Yes, Virginia, there is a Climate Crisis

July 17th, 2023 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Virginia O’Hanlon, a real girl, wrote a real letter.
Virginia O’Hanlon, a real girl, wrote a real letter, to Dr. Roy.

Dear Dr. Roy:

I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Climate Crisis. My Papa says, “If you see it in Dr. Roy’s climate blog, it is so.”

Please tell me the truth. Is there a Climate Crisis?

Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or women’s or children’s or ze’s or transgender’s, are little. In this great universe of ours humans are mere insects, ants, in their intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him/her/they/them, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole truth and knowledge.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Climate Crisis. It exists as certainly as taxation and death and congressional favors and subsidies exist, and you know that they abound and give to some people’s life its highest riches! Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Climate Crisis! It would be as dreary as if there were no poor people. There would be no special favors, no bird-chopping windmills, no Teslas to give wealthy people a reason to exist! We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which affluence fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in the Climate Crisis! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire persons to watch all the private jets on Earth Day to catch Al Gore, but even if they did not see Al Gore, what would that prove? Nobody sees Al Gore, but that is no sign that there is no Al Gore. The most real things in the world are those that neither conservatives nor Trumpers can see. Did you ever see Greta Thunberg dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that she was not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man/woman/person, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men/women/persons that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond mere reality!

Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Climate Crisis! Thank Gaia It lives and It lives forever! A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10 thousand years from now, It will continue to put fear into your heart!

Amen!


825 Responses to “Yes, Virginia, there is a Climate Crisis”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. stephen p. anderson says:

    All the World is a stage.

    • Pedro deSwift says:

      In Sydney Australia we have two weather stations. One at Observatory Hill, one kilometer south of Sydney harbour bridge and one at Belrose 20k north of that site.

      On the TV evening news, in the weather segment they show temperatures for the surrounding state. Every night the Observatory hill site is 2 deg C warnmer. There is 20 kilometers between the two sites. They are at similar altitudes and distances to the Tasman sea.

      This diferential is not just now and then but every night..
      The Belrose site is bounded by a four land road to the south and bushland to the north. The Observatory hill site is in the middle of an intense down town business district.

      Urban heat effect is 2deg C which is more than the amount claimed as warming by the BOM since 1910. So it can be claimed that Australia has cooled since 1910.

      So Virginia really needs to buy a heavier blanket.

      • pedro deSwift says:

        Just a bit of clarification. Belrose weather station houses the rain radar for Sydney. Belrose Radar site is mostly surrounded by forest. If you stand on the Belrose radar dome you can see the Observatory hill site in the distance surrounded by sky scrapers and intensly busy freeways.

        The approximate daily reported maximum temperature difference is 2 degC between Belrose and Observatory Hill. ie Belrose 19 degC. Sydney Observatory Hill 21 degC.

        The Australian BOM states “Australias climate has warmed by an average of 1.47 0.24 C since national records began in 1910.

        1.47 plus 0.24 equals 1.71 degC. Observatory Hill UH island effect equals 2 degC. 2 deg UHI minus 1.71 degC BOM temp claim is 0.29 degC.

        So there could be 0.29 deg cooling not 1.71 warming since 1910.

        • Pedro deSwift says:

          Correction /clarification
          The Australian BOM states Australia’s climate has warmed by an average of 1.47 deg C plus or minus 0.24 C since national records began in 1910″.

          1.47 plus 0.24 deg C equals 1.71 deg C. Observatory Hill Urban Heat island effect equals 2 deg C.

          2 deg UHI minus 1.71 deg C BOM global warming temp claim is 0.29 deg C.

          So UHI effect could be masking 0.29 deg C GLOBAL cooling plus or minus something since 1910.

          The Australian BOM site includes a sea surface temp that runs at about a third of the land surface temp in years since 1980.

          In 1980 wide body jets were replacing smaller aircraft at many Australian airports – where most of the land based weather stations are located.

          • Nate says:

            “So UHI effect” what you are discussing is an ~ steady difference between two nearby sites.

            Whereas the nationwide warming is over a period of time, and for a properly sampled average of the whole country.

            So this is apples vs oranges.

          • Pedro deSwift says:

            Nate. The nationwide warming is caused by the majority of temp sites being in high man made heat areas and not in the bush.

            There seems to be no attempt to remove effects that increase temp.

            The apples are colder as they are in the bush and the oranges are as hot as Hades as they are in the middle of an intense human made heat zone.

          • Nate says:

            “arming is caused by the majority of temp sites being in high man made heat areas and not in the bush.”

            Not correct, Pedro.

            All regions are sampled and must be weighted equally to obtain the country average.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”All regions are sampled and must be weighted equally to obtain the country average.”

            Not in the surface records.

          • Nate says:

            That is the goal. The vast majority of regions are sampled.

          • Nate says:

            And what regions of Australia do you think were not sampled?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            first off Nate the regions need to be climate regions and many climate regions are unsampled. For instance I live in the midst of one of the world’s largest metropolitan areas and my climate region isn’t sampled as this metro area has several climate regions within it.

          • Nate says:

            off topic.

            What regions of Australia do you think were not sampled?

          • Nate says:

            “first off Nate the regions need to be climate regions and many climate regions are unsampled. For instance I live in the midst of one of the worlds largest metropolitan areas and my climate region isnt sampled as this metro area has several climate regions within it.”

            You are defining regions differently from science.

            Regions are simply equal area boxes, weighted equally in the global average.

            In Had*crut the boxes are 5 degrees x 5 degrees.

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019JD032352

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019JD032352

          • Bill Hunter says:

            No doubt Australia also overly selects airport locations near centers of populations as does America.

          • Nate says:

            No evidence yet no doubt..

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Thats right you haven’t produced a single shred of evidence of your claim that: ”All regions are sampled and must be weighted equally to obtain the country average.”

            Since you believe this to be true to the extent you want to argue on its behalf one completely loses confidence in you when you can’t produce a well-documented study on the matter to support your adamant claim.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”So you dont provide evidence, but I am required to.”

            the way it works Nate is you make a claim and provide evidence of that claim. I test your evidence. If you have no evidence the claim is classified as your usual bloviating.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Neither of those sources has the word Australia in it.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Worse the source is about how they manufacture data from missing micro-climate data and I see no discussion at all about representative sampling of microclimates or even well defined climate regions that exist on land.

            this lack of representative sampling isn’t fixable. Its because the focus is instead on whether the record is long enough and not where it is located. This hodgepodge network everywhere was simply a process of a existing data harvest where ever it could be found and where it isn’t found its is filled in by extrapolation which is where error gets amplified by multiplication of the error.

            It is one of the major reasons that there is discussion that the entire mean global temperature could be off by 2C.

            And that is just the beginning of the data fudging.

            In all my investigations in other areas where the foxes are guarding the chicken coop the foxes always eat all the chickens they think they can get away with. The smarter the foxes the more difficult it is to unearth.

            Sick chickens provides the best cover for chicks disappearing especially when its the foxes that select the chicken coroner.

          • Nate says:

            Here’s my original claim:

            “All regions are sampled and must be weighted equally to obtain the country average.”

            Here is you denying it.

            “Not in the surface records.”

            I showed you equal sized boxes covering all of Australia are used.

            So your accusation, is FALSE.

            Now, as always, you move the goal posts to something else.

            “I see no discussion at all about representative sampling of microclimates”

          • Bill Hunter says:

            so because they are equal sized boxes you are convinced its a representative sample. Hmmmmm. . . .I guess the discussion is done here.

          • Nate says:

            Pedro seemed to that believe that high population regions with many more thermometers, must be over-sampled.

            The reality is a box in the Outback, with much fewer people is in fact weighted equally with a box around Sydney.

            So Pedro is incorrect.

            Your different topic is about micro-climates.

            Is it your view that if all micro climates inside the boxes were well sampled, then the GW would go away?

            Evidence?

            Now one way to test this is with reanalysis data. It uses weather models with available data to calculate the temperature all over, anywhere and everywhere.

            Here is recent data from that:

            https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”Pedro seemed to that believe that high population regions with many more thermometers, must be over-sampled.”
            ——————-
            and you are denying that? What evidence do you have? Seems to me thats a well known fact.

            Nate says:
            ”Is it your view that if all micro climates inside the boxes were well sampled, then the GW would go away?”
            —————-

            Strawman. I haven’t denied that there has been some general warming. But what does that have to do with the design of a monitoring network and the quality of science in measuring it?

