is nearly all due to conduction/convection.

    It is obvious that gas molecules at sea level are 250 times more effective (99.6/0.4) at dissipating heat from a surface than radiation alone.

    • studentb says:

      School boy physics.
      And a very young school boy at that.

      • Swenson says:

        studentb, please stop trolling.

      • RLH says:

        So you agree that most of the heat loss is via convection?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        This is why I call you stupidb, you can’t think for yourself. Even when an instrument designed to measure the difference between radiation and conduction/convection states the opposite of what is taught in textbooks, you believe the textbooks.

        Textbooks are guidelines for study, not absolutes. You won’t find top physicists writing textbooks.

        The irony is this, the Pirani gauge has been around at least a century yet climate alarmists have never heard of it. They prefer the propaganda that surface radiation is the main heat dissipator of the surface and conduction/convection is a minor player.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “It is obvious that gas molecules at sea level are 250 times more effective (99.6/0.4) at dissipating heat from a surface than radiation alone.”

      Let me fix that up a bit.

      It is obvious that gas molecules at sea level pressure are 250 times more effective (99.6/0.4) at dissipating heat in a device designed to minimize radiation than radiation alone.

      A pirani gauge is vastly different than the earth. There is no reason to expect the same ratios to hold for the two vastly different situations.

      There is a familiar line that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”

      The corollary is also true: “insanity is doing different things and expecting the same result.”

      • RLH says:

        Domestic radiators seem to indicate that the Pirani Gauge has a pretty good balance of radiation to convection.

        Are domestic radiators that different to Earth?

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Domestic radiators seem to lose more than 10% of their energy via radiation.
          Pirani gauges seem to lose less than 1% or their energy via radiation.

          I am not sure what sort of ‘good balance’ you see between the two.

          • RLH says:

            Pirani gauges lose 100% of their energy at a vacuum.

            What is the IPCCs ratio for energy loses, radiation to convection?

          • RLH says:

            edit: Pirani gauges lose 100% of their energy via radiation in a vacuum.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            First, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. There is always some gas present. So there is always some loss via gas; the number might be 1% or 0.1%, but never exactly 0%.

            Second, there is loss by conduction down the wire. So even with a ‘perfect vacuum’ the loss by radiation is not 100%.

            Third, the IPCC doesn’t make predictions about earth in a vacuum, so they don’t have any equivalent prediction to a pirani gauge in vacuum.

            The basic “IPCC ratio” for the actual earth with an atmosphere is well-known. Look on the Trenberth diagram for the climate science estimates for energy transfers via various means.

          • RLH says:

            “there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum”

            The Pirani Gauge does not go that far either. Say a few milli Torr.

            The Earth sits in a vacuum, so the IPCC sure as heck must deal with that.

          • RLH says:

            “Look on the Trenberth diagram for the climate science estimates for energy transfers via various means.”

            Which does not account for the differences seen in domestic radiators with bright chrome and paint finishes.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…”First, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. There is always some gas present. So there is always some loss via gas; the number might be 1% or 0.1%, but never exactly 0%.

            Second, there is loss by conduction down the wire. So even with a perfect vacuum the loss by radiation is not 100%”.

            ***

            Tim…if you read Shula’s article, both of these points of yours are accounted for in the calibration. It’s obvious, that as gas is removed from the instrument filament area, when they reach a certain gas concentration, the heat dissipation will level off. At that point, they know the dissipation is radiation plus heat loss via the support structure.

            It does not matter if the vacuum is perfect, the point is that the number of gas molecules become so insignificant that the main heat dissipator is radiation. Shula provides a chart showing the relationship at very low pressures. Beyond low pressure, conduction/convection takes over dramatically.

            I don’t know how they distinguish between radiation and heat loss via the structure but they mention it is accounted for so they must know the ratio of heat dissipation via radiation and heat loss via the structure. At any rate, the amount of the two combined is insignificant compared to the heat dissipation with a gas in the tube (99.6 to 0.4).

            In another article, it is claimed heat dissipation from a surface is 70% conduction/convection and 30% radiation. My concern is that Trenberth’s heat budget states the opposite, that convection/conduction is the minor player. If conduction/convection is given its proper status, that castes a new light on the energy budget theory. In fact, it throws the theory in the trash heap and along with it the AGW and GHE theories.

            “Third, the IPCC doesnt make predictions about earth in a vacuum, so they dont have any equivalent prediction to a pirani gauge in vacuum.

            The basic IPCC ratio for the actual earth with an atmosphere is well-known. Look on the Trenberth diagram for the climate science estimates for energy transfers via various means”.

            ***

            The point is, Tim, Trenberth’s diagram is based on pure theory, a fact he admits freely in the Trenberth-Kiehle description. Obviously, they got the theory wrong as have the entire alarmist community.

            The IPCC makes no predictions, according to them, they only review papers that have been carefully screened to omit papers from skeptics. When those papers are reviewed and the main report is written, it is set aside and replace by the Summary for Policymakers, written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors.

            I don’t understand why it has escaped you that the IPCC are a political body who have no interest is objective science. Their mandate is restricted to finding evidence for anthropogenic warming and they systematically reject any evidence that is contrary to their mandate.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “At any rate, the amount of the two combined is insignificant compared to the heat dissipation with a gas in the tube (99.6 to 0.4).

            In another article, it is claimed heat dissipation from a surface is 70% conduction/convection and 30% radiation. ”

            Why does it bother you that the ratio changes from about 1:2 to about 2:1 between two situations, but it doesn’t bother you that the ratio changes from 1:2 to 1:250 between two other situations. YOu calmly accept a HUGE difference, then rail against just a slightly larger difference.

          • Swenson says:

            Timmy,

            You wrote –

            “Why does it bother you that the ratio changes from about 1:2 to about 2:1 between two situations . . . ”

            Why does it bother you? Do you feel embarrassed because you can’t even describe the GHE?

            Maybe you could just waste your time trying to troll, and attempting to annoy others.

            What do you reckon?

      • Herb Duncan says:

        Could you quantify how much variation you think these differences between the gauge and the Earth might make? I hope we are not just expected to assume the differences account for all the inconsistency between the energy budget numbers and the gauge numbers?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          herb…it’s quantified in the article by Shula. The mistake being made here is an assumption that the ratio of radiation to conduction/convection will be different for the Earth’s surface than for the heated filament in the Pirani gauge. There is no difference between the Pirani gauge readings and the Earth’s surface.

          The only way to measure the difference is to measure heat dissipation via radiation in a vacuum versus heat dissipation with a gas replacing the vacuum. Why should that ratio be different for the Earth’s surface than for the Pirani filament with a temperature range of 50C to 100C? If anything, the radiation from Earth’s surface will be even less since it is cooler.

          Richard (RLH) has supplied similar evidence for heat sinks used in electronics to dissipate heat and radiators used for heaters in a room. The question is why climate alarmist have gotten away with presenting the opposite, that radiation is the prime mover for heat dissipation and conduction/convection only a minor player.

          The Pirani gauge was used initially to determine the vacuum state of a tungsten lamp bulb. People must have reasoned that connecting the filament as a resistance in one leg of a Wheatstone bridge would allow them to measure the heat dissipation by observing the current required to re-balance the bridge.

          Re-balancing the bridge allowed them to very accurately measure how much power was being lost to heat dissipation.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “There is no difference between the Pirani gauge readings and the Earths surface … ”

            Other than size, shape, material, emissivity, surroundings, and heat source.

            “The question is why climate alarmist have gotten away with presenting the opposite, that radiation is the prime mover for heat dissipation and conduction/convection only a minor player.”

            The question is why *you* think this. The ‘primer mover’ for delivering heat from the surface to the atmosphere is latent heat. Convection and radiation are both much smaller and both similar in magnitude. Just like heat from a radiator to a room is similar for radiation and convection.

        • Nate says:

          ‘size, shape, etc”

          Size indeed matters.

          Consider heat transfer across a cube, with side L, and temperatures on the opposite sides T1, T2.

          For conduction, which is the primary mode in the Pirani gauge, the heat flow across it is:

          Q = k(L^2)(T1-T2)/L = kLdT,

          where k is the thermal conductivity of air.

          and the heat flux (heat flow per unit area) is

          Q/A = Q/L^2 = kdT/L.

          Now for RADIATION across the cube. The heat flux is

          Q/A = e*sigma(T1^4-T2^4) , e is the emissivity, and sigma is SB constant.

          So right away we can see that size matters for heat flux for conduction, but not for radiation.

          The ratio of heat flux for radiation/conduction is

          ratio = (L*e*sigma)/k*(T1^4-T2^4)/(T1-T2)

          Keep everything constant other than size and we see that the ratio scales as L.

          Suppose the ratio is ~ .01 for the Pirani gauge, 1% radiation over conduction, with L ~ 1 centimeter.

          Now increase L to 1 m. Then we have a ratio of radiation to conduction 100 x larger.

          ratio ~ 1.

          Increase L to 1 kilometer

          ratio ~ 1000.

          SO we can see that for the real Earth conduction becomes negligible compared to radiation.

          and we find that the Pirani gauge is, for yet another reason, a poor substitute for the real Earth because of its size!

          Also emissivity.

          For the real Earth we also have convection, and that has been shown to be a bit smaller than radiation, and Latent heat (water cycle) which is a bit larger than radiation.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…you are missing the point about the Pirani gauge. It measures the heat dissipation from a heated filament in a vacuum, that tells you the amount of heat dissipated via radiation, then compares the heat dissipation with a gas in the tube. That ratio will be the same for the Earth’s surface since there is nothing else influencing the ratio.

        Shula also points to the clincher, based on his experience with such devices and with vacuums. If a filament in a vacuum is heated and the power removed, it takes forever for the filament to cool via radiation alone. The second a gas is introduced, it cools quickly.

        We know that from a thermos. The thermos bottle is based on the use of an evacuated cylinder to keep the contents hot. By stifling conduction/convection, the contents can be kept hot for hours. The minute you remove the stopper in the thermos and expose the liquid to room air, the liquid will cool to room temperature quickly.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “That ratio will be the same for the Earths surface since there is nothing else influencing the ratio.”
          No. Both the geometry and the emissivity are completely different in the two cases. Both the geometry and the emissivity influence the ratio.

          “If a filament in a vacuum is heated and the power removed, it takes forever for the filament to cool via radiation alone. ”
          Incandescent light bulbs have filaments in vacuum. They cool within a fraction of a second — hardly “forever”.

          A thermos ALSO stifles radiation — that is why they have shiny metallic surfaces. If you replaced the shiny surfaces with high-emissivity paint. that would ALSO cause the hot liquid to cool more rapidly.

          Conduction, convection and radiation are ALL important. The relative contributions change based on geometry, thermal conductivity, emissivity, and type & pressure of gas (and more). There is no universal rule like “convection is 250x more effective than radiation”. A Pirani gauge does not tell us much at all about the earth!

          • Swenson says:

            Timmy,

            You are waffling. None of what you burbled on about has anything to do with the GHE, does it?

            You can’t describe the GHE, so trying to pretend to be an “expert” on anything is pointless.

            Keep trying.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…nothing to do with geometry or emissivity. It’s about the ratio of effectiveness of radiation versus conduction/convection for dissipatig heat.

            Emissivity has little to do with it. If radiation is producing 1/250th of the heat dissipation of conduction/convection the emissivity will affect that portion only.

            The point you are not getting is that conduction/convection is far more efficient at dissipating heat, no matter the surface geometry or the emissivity.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            “Both the geometry and the emissivity influence the ratio.“

            By how much? I asked you to quantify it and you ignored me. It’s all just handwaving until you quantify how much difference, if any, it would actually make.

          • RLH says:

            “Conduction, convection and radiation are ALL important”

            But according to you and the IPCC, radiation caries away much more energy than conduction and convection do. Despite clear evidence tp the contary.

            Tell me, oh guru, where does wind energy come from? Conduction, convection or radiation>

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “timnothing to do with geometry or emissivity. Its about the ratio of effectiveness of radiation versus conduction/convection for dissipatig heat.”

            Fins on a heat sink help improve convective losses. Hence geometry DOES change the ratio.

          • RLH says:

            Tell me, oh guru, where does wind energy come from? Conduction, convection or radiation?

          • Nate says:

            What ‘clear evidence to the contrary’?

          • Nate says:

            Both the geometry and the emissivity influence the ratio.

            By how much? I asked you to quantify it and you ignored me.”

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1508394

          • Herb Duncan says:

            You are arguing from the false premise that it is conduction between air molecules that we’re talking about. The conduction is between the surface and the air molecules in contact with the surface. The energy is then carried away by convection, and cooler air replaces the warmed air, so that the cycle repeats. This is an effective way for energy to be carried away from the surface.

            You have erected an elaborate straw man, and knocked it down, and the question of quantifying the differences to the ratio made by changing the emissivity or geometry remains unanswered.

          • Nate says:

            Thus the whole premise of Shula’s article is that the Pirani gauge is good guide to what happens in the atmosphere.

            In the Pirani gauge, because of its size, shape and emissivity, conduction is dominant over radiation and convection.

            In the atmosphere radiation and convection become dominant and conduction is negligible.

            He fails to mention any of this, and keeps insisting that it is a good model for the atmosphere.

            “It has been demonstrated via the Pirani gauge operating principle that upward heat transport via radiation plays an insignificant role in the transport of heat at atmospheric pressures from the surface to the upper stratosphere.”

            It clearly has not been demonstrated.

            But, I get it, you are a believer no matter what flaws are found in his argument.

            Meanwhile you’ve seen analyses of convection and radiation in the real atmosphere from a review article, and many other sources agree.

            Feel free to tall us what they have done wrong.

          • Nate says:

            And FYI,

            Some additional evidence comes from in-floor home heating, which is closer to the Earth-atmosphere setup.

            For this setup, radiation produces the largest component of heat transfer to a room.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1507944

          • Herb Duncan says:

            "In the Pirani gauge, because of its size, shape and emissivity, conduction is dominant over radiation and convection."

            No, in the Pirani gauge, conduction and convection are dominant over radiation. It’s the combination. Again, it’s the molecules immediately in contact with the filament that are heated by conduction, then carried away by convection, and cooler gas replaces the heated gas.

            "In the atmosphere radiation and convection become dominant and conduction is negligible."

            The consensus science says that conduction and convection (the combination) are far less important than radiation.

            You’re still attacking the same straw man.

          • Nate says:

            He offers no evidence that convection is as important as conduction in the Pirani gauge. All sources indicate otherwise.

            Convection depends greatly on size/geometry.

            And he keeps insisting that even at much lower pressure, when conduction is most definitely dominant, the gauge is a good model for the atmosphre.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            If convection is not important in the Pirani gauge, and the ratio is still what it is, then that only strengthens the argument that conduction with convection must be even more dominant in the atmosphere. You’re making the same mistake as E. Swanson.

          • E. Swanson says:

            HD wrote:

            its the molecules immediately in contact with the filament that are heated by conduction, then carried away by convection, and cooler gas replaces the heated gas.

            I still doubt that the convection is as strong as suggested.
            For convection to cool the wire, there must be a mass flow loop. In the gauge, what’s the diameter of the outer tube? Perhaps it’s 1 inch (25mm). Does the force of gravity within the tube provide enough difference in forcing between the top of the tube and the bottom to cause the gas next to the wire to rise, then cool and sink around the outside of the tube so that it can again rise to remove energy from the wire? What happens as the tube warms, thus reducing the temperature difference between it’s top and bottom?

            From the calibration curve presented, there’s variation between respective gases, but at greater vacuum levels, the slope of the curves are nearly identical, which suggests to me that convection is evident only for the initial small levels of vacuum. This situation has nothing to do with the large scale convection over many kilometers and large temperature differences as found within the Tropopause.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            So you’re arguing that the effect of conduction/convection in the atmosphere is even greater than in the gauge. You keep shooting yourself in the foot, without even realising, it seems.

          • Nate says:

            Herb,

            Looking into convection you will see that geometry and scale matters a great deal. It is not at all simple.

            Can you agree that lots of factors matter, and that means one needs to analyze the actual problem with its geometry, scale, temperature, emissivity, etc?

            As opposed to using a very different problem as a substitute.

            If you agree, then you should also agree that one should find analyses of heat transport in the actual atmosphere.

          • Nate says:

            “If convection is not important in the Pirani gauge, and the ratio is still what it is”

            The ratio of conduction/radiation is higher, as I showed at smaller length scales, and low at larger length scales.

            And thus the Pirani gauge tells us nothing about the ratio in the atmosphere of convection/radiation.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            "The ratio of conduction/radiation is higher, as I showed at smaller length scales, and low at larger length scales."

            You were looking at conduction between air molecules:

            "where k is the thermal conductivity of air"

            That is a straw man, as I said. It is conduction between the surface and the air molecules in contact with the surface, then convection of those air molecules away from the surface, to be replaced with others.

            "Can you agree that lots of factors matter, and that means one needs to analyze the actual problem with its geometry, scale, temperature, emissivity, etc?"

            You need to quantify any differences that these factors might make to the ratio.

            "one should find analyses of heat transport in the actual atmosphere"

            One has been shown two energy budget studies, and one could not find any mention of how they estimated the amount of conduction/convection. Nobody has, so far.

          • E. Swanson says:

            HD suggests that: “You keep shooting yourself in the foot” regarding my critique of Shula’s presentation about the Pirani Gauge as an analog for the Earth’s energy balance and the GHG. After re-reading Shula’s presentation, I am even more convinced that his conclusions are grossly in error.

            As Nate and others have pointed out, the geometry of the gauge is considerably different from that of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. In the video example Shula linked to, there’s a discussion of simple models of the atmospheric radiation heat transfer, models based on first one layer, them multiple layers. In these models, the area of the surface is equal to the corresponding areas of each layer. For the Pirani Gauge the surface area of the heated wire/filament is much less than the surface area of the inner side of the tube, thus the radiation exchange between the tube and the wire is grossly different.

            In addition, the distances and temperature differences driving any convection within the gauge are vastly different from that found in the atmosphere. Shula picks one pressure level, “10 Torr, the equivalent of about 110,000 feet”, and claims that this represents the Earth’s energy transfer. He eventually claims that:

            It has been demonstrated via the Pirani gauge operating principle that upward heat transport via radiation plays an insignificant role in the transport of heat at atmospheric pressures from the surface to the upper stratosphere.

            This conclusion is completely bogus if only because of the differences in area and temperatures involved. In addition, he doesn’t discuss the emission spectras of the different gasses, which are especially important to the flows of thermal IR radiation thru the atmosphere to deep space.

            His conclusion also ignores the well known effects of water vapor on atmospheric convection, which makes atmospheric convection vastly different from that of the dry gasses used to calibrate the gauge. And, he seems to think that the models used to study climate are based on the graphic of energy flows thru the atmosphere he presented, whereas the models are actually based on the physics of fluid dynamics and heat transfer at many levels of the atmosphere combined with those of the oceans. Those models include seasonal effects and known historical influences, such as ENSO and volcanic eruptions.

          • Nate says:

            “Can you agree that lots of factors matter, and that means one needs to analyze the actual problem with its geometry, scale, temperature, emissivity, etc?”

            So Herb, you do or do not agree with this?

          • Herb Duncan says:

            I don’t know. That’s what I’m trying to work out, by asking people to quantify the difference to the gauge ratio that the various differences they keep bringing up might make. However, nobody is prepared to move beyond handwaving, so we’re stuck where we are.

          • Nate says:

            So then you think solving one heat transfer problem is good and we can assume its the same as any other?

            C’mon Herb.

            We know that emissivity makes a big difference. Hence the wire is gold plated tungsten, which is intended to minimize radiation. It can easily be e = 0.05 and would reduce radiation by 20 x.

            We know that geometry makes a big difference for convection, eg the fins on radiators that enhance it over radiation.

            I showed you a link for floor heating that is mostly radiant.

            We know that at the top of the atmosphere convection is negligible and radiation takes over.

            And that is where climate science actually focuses on radiative forcing.

            Read about it.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            You need to get the ratio down from the gauge showing 250:1 conduction/convection to radiation all the way to the energy budgets showing something like 3:1 radiation to conduction/convection. That’s a truly enormous difference to account for.

            So, you point to emissivity, and state that radiation could be 20 times more if it were 1.0. OK, let’s accept that, for the sake of argument. You’re still a long, long way off from where you need to be.

            It gets worse, because your arguments about geometry and convection take things in the wrong direction for you. If the gauge is limited in the amount of convection occurring compared to the open atmosphere, then that means convection could dominate over radiation even more in the open atmosphere than it does in the gauge. You are not reducing the ratio here, you’re increasing it!

          • Nate says:

            OK,

            “If the gauge is limited in the amount of convection occurring compared to the open atmosphere, then that means convection could dominate over radiation even more in the open atmosphere than it does in the gauge.”

            Sure it could. But to know, one needs to calculate it or measure for the atmosphere with its scale, geometry and temperatures.

            I showed you one numerical calculation paper for home radiant floor heating, where it was found radiation was ~ 2x larger than convection.

            Then in the atmosphere, we also have the IR window to the very cold of space. Remember that radiation goes as ~ T1^4-T2^4. That, by itself seems to be about 30 W/m^2, most of the 58 W/m^2 total.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            “Sure it could”.

            Great, good that we have reached agreement. Emissivity might, or might not, be bringing down the ratio (but nowhere near enough), whilst the geometry/convection argument is working against you, pushing it back up. So, you have a long way to go before you get from 250:1 to 1:3. You’re nowhere near it at the moment.

            Perhaps you could be the first person to explain how the figure for conduction/convection in the atmosphere is estimated.

          • E. Swanson says:

            HD, You are stuck on the idea from Shulas presentation that the Pirani gauge operates like the atmosphere. You are ignoring the video presentation (3), which presents a more accurate representation of the processes involved, which is based on multiple layers of atmosphere with declining pressure as altitude increases , not the small distance between the Pirani filament and the surrounding tube. The design of the gauge is clearly intended to minimize the radiation HT, especially when the filament is gold plated. the filament is likely to be a small diameter coil, so the effective surface area is a small fraction of the larger tube. Shula’s claims are his interpretation and do not represent real world facts.

            Ignoring the video, you wrote:

            Perhaps you could be the first person to explain how the figure for conduction/convection in the atmosphere is estimated.

            See: Ramanathan and Coakley, 1978
            Your ignorance is your problem.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            So your answer is: models from 45 years ago. I had already guessed the answer would involve models, rather than any form of measurement.

          • Nate says:

            I think we can agree that the Pirani gauge argument was full of holes, and it is not a good model for the atmosphere.

            “Perhaps you could be the first person to explain how the figure for conduction/convection in the atmosphere is estimated.”

            We showed you one paper. If unsatisfied, perhaps you can research this yourself. Or not.

            Science often requires basic background knowledge. It doesn’t need you to understand it for it to be correct.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            You’re still nowhere near bridging the gap from 250:1 to 1:3, and you obviously don’t know how the conduction/convection figure is estimated. If you did, you could easily give a brief explanation in your own words, and would have done so by now.

          • Nate says:

            Weather on the Earth is complicated, and it is unlikely a simple calculation but rather based on measurements and modeling by meteorologists, which I am not.

          • Nate says:

            Let me just add that Pirani gauge guy has done no calculations or measurements of the Earth and its atmosphere. There is no weather in his Pirani gauge. His gauge is not a good substitute for it.

            Why should you or anyone believe his claims?

          • Herb Duncan says:

            Right, so you don’t know, as I suspected. Your condescension was misplaced then, it seems.

          • E. Swanson says:

            HD now shifts his tune, claiming he wants measurements. He might try looking at the data from balloon launches, satellite measurements, ground based measurements of the radiation of short wave and long wave energy, all of which go back many decades. The whole of the atmospheric sciences and weather forecasting are based on those measurements. And, models incorporating those measurements are routinely used at all scales to describe conditions, with the accuracy of forecasts becoming better every year as the models are refined. His “gap from 250:1 to 1:3” exists only in Shula’s imagination and has nothing to do with atmospheric radiation.

            But, no, HD just assumes that such measurements don’t exist. That way, he can ignore the whole problem of AGW.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            Getting a bit tired of the attitude. I haven’t changed my tune. The Pirani gauge is a measurement. It gives a ratio of 250:1 of conduction/convection to radiation. Then we have the energy budget figures. They give a ratio of 1:3 of radiation to conduction/convection. So yes, the discrepancy does exist, and it is massive. We need to try to bridge the gap from one to the other. Various people are bringing up emissivity. That might close the gap a bit, but nowhere near enough. Then various people have brought up the differences in temperatures and geometry between the gauge and the atmosphere, that might effect the amount of convection. Unfortunately for you, that opens up the gap. Nobody is actually quantifying any of this, though.

            I asked for an explanation of how the amount of conduction/convection in the atmosphere is estimated. Nobody really knows, it seems, but the best guess is, it involves models. We can’t compare measurements to models. So yes, of course I’m aware that there are measurements of the radiation. Are there measurements of the amount of conduction/convection from the surface? I’m guessing not, otherwise they would have been provided a long time ago.

          • Nate says:

            “The Pirani gauge is a measurement. It gives a ratio of 250:1 of conduction/convection to radiation. They give a ratio of 1:3 of radiation to conduction/convection. So yes, the discrepancy does exist, and it is massive.”

            Hardly.

            It is a measurement, but not of the atmosphere. It is a different system altogether.