          • Nate says:

            “and you are denying that? What evidence do you have? ”

            I showed you the evidence in the methods paper, but you didnt bother to look.

            Australia and the world are covered with equal sized boxes. The boxes are weighted equally in the country average or the global average.

            Use your noodle here. It doesn’t matter how many thermometers are in the box around Sydney! It is still just one box and counts the same as a box in the Outback.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            And the majority could favor, and do, cleared ground around an airport or airstrip. Obviously cleared ground experiences lower transpiration rates.

          • Nate says:

            Again we move the goal posts…change the subject.

            Classic Bill!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Thats not a change in goal posts. Don’t you know that an airport is a particular kind of micro climate?

            In order to properly measure temperature change as a mean one must have all regions of climate properly represented with a climate region being essentially something akin to a ecosystem.

          • Nate says:

            “an airport is a particular kind of micro climate?”

            So you think we need thermometers every 100 m?

            Good luck with funding that!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Some projects should be just shelved Nate.

            Satellites provide the kind of representative coverage demanded so why throw good money away on a network never designed for the purpose of global mean temperature. Plus with satellites you get better standardization of monitoring equipment and better control over methods of collecting and archiving the data.

          • Nate says:

            “‘Is it your view that if all micro climates inside the boxes were well sampled, then the GW would go away?’

            Strawman. I havent denied that there has been some general warming. ”

            And we do know that primarily from the surface T measurements.

            “Some projects should be just shelved Nate.”

            So now, in your opinion, unless the system is PERFECT, it is not useful?

            I agree that there are microclimates. Where I live, near Boston, the precipitation will be different depending on where you are relative to the ocean.

            But go inland a few miles, and weather is correlated over vast distances.

            In a global average, these narrow land-ocean boundaries are a small fraction of the total area.

            And we are talking about T VARIATION. Even for the different microclimates, the T variation with weather is quite correlated.

            With the help of reanalysis, we can see how much difference your microclimates make to global T trends.

            Maybe worth investigating.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            So now, in your opinion, unless the system is PERFECT, it is not useful?
            ——————-

            another Nate strawman. No Nate weather stations are useful for which they were designed and placed. Namely to inform the towns residents of the 2 week weather forecast for where they live.

            If we are going to spend money on following global mean temperature all the money should be devoted to developing sampling programs that use sampling best practices and stop handing money out to politically-favored institutions to give them busy work.

            Nate says:
            In a global average, these narrow land-ocean boundaries are a small fraction of the total area.

            And we are talking about T VARIATION. Even for the different microclimates, the T variation with weather is quite correlated.

            With the help of reanalysis, we can see how much difference your microclimates make to global T trends.

            Maybe worth investigating.
            ———————–

            Just throwing more good money after bad. You can reanalyze all you want but in the end they will use climate models to fill in missing data the parameters of which will be optimized to the politically-favored solution. I have too much experience in the area of models being used for political purposes and corruption is rampant.

            I say that without even hinting at fraud. Corruption arises abundantly, purely and ignorantly out of unconscious bias. It is fundamentally what is so wrong with top down x-theory management.

            the first and most fundamental thing you need to get right with any form of management is clean unadulterated data using the highest levels of representative and random sampling efforts.

            this type of work is well known by the Civil Service but the Civil Service has been bypassed to a huge extent with institutions that have dogs in the fight. And therein is the problem.

          • Nate says:

            “Just throwing more good money after bad. You can reanalyze all you want but in the end they will use climate models to fill in missing data the parameters of which will be optimized to the politically-favored solution. I have too much experience in the area of models being used for political purposes and corruption is rampant.”

            Standard Bill.

            Unable to make his case with science facts, he just substitutes political BS.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”Unable to make his case with science facts, he just substitutes political BS.”

            Hey once you recognize you haven’t come up with any proof of anything either we could agree on all that. The entire discussion has been political. Always has been and it seems since nobody is getting funded to actually determine how climate works. . . .at this point in time it appears it never will.

          • Nate says:

            “The entire discussion has been political.”

            No question that that’s how you view it. Its obvious that is the impetus for all your posts.

            I prefer discussing the science. Thus, there is the mismatch.

            So, go find somone else to have heated political arguments with..maybe on a different blog.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate if you wanted to talk about representative sampling I am all for it.

            But it doesn’t wash that equal sized boxes over Australia ends up as representative sampling. The first requirement for representative sampling is all your individual sampling bins must be homogeneous.

            Clearly every evenly spaced grid in Australia is going to contain multiple microclimates in different percentages.

            In order to deal with this issue you need to take numerous sampling designs to determine how your sampling is non-representative. By doing that you can determine approximately how much a bad selection of grid size and starting point can influence the results.

            Non-independent sampling by institutions with huge budgets at stake in the climate game are probably going to run algorithms to find which sampling design best suits their own interests.

            You know thats true because you don’t trust Exxon to do the sampling and the sad fact is that anybody who has an interest makes them non-independent.

            So yeah you have been just talking politics because obviously you don’t know what the science issues really are.

          • Nate says:

            Nice try at doing science, but obviously you just can’t help yourself, and resort to politcal/conspiratorial bullshit.

            “Non-independent sampling by institutions with huge budgets at stake in the climate game are probably going to run algorithms to find which sampling design best suits their own interests.”

            Now kindly go to a politics blog..

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Well its at least good that you recognize that as a reprehensible practice. A good scientist should remain blind to favored or expected results.

            But the question really is what assurance do you have that’s the case when people are working for corporations and or institutions who are receiving huge amounts of money that wouldn’t be there without certain outcomes of the sampling.

            that’s why independence is important.

        • Pedro deSwift says:

          Nate, I see you have been having some discussion with Bill Hunter on the subject of airport weather stations.

          Sydney Airport. The worst site in the world to place a weather station to measure global temperatures.

          The weather station is about 10 Kilometres south of the Observatory hill BOM site. It is 50 metres west of the main runway along side of a freeway at a point where heavy vehicles are at full throttle to climb the hill as they exit the runway underpass.

          Sydney Airport is one of the world’s longest continuously operated commercial airports and the busiest airport in Australia, handling 42.6 million passengers and 348,904 aircraft movements in 201617.
          It was the 38th busiest airport in the world in 2016. Currently 46 domestic and 43 international destinations are served to Sydney directly.
          Between June 30 2018 and May 2019 there were:- 65,860 aircraft movements over 136 tonnes, 243,556 aircraft movements between 7 and 136 tonnes.

          A jumbo jet burns around 5,000 gallons (almost 19,000 liters) of fuel to take off and climb to cruising altitude.

          Energy density for Jet A-1 fuel 34.7 MJ/L [13] (9.6 kWh / L) Jet A fuel 35.3 MJ/L (9.8 kWh / L)

  2. So it begins says:

    The cusp of climate crisis has begun. Globally the eco system is reeling. Yes there is a climate crisis. Only in the minds is stubborn ideological twisted mens minds there is not. What harm is there is making our water pure and our atmosphere pristine as God intended.The many will want change. The few will continue to dig in and shove Thier in the hole. Nothing see here cranky old men telling lies to your children

    • gbaikie says:

      China emits the most CO2 and China average air temperature is about 8 C.
      How can you convince anyone that an air temperature of 8 C is actually too warm.
      It’s a challenge that nobody is facing.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      I would like to see all the plastic and trash cleaned out of the ocean and then a continuous process of doing that. I agree with you on that issue. But the eco isn’t reeling because of CO2. If anything, CO2 is helping the planet.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Are you aware of the colossal size of the world’s oceans? And the depth. Sure, we need to stop dumping garbage in our oceans but they are hardly reeling.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Yes, and it could feasibly be cleanedespecially in some areas where it tends to accumulate.

        • lewis guignard says:

          Two things. There is an organized effort to clean the trash up.

          Search: ocean plastic clean

          Plastic is not a true pollutant. It is trash. You drink water from plastic containers regularly because it doesn’t contaminate.

    • gbaikie says:

      Dennis faith in his rationality, amuses me.
      I am going with Roy’s view.

      And related, if God revels himself, it not going to increase my
      faith.., would be, my guess.
      More like, now, I am going to get in trouble.
      Isn’t that rational, isn’t that how all the stories, always go?

      And Captain Kirk’s question, why does God, need a Starship?
      The evidence of God is everywhere.