            Apples vs bananas.

            Your inability to recognize/acknowledge this takes real effort, and is quite tiresome.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            “It is a measurement, but not of the atmosphere. It is a different system altogether.“

            I know. If you paid attention to what I just said, you would realise that there was no need for you to make that comment.

          • E. Swanson says:

            HD complains about (my?) “attitude” but repeats his comments regarding atmospheric measurements and modeling. And, he repeats his bogus comparison of data from Pirani gauge and the data for the energy budget of the atmosphere. He is repeating Shula’s conclusions, which are based on Shula’s assertions that the Pirani gauge is a good analog for processes within in the atmosphere. When I use the word “analog” I mean “mechanical model” of the atmosphere, which it obviously isn’t. Since the Pirani gauge is a bad model of the atmosphere, the results from using it, which HD continues to spout, are totally invalid.

            HD continues with:

            Nobody is actually quantifying any of this, though.

            The whole issue is about the energy flows into and out of the Earth’s atmosphere. Satellite instruments have been operated for decades to measure things from outside, that is, above the TOA. There have also been measurements of the total energy flowing into and out of the surface, so the boundaries of energy budget are well known. Measurements within the atmosphere are also common. HD juct refuses to accept the fact that tying all this together requires models, so he keeps on demanding other answers which would satisfy his preconceived result.

          • Nate says:

            The top of the atmosphere, as we’ve mentioned several times, is really where the global warming originates.

            It is there that climate science has been focused, because it is there the the energy input to the Earth is larger than the energy output, and thus results in global warming.

            And it is there that radiation is dominant.

            Again I urge you to learn about this.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            It’s clear that nobody here can reconcile the results from the Pirani gauge with the energy budget values. We get endless handwaving about the differences between the gauge and the atmosphere, but nobody can quantify how much variation these differences would actually make to the ratio. To even suggest that a reconciliation be attempted seems to be taken as some sort of affront to their beliefs.

            On top of that, nobody has a clue how the energy budget values for conduction/convection are estimated, or even if these values are estimated or measured. Now E. Swanson is saying:

            “The whole issue is about the energy flows into and out of the Earth’s atmosphere. Satellite instruments have been operated for decades to measure things from outside, that is, above the TOA”

            That is not the issue at all. The issue is about how much of the heat flow from the surface upwards is due to radiation compared to how much is due to conduction/convection.

          • E. Swanson says:

            HD wrote:

            The issue is about how much of the heat flow from the surface upwards is due to radiation compared to how much is due to conduction/convection.

            Well, for the interface between the atmosphere and the surface, we know it’s possible to measure the incoming SW energy which makes it thru the atmosphere to the surface and the albedo, so we can calculate the energy flowing into the surface. We also know how to measure the incoming and outgoing thermal IR radiation from the surface. There are also ways to measure how much water leaves the surface to become water vapor. Over the annual cycle, averaging the these flows would provide some indication of the difference, which could then be assumed to result from conduction and convection.

            Of course, I don’t have a ready answer to your question, but that doesn’t mean that the energy balance results are wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say. You will need to do your own homework, which might take a couple of years.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            You have no idea how it’s estimated, or even if it’s estimated or measured, but you have absolute faith that whatever it is, it must be right. Despite the fact that you cannot reconcile the Pirani gauge measurements with the energy budget figures. That seems to me to be the exact opposite of skepticism.

          • Nate says:

            “Its clear that nobody here can reconcile the results from the Pirani gauge with the energy budget values. ”

            Herb thinks we all should become experts in meteorology and be able to calculate Earth’s global average convection, while neither he nor Shula need to.

            Oddly, they are satisfied with using the Pirani gauge as a substitute for the Earth and its atmosphere.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            Childish nonsense.

          • Nate says:

            Herb, these are common faux skeptic tactics you are using here.

            Demand others explain the technical details of science, and if we can’t, then the science must be wrong!

            Of course this is a false dichotomy.

            Then there is the replacement of complicated science with a simplified model or analogy that joe public can understand, but ultimately is a poor substitute for the real science.

            People point out the deficiencies in the poor model or false analogy, and these are dismissed/downplayed.

            And if the Earth doesnt appear to conform to the false but understandable model or analogy, then the real science must be wrong!

            We have seen it all before.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            More childish nonsense.

          • Nate says:

            “You have no idea how its estimated, or even if its estimated or measured, but you have absolute faith that whatever it is, it must be right. ”

            No. But I do have faith in the scientific method.

            Lots of people with more expertise than me have vetted the science in the paper we showed you. Some of these are competitors who publish their own numbers that may differ. You can see in the paper a variety of other people’s results for the same numbers with some differences.

            Ultimately science gets at the truth.

            And I suggest that you have probably some faith in the scientific method as well. You probably take some medications, as I do. I take Statins for cholesterol. I don’t know the technical details behind the science of how they work, but I believe that lots of experts have looked into it. So I take it. Although I do question the amount I need with my doctor.

            But you get the idea.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            Yes, I get the idea that you have faith, rather than skepticism.

          • Nate says:

            As I tell students, be skeptical of all science you find on the internet, especially from opinion pieces, and consider the source.

            Is the piece published in a reputable publication? Does the author have demonstrated expertise in the subject? Has the work been peer reviewed by experts? Does the author appear to have a non-science agenda? Is the piece omitting or misrepresenting key facts? Are assertions backed by checkable facts?

            Unfortunately Shula’s piece fails on all these counts. In some cases spectacularly so.

            Perhaps you set aside your skepticism for contrarian science?

          • Herb Duncan says:

            I am skeptical of Shula’s claims.

            There are differences between the Pirani gauge and the atmosphere. Do these differences account for the fact that the gauge gives a ratio of 250:1 whilst the energy budget figures are 1:3? I can’t see how they do account for that. Given that some of the differences close the gap, whilst others widen it.

            That’s really all there is to it.

          • E. Swanson says:

            HD wrote:

            There are differences between the Pirani gauge and the atmosphere. Do these differences account for the fact that the gauge gives a ratio of 250:1 whilst the energy budget figures are 1:3?

            Absolutely. As has been pointed out to you, the physical principles of the Pirani gauge are vastly different from that of the energy flows from the Sun thru the atmosphere and then out to deep space. Shula’s comparison of convection within a tube with dimensions of 0.01 meters with convection within the Troposphere where critical dimensions range from 10 meters to more than 5,000 meters, is clearly bogus. Get over it.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            The difference in convection is one of the ones that increase the gap, not decrease it, as I’ve explained numerous times already.

          • Nate says:

            “gauge gives a ratio of 250:1 whilst the energy budget figures are 1:3?”

            There is simply no good science reason to compare the Pirani gauge to the atmosphere in the first place, since it is so different.

            Looking more at the energy budget papers, I can see that in some cases they found the radiative fluxes, which are better known, or easier to find, eg from Modtran.

            http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot

            From precipitation data the latent heat flux (moist convection) can be estimated.

            Then they assumed energy balance and inferred the residual fluxes.

            Not ideal, but is one way.

            If the the solar input to the surface is 160 W/m^2, the NET IR emission is ~ 60 W/m^2, the moist convection is 80 W/m^2 and, then that leaves 20 W/m^2, and must be ~ dry convection.

            There is simply no room left in the budget for dry convection to be much larger than 1:3 wrt radiation.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            "There is simply no good science reason to compare the Pirani gauge to the atmosphere in the first place, since it is so different."

            I know that there are differences between the two. I’ve acknowledged that there are differences between the two. But, if you take into account those differences, you should be able to get from one ratio to the other, no? That’s what the process of reconciliation is all about. The "good science reason" for comparing the Pirani gauge to the atmosphere is that the Pirani gauge at least provides a direct measurement of the amount of conduction/convection compared to the amount of radiation. It’s an empirical starting point. We know it’s "wrong", to a certain extent, compared to the atmosphere, but we don’t know how much it’s "wrong" by. It needs to be "wrong" by an enormous amount for the energy budget figures to be "right".

          • E. Swanson says:

            HD wrote:

            The difference in convection is one of the ones that increase the gap, not decrease it…

            Sorry, the analogy doesn’t work. In the Tropophere, there’s a large temperature difference between the surface and the Tropopause, which promotes the upward convection. But the upwelling air cools because of the pressure drop. The energy transport which results is mostly due to the latent heat of the water vapor contained in the air mass. Once the water vapor condenses and falls out, the remaining air must subside back toward the surface and, in doing so, warms as it descends toward the ground. Of course, in the Stratosphere above the Tropopause, convection is almost completely suppressed, due to the positive lapse rate. Shula and his Piranni gauge simply can not capture the processes of the convection in the atmosphere.

            Besides, you continue to ignore the fact that the energy balance at the surface is directly measurable and that information is available for analysis. Scientific reports of these efforts have been published since 1993.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            I’m not ignoring anything, but you haven’t provided any link to any measurements of the amount of conduction/convection from the surface. Presumably that’s because there aren’t any. Since there aren’t any, you have no empirical data on the ratio of conduction/convection from the surface compared to the amount of radiation from the surface. That’s where the Pirani gauge comes in. It’s an empirical starting point.

            You can’t expect the gauge to be a perfect model of the entire atmosphere! It’s just meant as a rough indicator of what might be going on at and near the surface.

            You keep making the point over and over again that the amount of convection in the gauge is limited compared to in the atmosphere, seemingly not aware that this is shooting yourself in the foot. You are opening the gap between the gauge ratio and the energy budget ratio, not closing it!

          • Nate says:

            Herb, the differences are quite significant, when you consider the vertical structure of the atmosphere, the pressure decrease with height in the atmosphere, the presence of water vapor in the atmosphere, the weather in the atmosphere, the presence of the ocean, none of which are present in the Pirani gauge.

            We can view this problem as an interesting exercise to learn some meteorology via asking why is the conduction/dry-convection such a small component of heat transfer in the atmosphere, which is how I view it.

            Rather than assuming that meteorology and climate science must have gotten it wrong, and you need proof that they have gotten it right, which is your approach.

            One way to understand it is that in the atmosphere radiation and moist convection remove most of the surface heat, reducing the temperature differential, and thus dry convection needs to remove less. And conduction is negligible, as discussed.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            "And conduction is negligible, as discussed."

            Again, conduction through the atmosphere, as in, between air molecules, might well be negligible. However, that’s not what’s being discussed. What is being discussed is conduction from the surface to the air molecules in contact with the surface, and the cycle of convection which keeps cooler air in contact with the surface as the warmed air rises. It really is a phenomenon specific to the surface. This is why, the more I think about it, the more the choice of the Pirani gauge makes sense. It doesn’t need to represent the complexities of the entire atmosphere. It just needs to show what is happening at the surface, at the exchange between the surface and the molecules of air in contact with it. The gauge is kind of ideal for that purpose.

            As Shula says:

            "Frequency of collisions with an ideal planar surface approximately 3 X 10^27 collisions/sec-m2

            To put this in perspective, the last number is quite useful. The average surface area of an adult human is around a square meter. That means that each second about 100 lbs. of air molecules collide with each of us with an average speed of about 1050 mph. More importantly, given the photon flux at 288K this means that approximately 100,000 air molecules collide with the surface for each potential infrared photon emitted. Because the energy transfer from collisions will change the equilibrium at the surface by removing energy through conduction, it is likely that the actual emitted photon flux will be even less. To believe that radiative transfer is the primary mechanism for upward heat transfer at the Earth’s surface would mean that one IR photon would transfer more energy than 100,000 molecular collisions. These numbers are for a perfectly smooth planar surface. The actual surface area at an atomic level can be much greater.

            Clearly, the interface between the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere is an extremely chaotic place at the atomic level. This gives perspective to explain what we see in the operation of the Pirani gauge as explained in the body of this paper."

          • E. Swanson says:

            HD, You keep on insisting stuff, like:

            You keep making the point over and over again that the amount of convection in the gauge is limited compared to in the atmosphere…

            No, the points often repeated is that the Pirani gauge is designed to limit radiation heat transfer and that the conduction/convection within the gauge is not like that in the atmosphere. But you still insist that:

            Thats where the Pirani gauge comes in. Its an empirical starting point.

            No, there’s no way that the Pirani gauge represents what happens at the interface between the surface and the atmosphere above, if only because the energy transfer includes the mass transfer from the water at the surface to the air above. Recall that the Earth has some 72% coverage by liquid water and the land is also a source of water for evaporation.

            Of course, you slide by the fact that the radiation balance at the surface has been repeatedly measured for decades, thus that part of the energy balance model is not up for dispute. Not to mention the other facts about the atmosphere, such as the lapse rate in the Troposphere, which would be much different if there were a much more vigorous convective overturning, pumping energy into the atmosphere.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            E. Swanson, your comments about convection being limited in the gauge compared to the atmosphere are up there for all to see. I’m not sure why you’re denying them, now. You don’t seem to be grasping any of the arguments I’m making, so there seems little point in you responding to me.

          • Nate says:

            “Again, conduction through the atmosphere, as in, between air molecules, might well be negligible. However, thats not whats being discussed. What is being discussed is conduction from the surface to the air molecules in contact with the surface, and the cycle of convection which keeps cooler air in contact with the surface as the warmed air rises.”

            Yes it is negligible in the atmosphere, in the sense that once the heat is transferred from the surface to the air, convection takes over and conduction plays no role in that. And then convection is the dominant mechanism for heat to move away from the surface.

            If familiar with circuits, the conduction part is analogous to one small resistor in series with a very large resistor that is analogous to convection. The total resistance is the sum of the two. But the convection resistor is much larger, and dominates the sum.

            Whereas in the much smaller Pirani gauge, conduction is the dominant mechanism for most of the pressure range. In his graph the curve becomes flat at high pressures, this is a signature of conduction, because conductive heat transfer becomes constant at high pressures.

            At very high pressures, above 500 torr, the curve rises slightly, indicating convection, in series with conduction, is coming into play. It grows with increasing pressure. But it appears to be the much smaller component at 760 torr (1 atm).

            His attempt to use the Pirani gauge to tell us what happens at 10 torr in the atmosphere is misleading. Because in the atmosphere at 10 torr conduction is negligble, and convection is diminishing, whereas in the Pirani gauge at 10 torr convection is neglible, and conduction is still larger much than radiation.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            We seem to be veering off on a tangent. Not sure why. Perhaps between all of you “experts” on here you can reach a conclusion on whether convection is limited in the gauge, or not. One of you said:

            “I disagree with some here, but I think convection will be LARGE. There is a gradient of many degrees from the hot filament to the cooler walls. I see nothing to limit convection within this device”.

            Are they right, or are you right?

            Meanwhile, the main gist of my last comment has still not been addressed.

          • E. Swanson says:

            My original suggestion was that convection within the Pirani gauge tube would be less than operating the wire/filament in an open air environment, where convection would likely be stronger. It should be quite clear that conduction across the small distance (~1/2 inch) between the wire and the tube wall would result in a large fraction of the HT being conduction leaving less for convection. And, as I’ve pointed out several times, the situation regarding convection within the atmosphere is mostly in the Troposphere where the addition of water vapor has a strong influence on the process which is not found within the Pirani gauge.

            You are still just playing games to avoid the obvious differences which refute the claims that the Pirani gauge results have any relevance to the energy balance of the Earth.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            I’m not playing any games, E. Swanson. Any differences between the Pirani gauge and the atmosphere need to be quantified and accounted for, in terms of how much they affect the ratio. If you can’t do this, you’re just handwaving. If convection is limited in the gauge, then you are opening up the gap between the gauge ratio and the energy budget ratio, not closing it. How many times are we each going to repeat ourselves!?

          • Nate says:

            “We seem to be veering off on a tangent.”

            Not really, since if conduction is the main mechanism in the Pirani gauge, and it is insignificant in the atmosphere then that explains the difference.

            “Any differences between the Pirani gauge and the atmosphere need to be quantified and accounted for”

            In your opinion Herb.

            This is a faux controversy motivated by the very flawed Shula article.

            IMO, the focus should be on the atmosphere and expert opinion about it.

            If you can find papers with much large figures for convection, show us.

            The world has many meteorologists. Surely some of them would have objected by now to the convection numbers in the widely reported energy balance diagrams.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            No, this is what is going on within the gauge:

            “The filament in the Pirani gauge is analogous to the surface of the Earth. The gas molecules collide with the surface and absorb energy raising their effective temperature (conduction). A “bubble” of this warmer gas then rises relative to the cooler gas around it as the cooler gas drops to the surface and repeats the cycle continuously (convection). This cools the surface and is perfectly illustrated by the response of the Pirani gauge. This is well understood by those who have worked with high temperature processes in vacuum systems, and no doubt by many others.”

            Conduction AND convection. Working together, at the surface. Conduction is negligible for transporting heat THROUGH the atmosphere, as in, BETWEEN air molecules. It is not negligible AT THE SURFACE. See the numbers I quoted earlier, from the Shula article. In fact, try to respond to that comment, generally, if you can.

          • Ball4 says:

            “A “bubble” of this warmer gas then rises relative to the cooler gas around it as the cooler gas drops to the surface and repeats the cycle continuously (convection).”

            Whoever wrote that 5:23 am doesn’t understand convection in the atm. The replacement air comes in laterally at ambient so is NOT “cooler gas”. Hurricane winds hit you in the face not on the top of your head.

            So the atm. can NOT be perfectly illustrated by the response of the Pirani gauge unless hurricanes form in there too.

          • Nate says:

            “Working together, at the surface. Conduction is negligible for transporting heat THROUGH the atmosphere, as in, BETWEEN air molecules.”

            Yes. But conduction is NOT negligible for transporting heat from the heated Pirani gauge wire to its outer shell, because the distance is very small.

            As I showed previously, conduction depends on size.

          • Nate says:

            Herb,

            I asked if you had any other papers from meteorology on convection in the real atmosphere.

            If all you are going to is keep referring back to the flawed Shula article on the Pirani Gauge, which all agree is a poor substitute for the atmosphere, then you are just a broken record, and the argument is over.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            So, as I said:

            "What is being discussed is conduction from the surface to the air molecules in contact with the surface, and the cycle of convection which keeps cooler air in contact with the surface as the warmed air rises. It really is a phenomenon specific to the surface. This is why, the more I think about it, the more the choice of the Pirani gauge makes sense. It doesn’t need to represent the complexities of the entire atmosphere. It just needs to show what is happening at the surface, at the exchange between the surface and the molecules of air in contact with it. The gauge is kind of ideal for that purpose."

            I guess I will have to quote sections of the comment to you to get you to deal with it.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            "I asked if you had any other papers from meteorology on convection in the real atmosphere"

            Obviously not. Why, do you?

            What would be of more interest are papers from meteorology on the specific phenomenon of the paired action of conduction and convection AT THE SURFACE, which is what this is ultimately all about. Do you have any of those?

            You will note that I began this discussion by initially asking Dr Spencer’s opinion, precisely because he IS actually an expert on the subject of meteorology. However, he did not respond. So, here we are. I’m wasting my time receiving handwaving responses from faux-experts who want to appeal to their own authority on the one hand, whilst on the other they insist that only the real experts know the truth.

          • E. Swanson says:

            HD continues to pontificate about Shula’s post on the Pirani gauge. He writes:

            Any differences between the Pirani gauge and the atmosphere need to be quantified and accounted for…

            This is a flawed assertion based on Suhla’s unproven hypothesis that the physics of the Pirani gauge is equivalent in some way to that occurs in the atmosphere, particularly convection from the surface upwards into the Troposphere.

            In reality, there’s a difference between surface conduction-convection and the larger scale upward motion away from the surface boundary layer where there is no conduction. At the surface interface, the air flow is ~horizontal across a large area, while above the boundary layer, the convective motion is ~vertical. Within the boundary layer, the conduction is a function of the temperature difference between the air and the surface, which tends to be small, since the horizontal air flow limits energy losses to higher levels until the temperature and water vapor content reaches a critical level to begin vertical convection. Convective stability is a widely recognized characteristic of the atmospheric circulation within the atmospheric sciences. Vertical convection is not a continuous process, but tends to follow the daily cycle of solar insolation forcing.

            HD, you can quote yourself all day long, but that does not prove that you (and Shula) are correct. Since you are claiming that the experts are wrong, it’s up to you to provide sufficient proof of the hypothesis, not those of us around here who are unlikely to be experts.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            "In reality, there’s a difference between surface conduction-convection and the larger scale upward motion away from the surface boundary layer where there is no conduction."

            My point exactly, E. Swanson. Strange that you’re trying to use it against me, in some way.

          • E. Swanson says:

            HD wrote:

            My point exactly, E. Swanson.

            It would appear that HD has forgotten what he previously claimed to be the problem. He wrote:

            You need to get the ratio down from the gauge showing 250:1 conduction/convection to radiation all the way to the energy budgets showing something like 3:1 radiation to conduction/convection. Thats a truly enormous difference to account for.

            HD was comparing Shula’s conclusions, based on the Pirani gauge, with the radiation balance for the entire atmosphere. But, the setup for the Pirani gauge could only be applied to the surface transport (which it does not represent), not that of the vertical convection, as presented in the graphic for the budget. Shula’s conclusions (and HD parroting thereof) simply do not apply to the vertical convection, so there isn’t any “truly enormous difference to account for”.

          • Nate says:

            Herb, If you can’t/won’t deal with the real system of interest, the atmosphere, and insist on returning again and again to what all agree is a highly flawed substitute, the discussion is over.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            There’s no difference to account for? So 250:1 is the same as 1:3?

            Or are you saying that there’s a separate energy budget for the "surface transport" out there, which has figures of 250:1 for conduction/convection compared to radiation? If so, I’d like to see it. As far as I know the 1:3 ratio of conduction/convection to radiation is implied to apply to the entire atmosphere, not just where "vertical convection" begins, but also at the surface, in the boundary layer.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            Nate, you keep saying that the discussion is over. That’s fine with me, we weren’t getting anywhere anyway since you stubbornly refused to engage on the arguments I was making. See you later. I’ll talk to E. Swanson, instead (though I’d rather Dr Spencer had replied).

          • Nate says:

            “stubbornly refused to engage on the arguments”.

            Ha! Well, for no more than a week, anyway.

          • Herb Duncan says:

            Looks like I won’t be talking to E. Swanson, either.

  40. Pat Smith says:

    Is it possible to pull out data on individual countries from this data? For instance, the UK?

  41. gbaikie says:

    –India to launch Chandrayaan 3 moon lander and rover on July 14
    By Mike Wall
    published about 24 hours ago

    The Chandrayaan 3 mission is getting ready to fly.–

    “India is getting its next moon mission ready for liftoff.

    The robotic lunar lander and rover that make up the Chandrayaan 3 mission were stacked atop their Launch Vehicle Mark-3 (LVM3) rocket at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre on Wednesday (July 5), according to the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), which posted photos and a video of the process on Twitter Wednesday morning.

    If all goes according to plan, Chandrayaan 3 will launch from Satish Dhawan in the early morning hours of July 14.”

    Maybe it will go when planned

    • gbaikie says:

      –Chandrayaan-3’s journey

      Chandrayaan-3 successfully took off from the launchpad yesterday and also got into the correct orbit around the Earth. But that is just the beginning of the mission as far as the spacecraft is concerned. In the coming days, its orbit around the Earth will get more and more eccentric with each revolution before it is ready to transfer to a lunar orbit before finally trying to soft-land on the surface about 42 days after launch.

      How long will Chandrayaan take to reach the Moon?

      On average, the Moon is about 384,400 kilometres away from the Earth. But Chandrayaan-3 will be taking a longer route to Earths lone satellite in a bid to conserve fuel. With that path, the Vikram lander of the mission is expected to soft-land on the surface of the South Pole region of the Moon in about 42 days from launch, around August 25. —
      https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/chandrayaan-3-launch-live-updates-8833802/

  42. RLH says:

    Emissivity works both ways. Less energy gained at low emissivity also means less energy lost.

    Domestic radiators with polished chrome surfaces (emissivity of say 0.9).

    • RLH says:

      edit: Don’t know what happened there. Will use ‘less than ‘and ‘greater than’ instead.

      Domestic radiators with polished chrome surfaces (emissivity of say less than 0.05) can be compared to black painted ones (emissivity of say greater than 0.9).

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        There are reasons for using low emissivity surfaces. Heated towel rails are one example which springs to mind.

        The temperature of the rail in contact with the towel only needs to be 55 C or so, even if the air temperature is freezing. If the rail is electrically heated, consumption is reduced if the non-towel holding rails are radiating as little as possible (least waste heat). Placing towels on the rail insulates them, and temperature will rise due to the constant internal energy supply. However, you don’t want towels bursting into flame, so very little power is supplied. Over a few hours, the temperature will rise to the appropriate level. Emissivity is irrelevant under these conditions.

        Likewise, towel rails supplied by hot water heating, should minimize losses by having low emissivity.

        Room heating is completely different, and very complicated if the aim is to achieve maximum human comfort with minimum energy input. Too many variables, and too many subjective considerations.

        All good fun.

        • RLH says:

          You miss the point. The evidence shows that chrome finish towel rails lose about 30% less energy than painted ones do. Even though their emissivity is close to 0 as opposed as close to 1.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            I think the point is that for towel warmers, you want to heat towels. There are other reasons for using a chrome finish – easy to keep clean, wont stain towels, finish won’t rub off, and so on.