  3. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Eastern Circulation in the Western Pacific. Lack of atmospheric interaction on surface temperature rise in the equatorial Pacific.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/wpac/mimictpw_wpac_latest.gif

  4. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Dr. Roy Spencer I apologize if my comments are out of line with the topic, but they deal with some unusual situations in global phenomena. I think it is useful to be aware that something is changing, such as the strength of the solar magnetic field. I highly respect your work and apologize again.

  5. E. Schaffer says:

    Virginia’s picture looks like taken in the 19th century. Hope she is still doing well!

    In reality time brutally progresses, sparing no one, not even “climate science”. Serving time, in a way, I have no issues degrading the “settled science” piece by piece. Here is another hit..

    https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/the-anatomy-of-a-climate-science-disaster

  6. Entropic man says:

    Dear Virginia,

    Qui bono? (Who benefits?)

    Many of those telling you that there is no climate crisis have political or financial links to the fossil fuel industry. They benefit from continued sales of fossil fuels and therefore have a vested interest in persuading you that there is no climate crisis, despite the evidence of increasing climate change.

    There is a counterargument that those warning of climate change, such as climate scientists also benefit financially. I can tell you personally that the miserable pay did not compensate for the hours spent hunched over a microscope or sampling on a wet and windy peat bog.

    The main benefit of accepting and responding to climate change is not financial gain, it is damage avoided. I do not need to be paid to dodge a falling piano.

    Yours,

    Entropic Man

    • Anthony Kirkpatrick says:

      Dear Virginia,

      Qui bono? (Who benefits?)

      Many of those telling you that there is a climate crisis have political or financial links to the green energy industry. They benefit from continued sales of solar panels and wind turbines and therefore have a personal stake in persuading you that climate change is a human caused climate crisis, despite the evidence that climate change is part natural and part anthropomorphic. No one seems to be able to give exact percentages for each, so lets just ignore that part.

      There is a counterargument that those warning of climate change, such as climate scientists, also benefit financially. I can tell you that scientists do not get federal funds by explaining that there is no human caused crisis. On the contrary, a crisis attributed to human activity is necessary for federal funding to be distributed in sufficient quantities to support scientists living abroad while producing white papers based on climate models designed and developed by those using federal fund distributions driven by climate alarmism.

      The main benefit of accepting and responding to climate change is continued funding as it is damage created out of thin air; yes, pun intended. I need to be paid to dodge a falling piano that does not exist, so please keep the federal funding coming my way.

      Yours,

      Skeptic Man

      • WizGeek says:

        @AnthonyKirkpatrick: Well played! Your reply is exactly the response I was about to author before seeing your post.

        • Anthony Kirkpatrick says:

          .It’s all about that base funding level! Follow the money and you will find the scientist that claims to provide the science. You don’t get more funding by concluding that there is no problem!

  7. Swenson says:

    Dear Virginia,

    There is an enormous and fearful climate crisis! Let nobody convince you otherwise!

    The crisis is due to powerful people believing nonsense like “evidence of increasing climate change.”

    Even small children know that climate is just a way of saying average weather. Grown-ups sometimes enjoy making trouble just because they can.

    A continuing and ongoing crisis.

  8. Entropic man says:

    Dear Virginia,

    Consider Pascal’s Wager.

    God may exist or he may not.

    I may believe in him or I may not.

    If I believe and he does not exist I lose nothing.

    If I do not believe and he exists, I go to Hell.

    I will therfore believe in God to minimise my risk.

    Now apply this to your question.

    Climate change may exist or it may not.

    I may believe in it or I may not.

    If I believe and it does not exist, I will have created a better world for nothing.

    If I do not believe and it exists, my descendants will suffer.

    I will therefore believe in climate change to minimise my risk.

    Yours,

    Entropic Man

    • Clint R says:

      Thanks Ent for admitting your belief in GHE is your religion.

      But, a false religion ain’t science.

      (For those that missed it, Ent believes passenger jets fly backward. False religions can do strange things to people.)

      • bobdroege says:

        Yes Virginia, there is a greenhouse effect, and gravity can put a torque on an object.

        Have you tried holding a hammer by its handle over your toes and dropping the hammer, and see if gravity torques the hammer such that the head of the hammer hits your toesies?

        • Swenson says:

          bobdroege,

          Is that the same hammer that fell on your head when you were small, resulting in your present mental state?

          You know, the condition that makes you say “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”?

          Have you found anyone to agree with your description of the greenhouse effect?

          Santa Claus, perhaps? Or the Tooth Fairy?

        • Clint R says:

          Poor brain-dead bob doesn’t understand free-fall.

          He doesn’t understand orbital motion.

          He doesn’t understand vectors.

          He doesn’t understand any of this.

          He’s brain-dead.

          • bobdroege says:

            Just another personal attack from someone who doesn’t understand torque.

          • Swenson says:

            Bobdroege issues just another personal attack ( from someone who doesnt understand torque).

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Clint R claims gravity can not produce torque.

            Of course he is wrong, and I suggested a very simple experiment to demonstrate that.

            I did that experiment and observed gravity producing torque.

            You want a free body diagram showing how that happens.

            50 bucks.

          • Clint R says:

            Brain-dead bob, you must pervert my words.

            I was clearly talking about Moon. Earth can NOT create a torque on Moon.

            Either you’re incompetent or dishonest. Possibly both….

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            “Earth can NOT create a torque on Moon.”

            Sorry chump, it is happening right now.

            You know the Moon is not of uniform density?

            Maybe you don’t.

  9. Fred M. Cain says:

    GREAT tongue-in-cheek article. I love it ~ !

  10. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Dear Virginio climate change is associated with natural cycles, of varying duration. For example, there was a time when North Africa was the granary of food for the entire Roman empire.

  11. George Tobin says:

    Brilliant!

  12. argusmanargus says:

    Rather you blog about what happened during and after the last strong El Nino and other interesting tidbits.

  13. Roy Spencer says:

    Virginia asked me whether the climate crisis was real, and I felt compelled to assure her that it is just as real as Santa Claus.

    • gbaikie says:

      Santa Claus is real, And climate crisis is more real because governments say that they are going to fix it.
      And governments have been concerned about over population and now worried about under population.
      And their true talent is in starting wars, genocide, and creating pandemics.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Yesiree, it is real because tyrants and their myrmidons use crises to their advantage. Always have.

  14. studentb says:

    Crisis? What crisis?

    “Conditions in Iran were recently pushed beyond what humans can withstand as a heat wave gripped much of the world, with record-breaking highs expected in Italy and Spain.”

    Everything is just hunky-dory. Nothing to see here.

    • Swenson says:

      bobdroege,

      “The surface of its sand has been measured at temperatures as high as 70.7 C (159.3 F), making it one of the world’s driest and hottest places.”

      You’re right. Nobody lives in the Lut Desert in Iran. Severe lack of H2O GHG results in extremely ho5 surface temperatures.

      I suppose some people believe that more GHGS make the surface hotter.

      Tell that to the people who don’t live in the Lut Desert because it is too hot and too dry.

  15. Tim S says:

    For me, the big issue is the hype and outright dishonesty by some people. The latest example is the headline news that Phoenix hit a new record. It was 110 F. Wait, Phoenix is commonly much hotter than that. What was the record? It was over 110 for 19 days in a row. The old record was in 1974. Is there something special about the number 110? How many days was it over 108, or 105? How many odd records can we invent?

    • bobdroege says:

      There was nothing dishonest about reporting 19 days in a row at or above 110 F.

      • Tim S says:

        Really?! It is an example of hype. Hype was in the first sentence. Do you need any other help with that? Do you think the record is important? Does it prove that “climate change is already happening”?

        • bobdroege says:

          Just because you call it hype, doesn’t mean what was reported was false.

          And one weather event does not prove climate change is already happening.

          Isn’t it a claim by some that climate always changes?

          There is never a proof for climate change, science does not work that way, proof is for math and spirits.

          There is a bit of evidence saying climate is changing faster now than in previous episodes.

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            You wrote “There is never a proof for climate change, . . . “.

            Of course not. Climate is a definition. It’s the statistics of historical weather observations. Some people say that climate change causes climate change, which is about as bizarre as saying that weather causes weather!

            There are some who even believe that they can forecast future climate states (whatever that means – weather? the future statistics of weather?).

            Such people are obviously out of touch with reality, wouldn’t you agree?