            Domestic radiators with chrome or other low emissivity finishes are a contradiction in terms (they don’t radiate well at all), but are fashionable. If installed with enough exposed area, they can provide the same amount of radiated heat, but that’s the cost of fashion.

            How warm do you want to be, how quickly do you want it to happen, what’s your budget . . . ?

            Some people are happy enough to use a sledgehammer to crack walnuts, that’s their choice. You never know when you might need a sledgehammer for something else.

            By the way, when you mention 30% loss, do mean system losses as waste heat, or 30% reduction in radiative intensity?

          • RLH says:

            A lot of other items in a bathroom are typically in a chrome finish.

          • RLH says:

            30% reduction in radiative intensity. From 1 to 0 emissivity.

  43. Antonin Qwerty says:

    RLH: “With a lot of AGW proponents who try to dominate the conversation.”

    Tried to count your own comments recently, matey?

    RLH 91
    Nate 26
    Herb Duncan 24
    Me 22
    gbaikie 22
    Gordon 19
    ren 17
    Swenson 15
    Clint 14
    Tim Folkerts 13
    Bill Hunter 12
    E. Swanson 12
    Norman 10
    Bindidon 8
    Tim S 8
    CO2isLife 6
    studentb 6
    Ken 5

    It’s you then daylight. You have more than one quarter of the comments here. And your count most likely went up another half a dozen while I was counting. As usual, you are oblivious to the fact that you are projecting.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      RLH: Rather than making a response, you will now ask another inane question.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Almost right. You only added 5 more comments while I was counting.

    • Clint R says:

      RLH makes a lot of “one-line” comments, but as a true indication of who is abusing the blog, an actual word count is necessary. That would change the ranking dramatically.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        So tell me – how many words would someone have to post in a month for them to qualify as someone who is “abusing”?

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          This question is for RLH also.

        • Clint R says:

          If someone is continually off-topic, that might be “abusing.

          If someone continually trolls, such as worthless willard does, that might be “abusing.

          If someone continually runs up a word total more than Spencers original post, that might be abusing.

          • gbaikie says:

            In order to have a scientific theory, you need an author or authors
            of the theory.

            Who is an author of a greenhouse effect theory?

            But facts are differnent.
            Fact: We are in an Ice Age.
            15 C air temperature is cold.

        • Swenson says:

          Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      What’s this about dominating conversations? Science is not something that can be covered, at times, in a few sentences. If you don’t make your point clear, you get harangued with red-herring rebuttals, misunderstood propositions, ad homs and insults.

      Furthermore, there are people who can afford to spend more time posting and perhaps who have a greater interest than others in writing.

      I an aptitude test in junior high I rated high in science and journalism. I have no idea why I have those interests but communicating science has always been a passion for me.

      I enjoy writing. Sue me if you don’t like it.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        You do understand you are talking to RLH and Clint, right?

        They made the claims, falsely believing they were catching out our side, when in fact it is you guys who provide the most prolific writers, and that’s what my counts were designed to illustrate.

        I have no issue with long comments, nor should anyone else. There is more of an issue with very short comments, case in point Flynn’s two comments in this thread, which are designed solely for trolling purposes.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          I am replying to you, AQ. Presumably you supplied the list of the number of posts per poster.

          It wasalso you who posted…”So tell me how many words would someone have to post in a month for them to qualify as someone who is abusing?”

          That’s what I was responding to.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            That’s right – I was asking him to qualify and quantify his statement that making long posts was “abusing the blog”.

            Glad you understand.

            Now – should I get back to a discussion on the moon’s phases?

          • Swenson says:

            Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.

        • Swenson says:

          Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.

        • RLH says:

          “what my counts were designed to illustrate”

          Sure. Idiot.

  44. Antonin Qwerty says:

    test

  45. Bindidon says:

    Well, if the so-called Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai Effect (HTE) still was in action, shouldn’t we see – right now – anything of it in the lower stratosphere (LS) monitored by UAH?

    Here are the last few months, clearly showing a state of dormancy

    June 2023

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ELhjRDeK9OPgh1Vwk0yWuCFW9JxQoCn/view

    May 2023

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T8tTkEdQ1v0t7rvKDSPj19DW629-XHTr/view

    April 2023

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OQL4JaF3yfi-wEWcYOw2xdE-5zPYz7ye/view

    *
    And here are the last months possibly (!!!) indicating this HTE:

    March 2023

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TUE4leZ2uf_6TFxtF31lydvFb1gUGiEB/view

    February 2023

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/13vO_2kCWdqV8gOIL3DKTED-e2OeE4B4q/view

  46. gbaikie says:

    If the world had more happy people, the world would be better, Dennis says.
    I don’t know, there could be more hateful people.

    And it seems there are a lot more happy people in the world- if for no other reason than we have higher population.
    One could also point to the claimed significant reduction in global poverty.
    Also there seems to be less Lefties.
    Also it seems more people can flee their hell holes.

    It seems to me the left used to be rather stringent about allowing people escape the lousy country they caused.
    North Korea is still doing well, at making North Korea, almost inescapable. But a tiny population of very unhappy people.

  47. studentb says:

    When will the cookers here again try and deflect by bringing up the rotating moon fake debate?

  48. Antonin Qwerty says:

    Posts of 20+ lines since June 1:
    (Clint claims people who post consistently long posts are “abusing the blog”)

    Gordon Robertson 111
    gbaikie 79
    Swenson 63
    Willard 34
    Norman 32
    Bill Hunter 29
    Bindidon 28
    E. Swanson 12
    Christos Vournas 10
    Nate 9

    • gbaikie says:

      Clint is not Roy Spencer.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I see, aq has set himself up as the word cop. There is always some idjit in a blog or forum who wants to take over and set rules for others.

      From my experience writing emails, I have found there are those who get agitated if you write more than one paragraph. The same people tend to have problems comprehending more than a sentence. They tend to be skimmers, who impatiently scan an email looking for a basic meaning. They are also likely to misinterpret what has been written because their minds fill in the blanks with what they think should be there.

      If you talk to such people directly, they tend to fidget and are unable to make eye contact. They get bored if you use words longer than 5 letters.

      They are also likely to be climate alarmists.

  49. Gordon Robertson says:

    In reply to AQs query as to whether I have evidence that some of the current forest fires may be lit by eco-terrorists.

    Yes…I am basing it on the wacko groups who have already been prosecuted for damaging infrastructure as an act of terrorism.

    It has not escaped my mind that most of the current fires are in ALberta, Canada, a province that relies on oil as an export. The Tar Sands are in Alberta.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/ecoterrorism

    For example, there are eco-terrorists targeting SUV owners by slashing their tires. There was a group prosecuted in the states for burning down infrastructure of oil companies.

    One such group is ELF…

    https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sandiego/news/press-releases/25000-reward-offered-in-eco-terrorism-arson-case

    https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OPSR_TP_TEVUS_Bombing-Arson-Attacks_Environmental-Animal%20Rights-Extremists_1309-508.pdf

    Unfortunately there are eco-alarmists like Greta Thunberg who think its cool to disrupt society to get their points across. Some take it farther, to terrorism.

  50. RLH says:

    Account for the differences seen in domestic radiators with bright chrome and paint finishes. Simple request.

    • Swenson says:

      RLH,

      Vanity.

      Can’t think of any other reason.

      • RLH says:

        Well the emissivity ranges from nearly 0 to nearly 1.

        • Swenson says:

          Can you think of another good reason (apart from ignorance or stupidity) for choosing to use a poor radiator for a radiator?

          • RLH says:

            It’s not about choice, it’s about the difference in output.

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            The difference in radiative intensity is a physical fact. Do we not agree?

            I thought you were wondering why people would choose different materials.

            Sorry.

          • RLH says:

            “The difference in radiative intensity is a physical fact”

            But the energy difference in losses from the radiator is some 30%. Reducing from emissivity 0.95 to emissivity 0.

          • RLH says:

            Or maybe 0.05.

          • Norman says:

            RLH

            I have already addressed your points. For a normal radiator radiation is not the major contributing factor. So reducing the loss by radiant energy with a chrome radiator as opposed to a painted one only reduces the heat loss by 30%. Not sure why you think this is a big issue or relates to Earth heat transfer.

            I think Tim Folkerts explained it to you very well. You have to look at each system differently. A room radiator does not have to equal Earth system. The laws of physics do not change but other factors influencing heat transfer do.

            If you read your own advertisement links on the radiators, chrome is used for towel drying because since it will not lose much energy via radiant means it will reach a higher temperature. It can then transfer more energy via convection is you reduce the radiant loss and so the overall energy transfer changes 30% instead of a greater value.

            If you only had radiant heat transfer (say a vacuum) then the change in emissivity would be considerable.

            If Chrome radiator was in a vacuum at 60 C and radiating to very cold walls say chilled with liquid nitrogen to maximize radiant heat loss…

            Use the calculator on this page
            https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

            With an emissivity of 0.04 and a temp of 60 C radiating to walls at -196 C you get a value of 27.8 watts but if you had high emissivity paint of 0.99 you radiate away 688 Watts. The high emissivity paint over chrome in this situation is about 25 times greater energy loss.

          • RLH says:

            “Not sure why you think this is a big issue or relates to Earth heat transfer”

            Because reducing emissivity from 0.95 to 0.05 loses 30% of heat transfer.

          • RLH says:

            “With an emissivity of 0.04 and a temp of 60 C radiating to walls at -196 C”

            What is the emissivity and temperature of outer space and the Earth?

          • RLH says:

            “For a normal radiator radiation is not the major contributing factor”

            But for the IPCC this is not true. Radiation is the bulk of the heat loss. Even though the temperatures are not that dissimilar.

          • RLH says:

            P.S. What powers the wind? Conduction, convection or radiation?

          • Norman says:

            RLH

            If you use logic you can see where the 30% comes from.

            With a room radiator 70% loss is convection 30% is by radiant energy. This does not mean the Earth surface loses energy this way only that a room radiator does. You know you can have home heaters designed to maximize radiant heat over convection so most the energy transfer with these is via radiant energy.

            https://www.newair.com/blogs/learn/convection-heating-vs-radiant-heating

            If radiant energy makes up 30% the maximum would be with the high emissivity paint. if you reduce it to about zero emission than the change will be 30% less heat transfer by effectively elimination of the radiant component.

          • RLH says:

            Thermal conductivity of Chromium is 69.1 W/mK.

          • RLH says:

            “Convection is usually the dominant form of heat transfer in liquids and gases”

          • RLH says:

            “Convection is a very efficient way of heat transfer because it maintains a steep temperature gradient between the body and surrounding air”

          • RLH says:

            Most radiant heaters operate at a few hundred to a thousand degrees C.

            “Accordingly, the tube metal must endure a high temperature of approximately 9001000C.”

  51. 1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
    Tmean.earth

    R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
    Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
    Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47

    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
    N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.

    cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
    We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.

    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
    So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)

    Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:

    Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴

    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
    Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ =

    Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
    And we compare it with the
    Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.

    These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.

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

    • studentb says:

      What a load of b.s.!
      Spot the fudge factors that have been arbitrarily chosen to make the numbers agree.
      Spot the meaningless use of significant figures.
      Any estimate of the error bars? No.

      • studentb:

        “What a load of b.s.!
        Spot the fudge factors that have been arbitrarily chosen to make the numbers agree.
        Spot the meaningless use of significant figures.
        Any estimate of the error bars? No.”


        ***
        Are you, studentb, a Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
        denier??

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

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          christos…”Are you, studentb, a Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon denier??”

          ***

          Christos…his real name is stupid b. He got the name because he is stupid.

      • Swenson says:

        studentb, please stop trolling.

  52. CO2isLife says:

    Am I reading that graphic correctly? In a single month the anomaly changed by 0.4 C? Really, in a single month the data can change by a full 0.4 C? People claim that there has been 1 to 1.5 C increase in temperatures since the start of the industrial age and blame it on CO2, and you can get a 0.4 C Variation in a single month? That is pure nonsense to claim CO2, a highly stable variable, can cause such variation. To think CO2 can cause that kind of variability simply means people aren’t looking for other causes. They start with a conclusion and end their research there…or lose their funding.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “That is pure nonsense to claim CO2, a highly stable variable, can cause such variation.”
      That is pure nonsense to think that anyone thinks that CO2 causes the variation. There are MANY causes for variations (seasons, local weather, el nino, …). The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Tim argues:
        That is pure nonsense to think that anyone thinks that CO2 causes the variation. There are MANY causes for variations (seasons, local weather, el nino, ). The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.
        —————————–

        indeed tim argues that they are many causes for natural climate change but he asked God about them and God replied. . .Son, they are all only short term.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Bill, the discussion was about short-term, month-to-month variations, and that is what I was responding to. Everything I wrote was accurate.

          If you want a discussion about what God has told you about His conversations with me, you could start your thread. Me — I’ll stick with science in a science discussion.