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Your education is sorely lacking if you

            “There are some who even believe that they can forecast future climate states (whatever that means weather? the future statistics of weather?).”

            are wondering what a climate state is.

            I could point you in the right direction, except for your personality.

            I am not in the habit of helping assholes.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            OK, Bob, show us your evidence that the climate is changing faster now than it EVER has.

          • bobdroege says:

            Stephan,

            First you have to show me where I made that claim.

            Then I’ll tell you climate changed faster than now when an unidentified planet sized object collided with Earth several billion years ago.

            Or when an asteroid collides with Earth about 66 million years ago and caused an extinction event.

            You ask questions an eighth grader could answer.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            OK, saying the climate is changing faster now than in previous episodes means the same thing as EVER. Previous encompasses everything before.

          • bobdroege says:

            Stephen,

            No it doesn’t, because data on the rates of previous are difficult to measure.

            You lack English skills as well.

            Compared to the rate of change coming out of the last glaciation, yes it is faster now.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            OK, show us your evidence that the rate of change is faster now than at any time since the end of the last glaciation.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Bob,
            I said, show me your evidence, not someone’s speculation.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Their contemporary models can’t get the temperature correct. Why on earth would you use the same incompetence to estimate temperatures thousands of years ago? Why are you guzzling this Kool-Aid?

      • Tim S says:

        Do you think this not hype?

        “The length of Phoenix’s heat wave is notable even during a summer in which much of the southern United States and the world as a whole has been cooking in record temperatures, something scientists say is stoked by climate change.

        What’s going on in a metropolitan area known as the Valley of the Sun is far worse than a short spike in temperatures, experts said, and it poses a health danger to many.

        “Long-term exposure to heat is more difficult to withstand than single hot days, especially if it is not cooling off at night enough to sleep well,” said Katharine Jacobs, director of the Center for Climate Adaptation Science and Solutions at the University of Arizona.

        “This will likely be one of the most notable periods in our health record in terms of deaths and illness,” said David Hondula, chief heat officer for the City of Phoenix. “Our goal is for that not to be the case.”

      • Tim S says:

        According to Wikipedia the AVERAGE temp. in June is 104, July 107, and August 105. So 3 degrees above average for 3 weeks is now evidence of a climate crisis that is killing people?

        • gbaikie says:

          It got to 109 F, here last week, the warmest day in quite awhile, but 119 F day would count as pretty hot.
          But Phoenix is suppose to have a lot UHI effect and so it’s hot and muggy.
          But that’s what I heard, never been there.

        • bobdroege says:

          Yes, it’s one card in a big deck.

          And so far the average temp for July is over 112.

          • Swenson says:

            bobdroege,

            You wrote –

            “Yes, its one card in a big deck.”

            Are you sure someone didn’t leave the sixes and sevens out of your deck when you were born?

            Just posting what a twelve year old could, won’t make you look any smarter than the twelve year old.

            Maybe you try asking others how smart your description of the GHE – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” – makes you look.

            You are looking more like a joker than an ace!

          • bobdroege says:

            Just a juvenile attack on another poster Swenson.

            Is that all you got?

          • Swenson says:

            bobdroege,

            You wrote

            “Yes, its one card in a big deck.”

            Are you sure someone didnt leave the sixes and sevens out of your deck when you were born?

            Just posting what a twelve year old could, wont make you look any smarter than the twelve year old.

            Maybe you try asking others how smart your description of the GHE “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” makes you look.

            You are looking more like a joker than an ace!

          • bobdroege says:

            So you repeat the juvenile attack, is that all you got?

          • Swenson says:

            bobdroege,

            Maybe you try asking others how smart your description of the GHE –

            “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”,

            – makes you look.

            Yes, Virginia, there is a GHE, and bobdroege has just described it.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson, you realize I am making fun of you with that definition of the greenhouse effect.

            It’s only for you, for smarter people I could give a more detailed description.

  16. Entropic man says:

    Gordon Robertson

    Thank you for an unusual orange, pink and purple sunset in Northern Ireland.

    Low level stratus from a local weather system topped by streaks coming in at high level from the West and Northwest.

    Last time I saw this pattern it was due to a volcano in Iceland, This time it is probably smoke from the Canadian wildfires.

  17. gbaikie says:

    Will Wind Turbines Be Generating More Waste Than Electricity?
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/18/will-wind-turbines-be-generating-more-waste-than-electricity/
    “For the governments that subsidized the construction of wind turbines, its now time to subsidize the decommissioning and recycling.

    Summary: With 43 million tons of blade waste projected to be produced EVERY YEAR by 2050, there is an urgent need to establish decommissioning, restoration, and recycling standards.”

    I will note that Musk rejected making his Starship from composite material. It’s possible he will make Starship from composite material. It used to be a fad. VentureStar was going to use it, but it failed, badly.
    It seems to me, one should make things of titanium if you going to put something in the ocean.
    And Titanium would be very easy to recycle. It’s never junk, it’s more like gold. It might problem in terms of it being stolen, so the current blades, have a sole advantage in terms of no one wanting to steal them.

  18. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    It turns out that so-called “climate change” does not affect local nature. Plants and animals are perfectly adapted to so-called “climate change” because they have it in their genes. There are people who have lived in deserts for centuries and are adapted to local climate change. However, only emperor penguins are adapted to the Antarctic winter. The flowering of deserts in California and animals living in deserts in Australia are prime examples. Let’s leave these areas to those to whom they have belonged for thousands of years.

  19. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    One important thing to remember. The troposphere in winter over the Arctic Circle lowers almost to the surface, especially in Antarctica. When the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is disturbed, more water vapor reaches above the Arctic Circle, the radiation of which is detected by satellites. This is the basis for the claim that sea ice is melting. However, water vapor in the stratosphere radiates into space, not to the surface. Sea ice melts because of the temperature of the ocean. I don’t know if the satellites are calibrated for such a low troposphere.
    https://i.ibb.co/BzNK6bG/zt-sh.gif
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_SH_2023.png

  20. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    There is now a serious disruption of the southern polar vortex in the lower stratosphere. An ozone spot has formed, which is moving very slowly below Australia and blocking the polar vortex.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t70_sh_f00.png
    https://i.ibb.co/fFwB6G1/gfs-o3mr-30-sh-f00.png

  21. Nate says:

    Most of the public doesnt pay attention to a problem until it is in their backyard. Especially when the problem is supposed to be coming in the future. And worse when it involves statistics.

    Climate change doesnt make everywhere warm all the time. It just shifts the probability distribution, which makes extreme warming or extreme rain events more likely.

    But there are many backyards in which weather is extreme right now. It is being noticed and commented on. Not surprisingly, and often correctly, it is being linked to climate change.

    Nor is it surprising that skeptics or those with a skeptical agenda want people to disregard what they see in their backyard right now.

    Nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing to do with climate change. Soon there will be a lack of climate change apparent somewhere, and we will highlight that for you. Then you should pay attention!

    No Virginia, there is nothing to worry about, as long as you stay inside. And don’t look out the window. Here’s a tablet, play Candy Crush for the next month. Ok maybe for the next year.

    • Entropic man says:

      Virginia,

      Don’t look up.

      • Clint R says:

        Good analogy, Ent.

        The sky is falling!

        That’s how you keep the hoax alive. Absolutely NO science, just fear and made up garbage like passenger jets flying backward.

    • Tim S says:

      Nice work Nate, you just did it right here with that comment. The question is not whether odd weather events can be expected, whether there should always be the same weather pattern every season, or whether climate is changing on earth? The question is how much if any of that can be attributed to human activities, and then which activities those are? It is a complex question with an unknown answer.

      There is natural variability in the weather from year to year. That is not climate change. Anyone making claims about the certainty of human influence in the weather or climate is either dishonest or misinformed. Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas emissions such as CO2 and methane should have some effect on warming. The science IS settled on that. The magnitude of that effect is not well known. The wide variation in the results of climate model prediction proves that. The further leap from predicted warming to the effect on worldwide climate is just a guess, however educated that guess might be. The claim that it is a crisis requires the biggest leap of all.

      40 years of accurate measurement, observation, and analysis is not enough time to say there is a trend. These 40 years cannot be willfully projected into the future, In fact, different data sets produce at least some variation is the results of measured data.

      Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.

  22. RonH says:

    Making predictions is hard, especially about the future… Yogi Berra

  23. David Shingledecker says:

    Who among us can tell when in history climate hasn’t changed? Only the addition of humanity makes it a crisis.

  24. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” is a line from an editorial called “Is There a Santa Claus?” that appeared in the September 21, 1897, edition of The New York Sun. It was written by one of the paper’s editorial writers, Francis Pharcellus Church.

    In 1897, Philip O’Hanlon, a coroner’s assistant on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, was asked by his then 8-year-old daughter, Virginia O’Hanlon (18891971), whether Santa Claus really existed. O’Hanlon suggested she write to The Sun, a then prominent New York City newspaper, assuring her that, “If you see it in The Sun, it’s so.”

    Church was a war correspondent with the Army of the Potomac during the American Civil War, a time that saw great suffering and a corresponding lack of hope and faith in much of society. He was a hardened cynic and an atheist who had little patience for superstitious beliefs, did not want to write the editorial, and refused to allow his name to be attached to the piece.

    Yes Virginia, keep the bad news light: https://imgur.com/a/nmvh0q4

  25. Clint R says:

    The usual suspects, in this case studentb, bob, Nate, and Ent, are championing their cause. All have fully swallowed the GHE nonsense because they have NO understanding of the science. They don’t realize that Earth is near the peak of a long-term natural warming trend and now is dealing with the effect from the Hunga-Tonga eruption, along with a new El Niño forming.

    Although the EN is not yet official, by all agencies, the ENSO 3.4 waters are nevertheless warmer than “normal”, and ejecting large amounts of thermal energy. The HTE may be weakening, but is still causing warming. With the combination of a warming trend, El Niño, and HTE, it’s no wonder Earth will see record high temperatures.

    This could last for months, leading to record high anomalies in UAH global, as well as all major reporting systems. This is REAL, unlike any GHE nonsense. When you have a REAL climate forcing, you don’t need to “torture the data” endlessly, looking for it. These REAL forcings allow us a chance to learn science, including how Earth will deal with the high temperatures. We’ve got a good seat to watch it all happen.

    • gbaikie says:

      Well global warming or global climate temperature is about measuring global surface air temperature over long periods of time [the least amount of time, some want to be 17 years and others think 30 years is the least amount time to “count”.

      And you all are talking about variation in weather effects?

      • gbaikie says:

        I think if want to talk about weather, you include that we are at solar max {which over long term might be a weak solar max}.

      • Clint R says:

        gb, my comment was about the forcings that will affect global temperatures.

        If you want to distract with an argument about “climate” vs “weather”, that’s up to you and any gullible participants.

        • gbaikie says:

          In terms of climate, cool is drier air, warm is wetter air.
          With drier air one gets more extremes in temperatures- both hot and cold.
          Also Urban heat island effect cause higher temperature and more humidity {it feels and is hotter for people}.

          We should make ocean settlements.

    • studentb says:

      “With the combination of a warming trend, El Nio, and HTE, its no wonder Earth will see record high temperatures.”

      This reeks of desperation. Such confused thinking.
      (1) the warming trend is dismissed as some sort of magic event that is impervious to the laws of physics
      (2) El Nino is not a forcing – it is an effect
      (3) HTE causes cooling, not warming

      • Clint R says:

        (1) The warming trend is NOT dismissed, it is REAL. We don’t understand all of the causes — probably ocean oscillations which are still being studied. We know for certain that CO2 cannot raise surface temperatures.

        (2) El Nino raises atmospheric temperatures. In REAL science, that is a “forcing”.

        (3) HTE is a well known to raise global temperatures, as revealed by satellites. Even your cult acknowledges such. Maybe you are thinking of a “normal” volcano, which can cause cooling due to particles reflecting sunlight.

        • gbaikie says:

          More 90% of it is the ocean warmed a bit from the time of Little Ice Age.
          So our ocean with average temperature of about 3.5 C could warmed as
          much as .2 C.
          If our ocean could warm by .5 C, so it was about 4 C it would be as warm or almost as warm as past interglacial periods.

          It’s said sea levels dropped a few inches and cooled by .1 C during Little Ice Age. And claimed past interglacial periods had ocean of at least 4 C.
          But this was due to the Milankovitch cycles. And I say, also due other factors.
          Or seems of our ocean were to warm to about 4 C, it would have to do with humans causing it. And I suggested way it could done, but it cost a few trillion dollars.

  26. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The problem is when the northern jetstream sets up parallel in summer, as it is now over Europe, and cuts off the north-south air flow.
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/07/19/1700Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=19.05,47.90,853

  27. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The high over Italy and Greece will persist for at least another week. Very high threat of fires in Greece.
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/07/24/1000Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-344.24,46.01,853

  28. Eben says:

    Climate shysteria – Europes 48C Horror That Never Was

    https://notrickszone.com/2023/07/19/europes-48c-horror-that-never-was-esa-media-sharply-criticized-for-manipulative-reporting/

    Next thing they will be reporting the temperature of black asphalt in the sun

  29. Eben says:

    Why the long face ???

    John Kerry Returns From Climate Change Talks in China With NOTHING

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/shocker-john-kerry-returns-climate-change-talks-china/

    • Tim S says:

      China has made firm commitments in the past. They have agreed to stop increasing their emissions in the year 2030 and then seriously consider making reductions.

  30. gbaikie says:

    How the 2015 Major El Nio Was Predicted Years in Advance using a Lunar Cycle
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/19/how-the-2015-major-el-nino-was-predicted-years-in-advance-using-a-lunar-cycle/
    By Javier Vins

    “The Earths oceans contain a vast mass of cold water beneath a thin layer of warm water, and the limited amount of mixing between them plays a crucial role in our existence. Tides, primarily influenced by changes in the moons orbit, are the main force behind this mixing, which has the potential to cool the climate.”
    ,,,

    “While it may be unreasonable to claim that the cooling climate of these periods was caused solely by the increase in tidal forcing, it is plausible to consider that tidal forcing played a role in enhancing the cooling effect beyond what would have occurred in its absence. They projected another peak in tidal forcing in the coming 2030s (labeled D in the figure). This should coincide with my projection of a temperature drop due to the coincidence of low solar activity and the transition of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation into its cold phase. Nature has yet to show its true strength to our overconfident climate modelers. ”

    Hmm. Mixing can result in cooler weather, but warming our cold ocean is global warming.

    Our vast cold ocean is warmed by mixing and by oceanic geothermal heating- both take a long time.

  31. I’m not sure if there is any right way to discuss climate change with an eight-year old, but I am very confident that this essay is NOT the right way. The sarcasm here would be over the head of a youngster.

    (1) In my opinion, the right way to discuss climate change with a child is to start with a discussion of predictions, and how rarely they come true. (This lesson worked for me as a child, and later allowed me to immediately dismiss long term climate predictions when I started reading about climate science in 1997, many decades later).

    Then explain the coming climate crisis is nothing more than a prediction — one that began in 1979 (with the Charney Report).

    Explain that smart people have been waiting 44 years for that 1979 prediction to come true, and we are getting tired of waiting. But the true believers have kept making the same wrong climate prediction 44 years in a row.

    The people predicting a climate crisis insist that everyone must do as they say, without question, or the world will end. For the past 44 years, they have insisted that no one should even question their predictions of doom or try to prove them wrong.

    Smart people ignore predictions because they are almost never right.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      I was not familiar with the “Charney Report”. The main conclusion is that a doubling of CO2 would produce a warming of 2.0 – 3.5 C.

      From 1979 (when the report was published) to 2019, CO2 rose from about 335ppm to 405 ppm, or just over 20%. 20% of 2.0 to 3.5 is 0.4 to 0.7. That is 4 decades, or about 0.1 to 0.175 C/decade. Because of the non-linear effects of additional CO2, the numbers would actually be higher — about 0.13 to 0.24 C/decade. The lower number is right in line with Dr Roy’s 0.13 C/decade.

      The 40+ year old predictions are the low side, but they “did come true” here. And since predictions “so rarely come true”, this should be evidence that there *is* something worth looking at closer in!

      • Clint R says:

        Folkerts, a natural warming trend could easily match a natural log trend, But correlation is NOT causation. That’s even truer when the correlation is not very close.

        First principles wipes out the GHE nonsense. As Swenson keeps reminding you, your cult can’t even come up with a consistent, viable description/definition of the bogus GHE.

        • bobdroege says:

          Yeah Right,

          Correlation is not causation, blah, blah, blahblahblah.