          • Swenson says:

            Timmy,

            You wrote –

            ” The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”

            I’ll add your description of the GHE to the other equally stupid “descriptions” from Willard, bobdroege, and Bindidon.

            I’ll point out that your description is just as idiotic, because the Earth is distinctly cooler than it was when the surface was molten, and you don’t have any time period longer than four and a half billion years, so you can’t pull the “averages” trick.

            Here’s your previous GHE description –

            “Less GHGs > faster cooling > lower average temperatures.

            More GHGs > slower cooling > higher average temperatures.” – both for day and night, you claimed.

            Care to try for a third equally stupid description?

            The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. The surface cools every night. No GHE.

            Maybe you go back to your irrelevant and pointless “scenarios”, with your hidden heat sources and impossible materials.

            Carry on.

          • Bill hunter says:

            Tim says:
            ”The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”

            No Tim a number of people claim that the LIA recovery and/or solar variation causes a small, long-term slope in addition to other natural variations.

            We also have various theories for how clouds may under go longterm changes, how evaporation and precipitation may vary longterm, etc.

            These are NOT claimed to be exclusively short termed. But we do know they actually can change the climate which isn’t the case for what you claim what the ”only claim” is.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim f..”That is pure nonsense to think that anyone thinks that CO2 causes the variation”.

        ***

        That’s a switch, Tim, a climate alarmist arguing that CO2 is not causing the warming.

    • Tim S says:

      Meanwhile, the “Climate Expert” on CNN says that this June was the warmest June in the past 500,000 years, and because of climate change it is the coldest June we will ever have again.

  53. Swenson says:

    Neither studentb nor Antonin Qwerty can describe the GHE, of course.

    Hence, they are reduced to trolling. It’s a free world.

  54. Clint R says:

    Let’s see if we can correct some of the nonsense.

    First, Ant decides to do a comment count. The count indicated RLH was the leader, which Ant tried to imply meant RLH was “dominating the conversation”. I commented that a REAL comparison of domination would be by comment length. So Ant did a “line” count, revealing the REAL leaders were:

    Gordon Robertson 111
    gbaikie 79
    Swenson 63

    Personally, I can excuse Swenson because his comments are usually on topic. He typically always mentions the cult’s lack of a GHE description. His comments are often original and clever. But Gordon and gbaikie are in another league.

    Gordon is clearly addicted to commenting. It’s so bad he doesn’t even care what he writes. He leaves his “droppings” all over the blog, never going back to correct them. He’s been confused about Moon phases, heat, entropy, and his latest claim that 400 W/m^2 would burn your feet! He can’t take any substantive criticism, as demonstrated by his recent meltdown with me. He viciously attacked me so harshly that he sounded like Norman.

    Dr. Spencer has hinted to gbaikie several times about his commenting. gbaikie completely ignores the hints, preferring to ramble incoherently about his personal interests. He’s even admitted he doesn’t care about the AGW nonsense. Obviously, he believes this is his blog.

    Maybe Gordon and gbaikie should split Spencer’s annual cost for this blog, since they seem to claim it as their own.

    Ant made the false claim that I’m ONLY opposed to long comments. I have nothing against quantity, if it has value. The key is commenting with quality. If someone’s opinion is invalid, or violates the laws of physics, that someone should be open to learning.

    The important thing to remember here is this blog is infested with people ready and willing to pervert science and reality. They claim passenger jets fly backward, ice cubes can boil water, Earth has a REAL 255K surface, and more. I oppose such attempts to pervert science.

    As per my “troll rules”, I won’t respond to nonsense.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Hes even admitted he doesnt care about the AGW nonsense.”

      Like the father of global warming who thought 5 C of warming would be a good thing to happen- because we in an Ice Age {and he was in the little Ice Age]. I don’t care if global temperature increases by 2 to 3 C. But idea that changing in global temperature are mostly or significant increase because of higher global levels of CO2, thus to related to what caused glacial periods {or huge ice sheets on North America] was wrong. As everyone knows, today, we are in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age due to geological process and plate tectonic activity. He didn’t know we were in a 33.9 million year Ice Age- but everyone knows this, now.

      • gbaikie says:

        And I am very interested in global warming cargo cult which I guess is due to the followers of this weird faith is due to not understanding the planet Venus- why is Venus surface so hot?
        And the faith that Venus was similar to Earth.

        • gbaikie says:

          Though perhaps what most obvious, is that I am interested in Space- and why NASA has failed to explored the Moon and Mars.
          And what important regarding this, is the global satellite market- I think NASA wouldn’t exist without it. And we wouldn’t have UAH without having the global satellite market.
          And getting more {and better} satellite to measure Earth temperature and do a lot stuff, is also an interesting topic.

  55. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    In winter, the troposphere looks quite miserable against the stratosphere. With such a thin troposphere, is it more likely that there will be a significant increase in winter temperatures, or a rapid decrease?
    https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif

  56. stephen p. anderson says:

    Did you guys know we’re suffering from EXTREME heat in the US? Not just heat, but EXTREME heat? That is the media narrative. They are the lapdogs of the left.

    • gbaikie says:

      Tomorrow, my weather forecast is a night time of 59 F {15 C} and
      15 C air temperature is cold.
      I am going need to wear a coat tomorrow night. And could get colder at this rate but at least my dwarf lemon tree is not in danger, yet.

    • RLH says:

      UAH USA48 (look at the top of the page) did not think so for last month.

      Year Month USA48
      2023 May +0.57
      2023 June -0.36

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The bigger the lie they can get away with the more money the media make.

  57. gbaikie says:

    Mind-Blowing Transformation at the SpaceX Starship Launch Site!

    • gbaikie says:

      Grr:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=740TF0k1V1E

      It was a bit mind-blowing, I just realized the madman, is pretty
      serious about launching a Starship from a launch pad, 3 times a day.

      And why focus on that, now??
      He making 3 towers. Or 2 with back up for one.
      Why would he want such a fast turn around for a launch pad.
      Two pads each doing 1 per week, anytime in next 2 years seems to be
      enough.
      It seems only answer is going to do ocean launch within 2 years and just going to launch most Starship from that ocean pad and just going to “start” with one ocean launch pad.
      And only use land launch {in an emergency} if ocean launch has bad weather- and land launch site has good enough weather.

      Of course another reason is one might need time to work out how get such a fast launch rate. So “the plate shower head” is just version 1 and could get to having version 3 [or higher].

  58. RLH says:

    “Quick question:
    Two identical cars are sitting in the sun in a parking lot for four hours in the summer. One car has a black bumper, the other, a chrome bumper. Which one is hotter?”

    https://www.savenrg.com/efactorfacts.htm

    • RLH says:

      Sigma has a value of 5.670374419 10−8 watt per square meter per kelvin to the fourth (W / (m2 x K4).

      To calculate differences, L = A sigma (T^4 – Tenv^4).

      This mean that small differences in sigma will have a large effect on the heat transfer via radiation. Inwards and outwards.

    • gbaikie says:

      “There are two choices: flat black or black chrome. You will pay more for the black chrome panel but you will also get hotter water as 95% of the heat collected by the absorber is trapped and only 5% is free to re-radiate out through the glazing.”
      Black chrome takes a lot heat via water heat transport- it doesn’t loses heat [very much] exteriorly via radiation or air convectional process.

      with car bumper there many factors, including other cars with shiny bumpers.

      • RLH says:

        The article says nothing about the convectional process.

        Newtons law of cooling describes that quite well.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          I know it is easier to walk barefooted on concrete than on asphalt.

        • gbaikie says:

          “There are two choices: flat black or black chrome. ”

          You have two choices to buy, flat black painted finish or black chrome painted finish.

          In regards to chrome, in general.
          You can get some metal plated with chrome or you can paint
          anything with chrome colored paint. Or use color of paint called
          black chrome.
          Paints could metallic pigments in them. You could get gold paint but
          it’s unlikely to have actual gold in it, likewise I don’t know what
          metallic pigments are in black chrome paint, but unlikely, chrome metal. It’s mostly glossy black paint have different emission properties compare to flat black paint. And the clear gloss would probably be more significant than metallic pigments giving it a brand name: “black chrome”

          • RLH says:

            Notice how small changes in sigma affects things a lot more than small changes in thermal conductivity.

          • RLH says:

            P.S. Most radiators are bright (i.e. shiny) chrome plating finishes.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            I have seen old fashioned water radiators coated with several layers of paint and they warmed the room just fine.

          • RLH says:

            But those layers of paint do not effect the way that those same radiators spread their energy by radiation at all. /sarc

    • Swenson says:

      RLH,

      Your source –

      “The chrome bumper reflects 96% of the heat and only absorbs 4% but this heat is “trapped” in the bumper as only 4% can emit from the surface. Immersed in a bath of infrared (the sun), the steel under the low emissivity surface of the chrome bumper will soon exceed that of the one painted flat black.”

      This is just as silly as the “heat trapping” nonsense of the GHE fools.

      These well meaning dingalings have no clue. Put a chrome, flat black, Perspex, or concrete bumper in a freezer, exposed to 100% IR from the walls, roof, and floor, and convince yourself that the interior of the chrome bumper stays hotter because of “heat trapping”.

      No free energy. No heat trapping. No GHE.

      • RLH says:

        So explain why chrome tools get so hot in the sun.

        • Swenson says:

          RLH,

          Oooooh! Another stupid attempt at a gotcha!

          Either you believe you know the answer, and are trying to make me look stupid, or you don’t, but are pretending you do. That makes you look stupid, which you obviously are, posing such a witlesss, poorly framed gotcha.

          You demanded that I tell you “why chrome tools get so so hot in the sun.” If you really don’t know it’s due to sunlight, you are exceptionally stupid!

          Now, you can whine all you like that you really meant to say something else. Maybe you should engage your brain, before hammering away on your keyboard. If you believe that I am wrong about something, just say so, and say why, if you believe you have supporting facts.

          Others can make up their own minds. I certainly change my views when I am presented with new facts. You?

          • RLH says:

            So are the tools hotter than if they were painted flat black?

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            You wrote “So are the tools hotter than if they were painted flat black?”

            I don’t know, why ask me?

            I hope you are not stupid enough to believe that two objects which have different thermal conductivities, but are at the same temperature, will feel equally hot to the touch?

            Here’s a hint – trying to make someone look foolish by asking a poorly framed gotcha (particularly if you start your gotcha with “So, . . .”) is unlikely to work to your benefit.

            By the way, if you are going to actually measure the temperature of your objects, you need to realise that consumer IR thermometers are calibrated for an emissivity of 0.95 in general. You will find that the apparent temperature of the chromed surface is quite different from its temperature measured by a different type of thermometer – contact, for example.

            Now, you tell me what the measured temperatures were, exposure times, thermal conductivity of the paint, its emissivity at the frequency of the heat source, and so on. All about as silly as asking me how hot a 2N3055 transistor gets dissipating 5 watts! Heat sink? Liquid nitrogen cooling system? In direct sunlight with air temp of 50C? In a blizzard at -40 C?

            Go ahead, try another stupid gotcha, fool.

            Then go and try and get a clue.

          • RLH says:

            It’s emissivity which changes, not thermal conductivities.

  59. Norman says:

    test

  60. gbaikie says:

    Regarding emissivity, there was something I keep forgetting to mention.

    In regard to “climate science” or if like global warming cargo cult,
    or popular views said about the general topic.
    Earth on average is suppose to emit about 240 watts per square meter.
    Which also means Earth absorbs about 240 watts per square meter.

    Part of this 240 watts is suppose to come directly [or could say, not altered] and the number given is about 40 watt.
    40 times 6 = 240. Or 40 watts is 1/6 of 240 watt.

    Or we “know” about 16% of sunlight is radiantly emitted and is not absorbed by anything in atmosphere {it goes directly from surface and does not interact with anything and goes into space}.

    Now if want to argue about the 240 or 40 number- fine. But my only point is some portion of absorbed sunlight goes directly into space.

    And I would add, that ocean absorbs most of the sunlight and ocean surface is unlikely to emit a high portion of that 40 watt number.
    I tend to imagine mountains emit a lot of it, though mountains are tiny, tiny portion of entire Earth surface.
    So allowing for tiny portion of surface, per square meter of mountains, they do “more”.

    • Swenson says:

      gb,

      No need for complicated calculations, if you believe Baron Fourier.

      During the night, the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.

      Mountains, deserts, ocean, lakes – it doesn’t matter. After four and a half billion years of sunlight, all have managed to come into existence and cool.

      Fourier’s conclusion seems to fit with observations.

      No CO2 heating. No mysterious GHE (which nobody can describe in any way which accords with reality).

      • Swenson says:

        Ken,

        Oooooh! Multicolored graphic! How impressive! Complete nonsense of course, a fantasy created by idiots.

        Supported by more idiots. The accompanying text says “Energy from the sun is mostly in the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.”. That particular idiot lives in a dream world, disconnected from reality.