          Try 0.8

          https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691/tables/1

          That’s pretty good for something that isn’t one to one and onto!

          • Clint R says:

            Nature.com???

            You really are hard up for a source, bob. That org is owned by Holtzbrinck Publishing which has roots to Nazi Germany. They bought “Scientific American” magazine and ruined its science. It’s now just another propaganda rag.

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

            That’s just one of the reasons the “0.8 correlation” is a joke.

          • Swenson says:

            Bobby,

            You wrote “Correlation is not causation, blah, blah, blahblahblah.”

            You are correct.

          • Nate says:

            “which has roots to Nazi Germany.”

            Yeah..no one should own a Volkswagen, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes either, right Clint?

            Don’t trust any products from Krup, Bayer, Merck, Siemens, Zeiss and dozens of other companies.

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

            They are all guilty by their association with people from 80 years ago.

          • Clint R says:

            Cars aren’t evil, Nate. It’s man’s perversions of reality that are evil.

            Enjoy your raw chicken as you fly backward on a passenger jet.

            (You won’t get the hint.)

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            You lose the thread by Godwinning it.

          • Clint R says:

            (See what I mean?)

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            If you mean that everyone who publishes in Nature is a Nazi, then no, I don’t see what you mean.

            You might try attacking the science, instead calling people Nazis.

            There is a name for the fallacy you are using, you know, poisoning the well.

          • Swenson says:

            Bobby,

            You wrote –

            “You might try attacking the science, instead calling people Nazis.”

            Anybody who writes something like that obviously does not understand what science, and the scientific method, is all about.

            Richard Feynman wrote “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says “science teaches such and such”, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesnt teach it; experience teaches it.”

            Attacking science is attacking knowledge – obviously a central tenet of the GHE true believers’ faith.

            You can describe the GHE as you did, saying “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”, and hope desperately that people believe that you are practicing “science”, but just spouting nonsense which cannot be supported by reproducible experiment, is not going to make you look particularly intelligent.

            What’s wrong with calling people Nazis (or Christians, or Jews, or druids, or SkyDragons, etc.), anyway? You obviously don’t support free speech. Are you scared that your feelings might be hurt?

            You may call me anything you choose. Will my “feelings” be hurt? Not unless I allow it to happen.

            You might try taking a teaspoon of cement, and hardening up – don’t be such a precious flower, easily wilted.

          • bobdroege says:

            Mikey funny Swengoolie,

            “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better., and hope desperately that people believe that you are practicing science,”

            Dear chappie, you can’t seem to recognize when some one is practicing science and when someone is making fun of you.

            That was a paraphrase of your description of the greenhouse effect.

            “Whats wrong with calling people Nazis”

            Geez, I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.

            Are you really that slow?

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “Folkerts, a natural warming trend could easily match a natural log trend, But correlation is NOT causation. ”

          You are attacking strawmen.
          * I never discussed a cause for the observed warming trend.
          * I never said anything about correlation or causation.
          Your comment is unrelated to what I said or what Richard said.

          The claim was “smart people have been waiting 44 years for that 1979 prediction to come true”. The truth is the claim (2 – 3.5 C warming per doubling of CO2) is coming true. Yes, we are close to the lower limit, but the claim is on track and has been ever since 1979. Richard *wants* the claim to be wrong, so he *assumes* it is wrong.

          Smart people analyze predictions, and think critically about the claims, they don’t automatically dismiss predictions just because they don’t agree with their personal biases.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You wrote “is coming true.”

            Exactly – it hasn’t come true yet. Your devout hope that something will come to pass in the future is commendable, but completely worthless.

            Try collecting a bet on a horse before the winner has crossed the line, and formalities have been completed. Your absolute faith that your horse would win, evidenced by the money you had placed on it, is meaningless to the bookmaker, who works on fact.

            A prediction which “is coming true” is still speculation.

            A prediction which “has come true” is a fact – no longer a prediction at all.

            You wrote “Smart people analyze predictions, and think critically about the claims, . . . “. Worthless. Naomi Oreskes proffered herself as an expert (a smart person, I suppose) in support of the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael,Mann. “When asked about the methodologies that she used in this case, Dr. Oreskes responded: “If you want me to tell you what my method is, it’s reading and thinking. We read. We read documents. And we think about them.”” – Judge Irving, part of reasons for dismissing Dr Oreskes as an “expert”.

            After four and a half billion years, the surface is no longer molten. Each night it cools, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little interior heat.

            You said “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.” A downward slope, obviously. Have you decided that the GHE has an overall cooling effect, now?

            You don’t seem to have a coherent idea about the GHE, do you?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “You wrote “is coming true.”

            Exactly it hasnt come true yet. ”

            No. The prediction has and continues to come true. The warming rate has been and continues to agree with a prediction of 2 – 3.5 C per doubling. The numbers are right there. What part did you not understand?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:
            ”No. The prediction has and continues to come true. The warming rate has been and continues to agree with a prediction of 2 3.5 C per doubling. The numbers are right there. What part did you not understand?”

            If one makes an ass out of oneself one can pretend thats true but there is no evidence it is. We can pretend that natural climate change is fully understood when nobody has an explanation for it. We can pretend that say an as yet unhealed ozone layer from the release of manmade gases is more consistent with the varying rate that we have seen over the past decades of climate change than is the accelerating rate of carbon emissions. Warming has slowed down which would be consistent with a healing ozone layer.

            And of course that is only one of many possibilities of how climate is changing.

      • RLH says:

        The IPCC models are running WAY too hot. So the CO2 calculations are, at the best, suspect.

        • bobdroege says:

          Maybe way too hot, but definitely not WAY too hot.

          https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/02/another-dot-on-the-graphs-part-ii/

          Since they are running somewhat too hot, then we should not do anything about it, right.

          Me for one, am glad there are solar panels and wind farms going up like the mushrooms in my lawn.

          I know I shouldn’t have a lawn, but some of it is rock.

          • Swenson says:

            Bobby,

            You wrote –

            “Since they are running somewhat too hot, then we should not do anything about it, right.”

            Right. You are correct.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Are you saying we should continue to use fossil fuels when they are no longer the cheapest way to produce electricity?

          • Swenson says:

            Bobby,

            You wrote –

            “Are you saying we should continue to use fossil fuels when they are no longer the cheapest way to produce electricity?”

            What are you babbling about?

            What particular form of mental disability leads you to think I have said the words which you attribute to me?

            If you want to generate electricity, you may choose any method you like. “Cheapest” is a very vague term – you probably meant to say something like “most cost effective in the given circumstances”, but suffer from some degree of intellectual disability.

            Maybe you should abandon your silly gotchas, and stick to describing the GHE as “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”

            Nothing wrong with increasing the amount of laughter in the world.

            It might help Virginia to feel less panicky about the climate crisis.

          • Norman says:

            bobdroege

            https://tinyurl.com/4jucv6u2

            If the link works it takes you to MISO energy page. That is an energy distribution in Middle of US.

            In the graph it shows what the current wind is. At the time of this post it was 1,400 MW. The current demand is 82,000 MW.

          • Norman says:

            bobdroege

            This is a normal summer status. Wind dies down for days and demand is high. The potential wind is in MISO is 25,000 MW. Wind works well in Spring and Fall when demand is low and wind is high.

            The problem with the renewables is not the cost factor. It is the reliability factor. If not for fossil fuels millions would be without power for days. Nuclear could bridge the gap if they could lower the cost and find good solution for radioactive waste generated.

            At this time, if humans want electric power they have no options. Wind will not supply the demand, not even close. It would not matter if 200,000 MW of potential wind power was installed in the MISO region. If the wind does not blow there is no power.

          • Norman says:

            bobdroege

            Currently (at time of post) the whole US has very low wind conditions.

            https://www.windy.com/?41.234,-96.393,5

            Some in Texas but not near enough wind to run the US at this time. Electric Power storage ideas are even available for market. Even if some miracle technology (that is currently even on the horizon) comes up for massive electrical storage it will still take many years to get this set up.

            If you go solar (which only supplies peak power a few hors a day) some have already done the calculation of 21 million square miles of area. Are there even enough raw materials for such a large area?

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            You are right. I want electricity when I need it. My electricity supplier uses fossil fuels. He obviously thinks that fossil fuels are the cheapest way of generating saleable energy.

            Or maybe he is completely mad! I don’t know, and I don’t care. Ignorance – and apathy.

          • Norman says:

            Whoops! Just realized I made a major error. The solar panel area would be 21,000 Square Miles (not million) I was going by someone’s calculations but 21,000 Square Miles is still a very large area of needed material. Apologize for the error.

          • Nate says:

            Norman,

            Solar and wind are a small but growing fraction of the energy mix.

            Obviously storage, or conversion to hydrogen, and long-distance transmission will enable it to become a larger fraction.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            bobdroege says:

            ”I know I shouldnt have a lawn, but some of it is rock.”

            Even the advocates of socialism have a lot of problems being little obedient socialists.

          • bobdroege says:

            Norman,

            “If the link works it takes you to MISO energy page. That is an energy distribution in Middle of US.”

            Look a little deeper into your page, you will find MISO contains Iowa, which is a leader in wind, 57% of Iowa’s power comes from wind.
            MISO gets 16% of its power from wind.

          • bobdroege says:

            Bill,

            The best governments mix some socialism in with the capitalism.

          • RLH says:

            Maybe we should keep note of those models that have definitely been proven wrong to date and exclude them from future consideration.

          • bobdroege says:

            Mikey Swengoolie,

            “Nothing wrong with increasing the amount of laughter in the world.”

            Yes exactly, we are laughing at you buddy!

          • bobdroege says:

            “Maybe we should keep note of those models that have definitely been proven wrong to date and exclude them from future consideration.”

            Which ones are those?

            You know, all of them are wrong.

          • Norman says:

            bobdroege

            I think you missed the point. The 57% figure and 16% are averages over the year. That does not help you when you need the power now.

            Currently wind is suppling (at time of post) 2.72%. It has been low like this for days.

            As I stated wind is good in spring and fall with lots of wind available (but then it goes up and down so you might have enough power one day then not enough the next)

            Wind can be a good back-up source for power for when it blows but at this time it is not reliable enough to maintain any form of civilization.

          • RLH says:

            Maybe we should keep note of those models that have definitely failed to represent the ‘now’ and exclude or demote them in future considerations.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            bobdroege says:

            Bill,

            The best governments mix some socialism in with the capitalism.

            ———————————————-

            Perhaps Bob but thats just a case of there being no truly capitalistic nations.

            Fact is capitalism and socialism are two diametrically opposites.

            You can have socialism that doles out some weird kind of political favors that appears to be capitalism. But in a capitalist country socialist governments wouldn’t have that power.

          • bobdroege says:

            Bill,

            I don’t recognize capitalism as a form of government.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Bob,

            Of course capitalism isn’t a form of government.

            Obviously you need some government.

            But that doesn’t mean government should by default be the owner of the production and distribution of goods.

            Sure you can have socialist governments that willing allow some or a lot of private ownership but there are no cases where that doesn’t involve a lot of corruption and a great deal of illusory ownership in form only as opposed to substance (e.g. that ownership is only allowed via the convenience of the state as opposed to being on the basis of rule of law and due process)

            Law has always been part of human endearvor whether democratic or authoritarian. But when laws are passed on the basis of fiction to allow the government to interfere in private business thats a huge problem. And quite honestly from the point of view of today’s mainstream Democratic party thats already happened via the adoption of concepts of precaution, post normal science, and best science available. Precaution is obviously something we need to pursue to some extent when risk is known but precaution built on the latter two concepts is quite problematical.

            Accountants and other professionals wrestle with these concepts as a major part of what they do for a living and its driven by accountability of professionals to the persons their work is performed for.

          • bobdroege says:

            Bill,

            Do you find the current batch of republicans more or less corrupt than the democrats?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Absolutely Bob. I can’t say more or less that would require one helluva an investigation.

            Corruption is rampant and one party doesn’t have a monopoly.

            Which makes ”Draining the Swamp” probably the most important issue of our times.

          • bobdroege says:

            Your buddy just got indicted again.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Yep, one should grow to expect it routinely from ”the laws are for thee and not me” crowd.

      • Tim S says:

        What is your theory for the warming during the 1930’s. What was the rate of CO2 increase in that period? Very few would argue against the cooling period from about 1950 to 1980. Did CO2 decrease in that time frame? Just asking for a friend.

        • bobdroege says:

          Was there significant global warming in the 1930’s or just some bad farming habits confounding a natural drought, leading to some local heat waves?

          I would argue the period from 1950 to 1980 was not statistically significant either way.

          Other than the normal annual fluctuations in CO2, no, CO2 did not decrease in that period.

          Does your friend have any other questions?

          • Tim S says:

            Actually, my friend would like to know if Tim Folkerts can defend his claim that seems to suggest the worst narrative of all, that CO2 is the dominant effect in the atmosphere. But thank you for demonstrating the crisis only exists in the form spin and hyperbole.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim S,

            If I might clarify your statement – no offense intended.

            “Actually, my friend would like to know if Tim Folkerts can defend his claim that seems to suggest the worst narrative of all, that CO2 is the dominant effect in the atmosphere. But thank you for demonstrating the crisis only exists in the form [of] spin and hyperbole.”

            Sometimes GHE true believers are a bit on the slow side, intellectually speaking.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Actually, my friend would like to know if Tim Folkerts can defend his claim that seems to suggest the worst narrative of all, that CO2 is the dominant effect in the atmosphere. “

            Strawman alert! I never said anything remotely like this. I would like you to defend your claim that I claimed “CO2 is the dominant effect in the atmosphere.” Or even that I ‘suggested’ such a thing.

            For the record, I think CO2 is one of many factors that affect climate. No one factor ‘dominates the atmosphere’.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            Previously, you wrote –

            “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”

            Maybe you might like to clarify your claim. Is the “small long-term slope” responsible for warming or cooling?

            Or maybe either or neither?

            Not terribly satisfactory, Tim. A bit vague at best.

          • Tim S says:

            Tim Folkerts, this is your full statement in context:

            “I was not familiar with the Charney Report. The main conclusion is that a doubling of CO2 would produce a warming of 2.0 3.5 C.

            From 1979 (when the report was published) to 2019, CO2 rose from about 335ppm to 405 ppm, or just over 20%. 20% of 2.0 to 3.5 is 0.4 to 0.7. That is 4 decades, or about 0.1 to 0.175 C/decade. Because of the non-linear effects of additional CO2, the numbers would actually be higher about 0.13 to 0.24 C/decade. The lower number is right in line with Dr Roys 0.13 C/decade.

            The 40+ year old predictions are the low side, but they did come true here. And since predictions so rarely come true, this should be evidence that there *is* something worth looking at closer in!”

            If that does not “seem to suggest” CO2 is the dominant effect in the atmosphere, then what claim are you making. You are making a direct comparison to temperature and CO2 levels over time. That statement does not in any way say anything about “I think CO2 is one of many factors that affect climate. No one factor dominates the atmosphere.”

            You also claim that predictions about CO2 “did come true”. If you are not trying to make a direct link, then what do you mean?

          • Tim S says:

            Tim Folkerts, in the spirit of open communication, I have a suggestion to avoid defending what you believe to be a strawman. Instead of making a detailed claim that seems to make a direct link between CO2 and temperature, you could state something that is much easier to support. You could state the fact that when two things happen at the same time, it is very difficult to make a cause and effect link, when there are so many other factors involved. Can we agree on that?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Tim S, my (not-so-detailed) post was simply to highlight that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, exactly as the report in question predicted. Richard denied that the correlation existed, then used his false understanding to make further conclusions.

            That is all I was getting at with my post.

            So, yes, the correlation DOES exist here. As you point out, determining *causation* is a whole lot more challenging. Sorting out causes in a complicated, chaotic system requires deeper knowledge and deeper explorations than would be feasible in a comment in a blog.

            As for CO2 itself, there is both theoretical reasons why it should cause warming and observations of warming. It stands to reason that CO2 should be a top contender for at least part of the causation.

  32. Dennis says:

    I think these blogs could be put to more valuable use if the talents of the bloggers were devoted to developing a good set of metrics that when applied would define “climate change”

    • Eben says:

      The whole point of changing from Global Warming to Climate change is that you can’t define it, it can be whatever you want it to be and you can’t even argue there isn’t one , because there always is

      • gbaikie says:

        And everything any government does is in crisis, hence, Climate Crisis.
        But Climate Crisis is huge Crisis, tens of trillions of your dollars, Crisis.