        Maybe you share his fantasy, and would like to say why? Or you could just scuttle away, preferring not to appear stupid or gullible.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        It shows about 18.4 w/m^2 being dissipated via convection, which is ridiculous.

      • RLH says:

        I love it that wind and wave energy is not covered by that image at all. Of course the globe is static in that regard all the time /sarc.

      • Nate says:

        “Oooooh! Multicolored graphic!”

        Swenson was the bully in school who insulted the smart kids’ haircuts, outfits, big words, and really just for being too intelligent.

        He never grew out of it.

        • RLH says:

          So Nate is your contention that loses due to wind, wave and friction/turbulence are not needed? They all take energy from the total to operate.

        • Swenson says:

          Nate,

          Oh dear! You might need a refund from the con-man you sold you the mind-reading course.

          Trying to avoid the fact that you cannot even describe the GHE makes you look extremely stupid.

          Maybe you try some pathetic and pointless trolling?

          [laughing at dimwitted reality denier]

          • Nate says:

            “Maybe you try some pathetic and pointless trolling?”

            Ok, here goes:

            Oooooh! Multicolored graphic!

            Nah, that’s your thing, not mine.

        • Nate says:

          “So Nate is your contention” did I say anything about any of that?

  61. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim…” The primer mover for delivering heat from the surface to the atmosphere is latent heat. Convection and radiation are both much smaller and both similar in magnitude. Just like heat from a radiator to a room is similar for radiation and convection”.

    ***

    Tim…I have no idea where you come up with this stuff.

    Latent heat does not leave the surface. It is consumed in breaking hydrogen bonds in water to release molecules as vapour. Certainly, the WV has more KE than the molecules bound as water by hydrogen bonds, but I hardly think you can call that latent heat. You can feel the warmth of the vapour against your skin and that makes it sensible heat.

    Any heat leaving the surface is sensible and it rises by convection only. It represent the heat in the water created by solar energy therefore it represents surface heat.

    According to Shula’s experience with the Pirani gauge it is simply not true that heat dissipation is equal between radiation and convection. Conduction/convection is 250 times more effective at dissipating heat than radiation.

    Besides, Trenberth’s energy budget does not claim they are equal, it’s just that he has it backwards. Radiation is an insignificant cooling agent at terrestrial temperatures.

    • gbaikie says:

      –TimI have no idea where you come up with this stuff.

      Latent heat does not leave the surface. It is consumed in breaking hydrogen bonds in water to release molecules as vapour. Certainly, the WV has more KE than the molecules bound as water by hydrogen bonds, but I hardly think you can call that latent heat. You can feel the warmth of the vapour against your skin and that makes it sensible heat.–

      Water vapor leaves the surface. Latent heat happens when gas becomes liquid and also when it become solid.
      Before that, water vapor in the air {atmosphere} is both condensing and evaporating [this related to wet lapse rate {or dry lapse rate}].
      Also the high troposphere of the Tropics has a lot ice in it.

      Anyhow the energy is not “consumed”, energy is just transformed into different states of matter.
      So, require heat for ice to become liquid, and heat to make gas, gas to liquid gives heat, and liquid to solid gives heat {no energy is gained or lost}

      Now in dry atmosphere you a lower partial pressure of water vapor.
      Or if atmosphere didn’t have water vapor, liquid and solid water will just evaporate {unless H20 is about -150 C- so water does both, evaporates and condenses- it earning money and spending money, constantly.

      Anyhow tropics is warm and wet- until goes high enough then it’s cold and dry. But it’s warmer and wetter than rest of world at that higher elevation, and as goes higher, molecules can move distances “better”- though not a lot better- anyhow, the tropical ocean heat engine.

  62. gbaikie says:

    How much warming can we expect in the 21st century?
    Posted on July 8, 2023 by curryja | 16 Comments

    by Hakon Karlsen

    A comprehensive explainer of climate sensitivity to CO2
    https://judithcurry.com/2023/07/08/how-much-warming-can-we-expect-in-the-21st-century/

    “According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the atmospheres climate sensitivity to CO2is likely between 2.5 and 4.0C. Simply put, this means that (in the very long term) Earths temperature will rise between 2.5 and 4.0C when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles.

    A 2020 study (Sherwood20) greatly influenced how the IPCC calculated the climate sensitivity…..”

    “Nic Lewis took a closer look at this study, and in September 2022, he published his own study (Lewis22) that criticizes Sherwood20. By correcting errors and using more recent data, including from AR6, Lewis22 found that the climate sensitivity may be about 30% lower than what Sherwood20 had found.”

    So how much money does government want to spend- around 400 trillion
    and 30% of 400 is 120 trillion. I think this Sherwood20 owes me a significant amount of repartition. And when it pays me, I might give Nic 1/2 of it.

  63. Gordon Robertson says:

    clint…”Gordon is clearly addicted to commenting. Its so bad he doesnt even care what he writes”.

    ***

    I have been staying away from controversial comments about you but if you want to be stupid I’ll expose all your pseudo-science.

    “Hes been confused about Moon phases, heat, entropy, and his latest claim that 400 W/m^2 would burn your feet! He cant take any substantive criticism, as demonstrated by his recent meltdown with me. He viciously attacked me so harshly that he sounded like Norman”.

    ***

    You are clearly an immature twit who cannot control his emotions for the good of skeptics and Roy’s blog. Yet, when Roy banned you years ago, you butt-kissed to be re-instated. That makes you a snotty-nosed butt-kisser.

    There was no meltdown on my part, it was you who went out of your way to criticize the length of my posts, clearly envious that I have the ability to write lengthy posts wheres you are limited to insults and ad homs. You had no reason to attack me other than your immaturity and to be a legend in your own mind.

    You have zero understanding of heat and entropy. Even when I quote the definition given by Clausius for entropy, a concept he invented, and offer proof from his equation for entropy, that it is about heat and not disorder, you stick to your stupid ideas it is about disorder.

    Then you offer up an equal stupidity that heat is not energy but a transfer of energy. When I ask what energy is being transferred, you have no response. It is heat being transferred dumbo…thermal energy.

    Now you are trying to tell me that if I wound heating elements over a square metre. rated at 400 watts and placed a thin, steel plate on it that standing barefoot on the plate would not burn my feet.

    I worked on a computer that had a 2N3055 power transistor mounted on the metal cabinet door as a heat sink and it only outputs about 10 watts. If you touch the metal can of the 2N3055, it will burn your skin. You could have cooked eggs on the metal door. I’d hate to see the same 1/8 inch aluminum door with 350 watts worth of heat trace on the other side.

    You offer yourself as a teacher, which is a joke. You have nothing to teach. All you do is offer acerbic comments to anyone who dares to disagree with you. You have a problem with immaturity and as far as I am concerned you are a detriment to the skeptic cause.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      You don’t even know what troll means as applied to the internet. If you have ever encountered a real troll you’ll know what it means.

      A real troll has many of the characteristics you possess. Trolls like to take over a group and control it. When they are resisted they resort to tactics to disrupt the group. That’s you. More recently, you have become insufferable with your on-going attacks on posters.

      I am expecting you to use more harsh troll tactics in the future as posters wake up to your need for power.

      As for me, I’ll use the traditional anti-troll technique, ‘Don’t feed the trolls’. I have been ignoring you but you insist on attacking me, a typical troll tactic.

      • studentb says:

        “Trolls like to take over a group and control it.”

        Of course, nobody would ever accuse you of doing that to this site.👀

        • Swenson says:

          studentb, please stop trolling.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          stupid b…I have stated my intention several times.

          Number 1 is to support Roy and John with their work at UAH. That means respecting Roy as a scientist and a professional and not challenging him in a manner that would diminish his standing in that respect.

          I disagree with Roy on several key points but I support him fully on his stance on global warming/climate change. There’s a difference between stating my points neutrally, and owning them as my opinion, or stating them in a manner that is derogatory to Roy.

          I appreciate the fact that Roy has been open-minded in that regard because I would have been censored expressing my views on many other sites. I have posted in the past on other sites and never had a problem with my opinions being stated. I mean, what good is science if people cannot express alternate views?

          I have always been careful to back my claims scientifically. If I have been wrong on anything I have stated, I am still awaiting an objective critique.

          Another motivation for me is to speak up on behalf of people who will be harmed by climate alarmist policies. From what John Christy has stated openly on that subject, I feel that I am aligned with John. I am talking humanitarian issues.

          I tend to push my opinions on atomic structure and basic quantum theory but I have a strong background with such matters,both theoretically and practically. What is being construed as me trying to control proceedings here is my eclectic interest in science that parallels the issues about climate science. I am simply trying to point out that science in general is suffering from myopic and conventional thought.

          Many in Roy’s blog have voiced their opinion about my views on time, especially as related to Einstein’s theory of relativity. I am not denouncing Einstein as a person or a scientist, I am simply questioning his understanding of time. I have spent years studying time and what it is as part of awareness seminars and as I have pointed out, Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock was just as critical of Einstein’s thought experiments.

          Roy wrote an essay on evolution, and although he has religious leanings, I thought his paper was very scientific. I agree with what Roy wrote on the subject. As I have pointed out, Newton was far more religious than Roy and he is still regarded by many as the top scientist of all time.

          I think Newton would have laughed at Darwin’s silly theory about evolution. Or the claim that the Moon rotates on a local axis. He would have chided the interpreter for failing to dig deeply enough into the Latin used by Newton.

          Anyone who thinks I am here to troll is either seriously stupid or has way too much time on his hands.

          • studentb says:

            Geez!
            I landed a big fish with this response today.
            Don’t you love the condescending comments about Einstein and Darwin. You can’t make this stuff up!

          • Swenson says:

            studentb, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            “Number 1 is to support Roy and John with their work at UAH. That means respecting Roy as a scientist and a professional and not challenging him in a manner that would diminish his standing in that respect.”

            This is otherwise known as blind appeal to authority.

            Antithetical to how science works. And is how authoritarianism works.

            The papers of even the most renowned scientists are still questioned, critiqued, challenged and not blindly accepted. Because no one is infallible.

          • RLH says:

            Nate: So what is your critique of UAH processing? Remembering that NOAA/STAR is in close agreement with UAH.

          • Clint R says:

            Gordon, have you sent Roy your check for his blog costs yet? A blog like this used to cost about $2000/yr. I expect it’s more now.

            I expect he would welcome your payment more than your vacuous brown-nosing.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo posts another long rant promoting his flawed views of science. He writes:

            I have always been careful to back my claims scientifically. If I have been wrong on anything I have stated, I am still awaiting an objective critique.

            Gordo refuses to accept the interpretation of radiation heat transfer as widely accepted by engineers and scientists, referring to early work by Clausius on thermodynamics. He ignores the fact that the Clausius 2nd Law applied to mechanical systems, particularly reversible processes. Sorry, mister expert, thermal IR radiation heat transfer doesn’t follow those rules. The absorp_tion of thermal IR radiation by a body does not depend on the temperature of the source, only the emissivity of the surface in the appropriate range of wavelengths.

          • Bindidon says:

            Once more, Robertson intentionally lies about what Newton wrote in his Principia Scientifica.

            ” … Or the claim that the Moon rotates on a local axis. He would have chided the interpreter for failing to dig deeply enough into the Latin used by Newton. ”

            This is a pure lie.

            *
            I have published Newton’s original Latin text often enough (Book III, Prop. XVII, Th. XV), along with a list of translators of the original text, but people like Robertson always restart their nonsense from the beginning.

            Funny thing is that the Robertson ignoramus just chided poster boy Clint R but of course supports him 100% when it comes to the lunar spin.

          • Bindidon says:

            Funniest of all is that people like Robertson always claim that others ‘appeal to authority’, but they always do exactly the same thing themselves.

            Robertson’s authorities he permanently appeals to are

            – Roy Spencer & John Christy
            – EM Smith aka chiefio
            – R.W Wood
            – Gerlich & Tscheuchner
            – Louis Essen (or better: the contrarian anti-Einstein blogs which misuse Essen as alleged contradictor to Einstein)
            – Stefan Lanka in the virus discussion

            etc etc etc.

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            You wrote –

            “Funny thing is that the Robertson ignoramus just chided poster boy Clint R but of course supports him 100% when it comes to the lunar spin.”

            Pathetic attempt at trolling.

            I assume you don’t support everything Sir Isaac Newton wrote, but correct me if I’m wrong.

            I suppose because I don’t support John Tyndalls view that the heat of the sun must be due to meteoric impacts, then I must disagree with everything else he demonstrated by experiment?

            You really are a silly chap, using ad hom attacks to draw attention away from the fact that you cannot describe the GHE. What an idiot you are!

            Next thing, you will be claiming that you can peer into the future by carefully dissecting the past.

            Do try.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”[GR]Number 1 is to support Roy and John with their work at UAH. That means respecting Roy as a scientist and a professional and not challenging him in a manner that would diminish his standing in that respect.

            [Nate]This is otherwise known as blind appeal to authority.

            Antithetical to how science works. And is how authoritarianism works”.

            ***

            A blind appeal to authority would mean blindly accepting everything Roy and John Christy state. I have already declared that I don’t agree with Roy on several points of science. Even at that, we are essentially on the same page with regard to global warming/climate change.

            However, there’s also respect. I don’t think it’s cool to go onto the site of a professional scientist and try to draw him into a debate where he is the only one who can lose his reputation. I appreciate Roy making this blog available and allowing me to offer views with which he likely disagrees. I also appreciate the stance made by Roy or John on global warming/climate change, based on evidence, and I have no interest in trying to denigrate their views.

            On the other hand, Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann over at realclimate would ban me in a second for even suggesting something other than what they preach. That’s what you alarmists think is cool.

            In case it has escaped you, some good science is beginning to emerge on Roy’s blog from diverse discussions that would not be available on restrictive blogs. When you try to restrict discussion, unless the discussion is totally inadequate, you end up with bland science.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…” He ignores the fact that the Clausius 2nd Law applied to mechanical systems, particularly reversible processes. Sorry, mister expert, thermal IR radiation heat transfer doesnt follow those rules. The absorp_tion of thermal IR radiation by a body does not depend on the temperature of the source, only the emissivity of the surface in the appropriate range of wavelengths”.

            ***

            The 2nd law applies to the direction of heat transfer. Clausius dealt with the equivalence of heat and work (mechanical energy) but the heat portion is governed in its direction, by its own means, from hot to cold.

            Clausius stated that heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law. That’s a no-brainer since energy transfer in general is governed as well by another basic rule of thumb that energy can never be transferred by its own means from a lower energy potential to a higher energy potential.

            Unfortunately, Clausius knew nothing about electrons or the electromagnetic energy produced by them. Like his peers of that era, he thought heat could flow through space as heat rays.

            Apparently you are still under the influence of that incorrect anachronism since you believe heat can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo repeats his old claim about me:

            …you believe heat can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.

            No, Gordo, the NET ENERGY EXCHANGE is always from hot to cold. You are confusing static temperature, such as the increase in the BP temperature in the GPE, with dynamic energy transfer from the BP to the surroundings, which is a constant. Applying your logic, the addition of extra insulation to a building’s envelope would violate the 2nd Law, as the interior of the building would exhibit a temperature increase for a constant rate of energy supply with a fixed external temperature. That’s basic heat transfer engineering. Gordo never learns.

          • Ball4 says:

            Its not just a belief. Clausius meant a measure of kinetic energy was transferred by its own means and a measure of thermal KE transfers both cold to hot and hot to cold simultaneously between two objects in view of each other as proven by Planck’s cited experiments.

          • Nate says:

            “not challenging him in a manner that would diminish his standing in that respect.”

            Again, when any scientist publishes, they are opening up their assertions to challenges.

            That is the point of publishing and how science advances. And Roy fully understands it.

            Obviously being polite is more likely to lead to a response from Roy.

    • Clint R says:

      I’m enjoying your meltdown, Gordon. And I’m especially enjoying your denial that you’re in a meltdown!

      Your insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations only prove how willing you are to pervert reality.

      Your believe that 400 W/m^2 could burn you is just another example of your ignorance of science. The human body emits a little over 400 W/m^2.

      I know it’s hard for you to ignore me when you’re so obsessed with me. That’s why this is so much fun.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Your amateur psychology is on par with your amateurish understanding of physics. You are so shallow it’s easy to see right through you.

        If dremt and I had not bailed you out with your lunar theory, by bringing respectable physics to it, you’d have sunk just like you are sinking now. You have managed to alienate yourself from alarmists and skeptics alike, so you are good at one thing. You have slowly turned yourself into the quintessential troll.

        The only option available to you is to back off and hope everyone forgets your bitterness and cynicism.

        • Clint R says:

          Gordon, I’m enjoying your meltdown. And I’m especially enjoying your denial that you’re in a meltdown!

          Your insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations only prove how willing you are to pervert reality.

          Your believe that 400 W/m^2 could burn you is just another example of your ignorance of science. The human body emits a little over 400 W/m^2.

          I know it’s hard for you to ignore me when you’re so obsessed with me.

          That’s why this is so much fun.

  64. gbaikie says:

    Evidence of new volcanic process on Moon discovered

    “,,,
    The Chinese Chang’E 1 and 2 lunar orbiters were key in the discovery. Siegler noted, “Using a microwave wavelength instrument, we have been able to map temperatures below the Moon’s surface. We found that one of the suspected volcanoes, known as Compton-Belkovich, was incredibly radiant at microwave wavelengths.”

    These findings hint at the existence of a heat source beneath the volcano, not on its surface, as infrared technology might suggest. This discovery implies that Compton-Belkovich hides a larger heat source beneath its visible structure.

    Given the last known eruption of this volcano occurred approximately 3.5 billion years ago, the heat detected is unlikely to originate from molten lava. Rather, scientists believe it stems from the radioactive elements present within the now solidified rock. They concluded that only granite would contain sufficient quantities of these radioactive elements.

    The evidence, collated using this groundbreaking microwave instrument, suggests that this lunar volcano was once fueled by a larger granite magma chamber beneath it, representing the most Earth-like volcanism found on the Moon to date.”
    https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Evidence_of_new_volcanic_process_on_Moon_discovered_999.html

    This is really weird.

  65. RLH says:

    SEE O TOO Abso r p tion Distribution: Simple Calculation & Intrepretation

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSm49BFKvDY

  66. David May says:

    It is not surprising that there is such a variation in model conclusions. The total of all forcing net of feedbacks roughly balances the suns effect on the earth of 200 Watts per square meter. Models should first consider the total amount of CO2 and other forcing elements, rather than the changes. The proper base for doing this is Kelvin if not 0 kelvin then something close to it. So a 1C or K change in temperature is a 1/3 percent change. If a major forcing such as CO2 or a major feedback such as water vapor changed by 5%, arguably there would be a net change in forcing of 3%, which is enough to change global temperature by 9 C. This not being admissible, climate sensitivity must be adjusted to correspond to observed temperatures. The one degree C change in temperature from 1850 to 2022 could be dismissed as within a margin of error. The bottom line is that the earths temperature is extremely sensitive to changes in forcing of a few percent. This is not the first time this point has been made in the blog but it is worth emphasizing. In my opinion, the error ranges of the model inputs, and factors not considered such as, in my opinion, the misestimation of methane emissions, of decreasing aerosols and of geothermal activity in the deep ocean make it impossible to know which model, if any, is worthy of trust.

    • Clint R says:

      David, you start off with the cult nonsense about “forcing”. But, you end up making some good points.

      Realize that CO2 has NO ability to provide a “forcing”. It supplies no energy to the system, and the energy from a 15μ photon would have no effect on a 288K surface. A REAL forcing is something like El Niño, or last year’s Hunga-Tonga eruption. Of course, don’t forget Sun!

      • Entropic man says:

        CO2 has NO ability to provide a forcing. It supplies no energy to the system,

        Will you get off that delusional hobby horse.

        Co2 does not need to supply energy to the system. The energy is already in the system, delivered by sunlight. ALL CO2 does is prevent about 1 part in 1000 from leaving.

        If the climate system were a bank account CO2 would reduce your outgoings by about one cent for every ten dollars.

        • Clint R says:

          Poor Ent, physics is WAY over your head.

          “The energy is already in the system, delivered by sunlight.”

          Correct, It’s the Sun, stupid.

          “ALL CO2 does is prevent about 1 part in 1000 from leaving. If the climate system were a bank account CO2 would reduce your outgoings by about one cent for every ten dollars.”

          Incorrect. Photons do NOT account as does money. 99 gazillion 15μ photons can not raise the temperature of a 288K surface more than one 15μ photon.

          Or for simpletons, ice cubes can NOT boil water.

          Stick with trying to pervert reality Ent, like your claim that passenger jets fly backward. You’re not any good at science.

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          You wrote –

          “ALL CO2 does is prevent about 1 part in 1000 from leaving.”

          At night, the temperature falls, but you might deny this. All energy radiated by the surface goes away, never to return. The temperature falls.

          A cylinder of pressurized CO2, left out at night will cool. All the energy that the CO2 radiates goes away, lost, vanishes, never to be seen again.

          You are quite made. Nothing can stop an object radiating energy. If the object radiates more than it receives, it cools. Just like the Earth has over the past four and a half billion years. Just like the surface does every night.

          You are deluded or exceptionally gullible. Try getting a description of the GHE which reflects reality. I know it would make no difference – facts do not affect the mindset of the psychotic individual.

          Keep at it. I enjoy a good chortle at the expense of the mentally challenged.

    • Entropic man says:

      David

      An energy flux of 240W/m^2 enters the climate system and 239W/m^2 leaves to space.

      That is an imbalance of 1/240 *100 = 0.41%.

      That is still enough to raise the energy content of the oceans by 10^22Joules/year and raise the global average temperatures by 0.2K/decade.

      To put the change into perspective, we have warmed 1.2K since 1880.

      5K warming brought us out of the last glacial period. Another 5K would put into Eocene conditions with hippos in the Thames.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry Ent, but the 240 W/m^2, 239 W/m^2, imbalance, and ocean energy content are all imaginary values from your cult. So, like your passenger jets flying backward, you wont be seeing any hippos in the Thames.

        Why do you hate reality?

        • Entropic man says:

          If you think my numbers are imaginary, then you must have better numbers.

          Since temperatures are increasing there must be more energy coming in than is going out.

          How much energy is coming in, how much is going out and how big is the imbalance?

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            “Since temperatures are increasing there must be more energy coming in than is going out.”

            Not at all. Thermometers respond to heat. Light a candle. Put a thermometer bulb in the flame, watch the temperature increase.

            The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight – CO2 and all!

            Less energy in than our!

            Are you an idiot, or just a delusional SkyDragon cultists, trying to sell something that you can’t even describe?

            Carry on.

          • Clint R says:

            Swenson has it right, Ent. Earth could care less about “energy in vs energy out”. Earth does NOT track energy. Earth responds to temperature. You can “trap” all the 15μ photons you want but you still can’t raise the temperature of a 288K surface. Thinking that “trapping” low energy photons makes a difference is one of the many errors in the GHE nonsense.

            You haven’t answered my question — Why do you hate reality?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        test

      • David May says:

        My study, found now at myclimatequestions.com, finds that the recent rise of 0.2 per decade is in large part by decreasing (probably temporary) aerosols, as several excellent studies have confirmed, but that the IPCC has completely ignored. The temperature drop in the mid 20th century was on the other hand, caused by increasing aerosols. If one allows for these effects, and uses this site’s present temperatures, the temperature increase per decade over 100 years is 0.1 C with no acceleration.

        I distrust projections in general, but my best guess would be another 0.8 C by 2085. Several very hard to project events could cause a large change one way or another.

        • Ball4 says:

          Totally ignored by IPCC? No. The top-of-atmosphere flux trend/decade over 2002/09-2020/03 in aerosols is measured with 95% confidence at .01 +/- .04 W/m^2 out of a net of 0.65 in the period. Nature’s real attributed aerosol trend amount last couple of decades somewhere in that range could be very slightly positive or negative on global temperatures.

        • Nate says:

          “If one allows for these effects, and uses this sites present temperatures, the temperature increase per decade over 100 years is 0.1 C with no acceleration.”

          But this site’s temperatures start only 1979.

          In any case, you seem to be more certain than climate science about the relative strengths of aerosol and GHG forcings over the century.

  67. Mark wapples says:

    Roy.

    In the UK media much has been made of the first couple of days in June being the highest ever according to Climate reanalyser.

    Could I ask if you have seen anything in your satellite data that suggest the Earth average temp has suddenly jumped nearly half a degree since last month.

    • Clint R says:

      As Roy does not usually read comments this far down the thread, this recent jump is likely due to the combination of the warming ENSO waters and the Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE).

    • Entropic man says:

      Mark

      It’s not as unlikely as it sounds.

      For three years La Nina conditions have been storing more heat than normal in the oceans and surface temperatures have been low.

      Now we have switched to El Nino and all that stored heat is coming back out to the ocean surface and the atmosphere.

      Hence the jump in measured temperatures.

      Look at the monthly graph above. You can see the same effect in 1998 and 2016.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        You wrote –

        “For three years La Nina conditions have been storing more heat than normal in the oceans and surface temperatures have been low.”

        Physically impossible. Get some water, store some heat in it for three years. Let the heat put. Put your fingers in your ears to block out the sound of people laughing at your gullibility.

        You are as delusional as the idiotic Keven Trenberth, and it’s a travesty.