        • gbaikie says:

          More of your money then the public education crisis, which has going on for more than century and becoming ever more a big crisis.
          The national security crisis, is small potatoes in comparison.

      • Entropic man says:

        You are correct. Global warming was changed to climate change by a White House staffer to Republican President George H W Bush for exactly the reasons you suggest.

        As part of their attempts to downplay global warming he suggested that all government statements referred to climate change instead of global warming. It was deemed to sound less alarming.

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          Why do you think that “climate crisis” is less alarming than “global warming”?

          Only joking, of course, you wouldn’t have a clue would you?

          • Entropic man says:

            I’m a bit more nuanced than the Republican Party.

            I regard human emissions as the cause, global warming as the effect and climate change as the consequences.

          • Ken says:

            a. CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas.
            b. CO2 spectrum is Saturated; it doesn’t matter how much CO2 you put in the atmosphere, it won’t cause much warming. Doubling = 3Wm-2.
            c. Climate is driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents.
            d. There is no climate crisis.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            You wrote –

            “I regard human emissions as the cause, global warming as the effect and climate change as the consequences.”

            Presumably, you think your vague “regards” are a worthy substitute for fact.

            You regard human emissions as the cause of something you do not describe. Hardly convincing, is it? Next thing you’ll be resorting to saying that “everybody knows” you meant CO2, if I point out that snot, urine, and faeces are all “human emissions”!

            I’m guessing that you are trying to make oblique references to the GHE, without saying its name, in case someone asks you to describe this mythical beast.

            Climate change is, by definition, due to the statistics of historical weather observations changing. You might be imprudent enough to deny that the actions of the atmosphere are chaotic in nature, ever changing, and unpredictable in any useful sense, but you might have to accept the inevitable laughter.

            So yes, Entropic Man, your “regards” have all the value of the paper upon which they are not printed.

            Regards, Swenson.

  33. gbaikie says:

    Cosmic threats lead the list of publics space concerns
    https://cosmiclog.com/2023/07/20/cosmic-threats-lead-the-list-of-publics-space-concerns/#more-26559
    “Sending astronauts to the moon is OK but more Americans think NASA should instead put a high priority on monitoring outer space for asteroids and other objects that could pose a threat to Earth, according to the Pew Research Centers latest survey focusing on Americans perspectives on space policy.”

    Vera C. Rubin Observatory
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C._Rubin_Observatory
    “Early development was funded by a number of small grants, with major contributions in January 2008 by software billionaires Charles and Lisa Simonyi and Bill Gates of $20- and $10 million respectively. $7.5 million was included in the U.S. President’s FY2013 NSF budget request. The Department of Energy is funding construction of the digital camera component by the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, as part of its mission to understand dark energy.”
    –Particular scientific goals of the LSST include:

    Studying dark energy and dark matter by measuring weak gravitational lensing, baryon acoustic oscillations, and photometry of type Ia supernovae, all as a function of redshift.
    Mapping small objects in the Solar System, particularly near-Earth asteroids and Kuiper belt objects. LSST is expected to increase the number of cataloged objects by a factor of 10100. It will also help with the search for the hypothesized Planet Nine.
    Detecting transient astronomical events including novae, supernovae, gamma-ray bursts, quasar variability, and gravitational lensing, and providing prompt event notifications to facilitate follow-up.
    Mapping the Milky Way.—
    First light: Expected in August 2024

    Of course going to Moon and Mars, would be very useful in terms stopping anything detected, which needs to be stopped.

    The next highest is monitoring Earth climate.
    Which would be something NOAA would fund- it’s yearly budget
    is about 6 billion dollars.

  34. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Circulation in the western Pacific is still easterly and another typhoon is forming in the Philippine Sea.
    https://i.ibb.co/9nnMPbR/mimictpw-wpac-latest.gif

  35. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Another tropical storm is forming in the eastern Pacific. Eastern circulation.
    https://i.ibb.co/0JqWKBM/mimictpw-epac-latest.gif

  36. Bo A says:

    Please define climate crisis – What does it mean and how can you tell? How do we measure it or see it?
    It’s easy to name things but we need a definition.

  37. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Mammoth Mountain, the Eastern Sierra skiing destination, will extend its open season until Aug. 6 due to record-breaking snowfall, area officials announced Thursday.

    The mountains Main Lodge received an astounding 715 inches of snow nearly 60 feet this season, with much more up top, according to a press release. It was the highest recorded snowfall in the mountains history, the release said.

  38. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    North Atlantic Daily Sea Surface Temperature… code YIKES!

    https://imgur.com/a/p9m4zUt

  39. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    In climate science, “forcings” refer to external factors or drivers that influence the Earth’s climate system and cause changes in the planet’s energy balance. These forcings can either warm or cool the climate by altering the amount of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the Earth or the amount of outgoing thermal radiation emitted back into space.

    ENSO is not a forcing in the Earth’s climate system, but rather it is a natural climate variability phenomenon.

    However, ENSO can have significant impacts on the climate system and can modify the influence of external forcings. For example, during an El Nino event, the increased ocean temperatures can enhance the release of greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and CH4) from the ocean into the atmosphere, further contributing to global warming. Similarly, ENSO can modulate the effects of volcanic eruptions by influencing the distribution of volcanic aerosols in the atmosphere.

    • Clint R says:

      Ark, you’re such a good cultist.

      ENSO can bring REAL energy into the atmosphere, raising surface temperatures. It is definitely a “forcing”. CO2 can NOT do that.

      Your cult is soooo jealous of ENSO. Too bad you don’t have a REAL forcing.

    • Tim S says:

      Do you have any data to back that claim? The most likely effect from ENSO is related to humidity and weather patterns in general, not CO2. I am not aware of any change in the measured CO2 data that could correlate with ENSO in any way. The UAH satellite data does show an amazing correlation with ENSO.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “ENSO is not a forcing …”.

      ***

      The word forcing comes from climate model jargon. The basis of models is the differential equation and forcing comes from DE theory.

      If you set up a DE to model a physical phenomenon, you need to test it by using a forcing function. For example, if I model an audio amplifier using a DE, I test the DE by applying a forcing function to it like an impulse function to see how it responds theoretically.

      This nonsense about forcings in the atmosphere is based on theory. There are no physical tests to corroborate the models.

  40. Gordon Robertson says:

    arkady idi otovich…”Yes Virginia, keep the bad news light:”

    ***

    Your link to an alleged heat wave in the UK was recently put in perspective when it was revealed the heat wave of 1921 in Europe makes the current heat wave look refreshing by comparison.

    Why do you whine on about typical summer weather? Growing up on the west coast of Canada, I have been exposed to summer heat waves since childhood. I recall summer droughts during July and August where the grass turned brown on our lawn. Grass on playing fields turned brown.

    Nothing new going on. Why don’t you whine when we have record cold spells, like last winter in Vancouver?

  41. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The jet stream is cutting off cooler air in northern Europe. Italy, Greece and western Turkey remain in the hot African air mass. Temperatures in southern Greece reach 40 C.
    https://i.ibb.co/gJ1jq88/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-07-22-122943.png

  42. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Strong monsoon in India driven by strong south polar vortex in southern Indian Ocean.
    https://i.ibb.co/dDLrhgz/mimictpw-indo-latest.gif
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/07/21/2000Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-276.55,-15.77,281
    Still high over Tahiti.
    Date Tahiti (hPa)
    22 Jul 2023 1014.10

  43. Antonin Qwerty says:

    For Gordon, who believes Newton supports his claim that the moon does not rotate on its axis … from Andrew Motte’s 1729 English translation of Principia:

    “But because the lunar day, ARISING FROM ITS UNIFORM REVOLUTION ABOUT ITS AXIS, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb …”

    • Clint R says:

      Ant provides yet another example if how his cult tries to pervert reality.

      Newton’s discussion was about how planets and moons have a day/night experience. He even titled that section using the word “diurnal”. He went on to mention “with respect to the stars”. Newton wasn’t even talking about actual axial rotation. Day/night is caused by the planet or moon presenting different sides to Sun. Ant doesn’t understand orbital motion, so he takes something out-of-context believing it supports his cult’s nonsense.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        “Newton wasnt even talking about actual axial rotation.”

        “… arising from uniform motion ABOUT ITS AXIS …”

        Care to explain that comment in light of that quote.

        .
        .
        .

        “Diurnal motion is an astronomical term referring to the apparent motion of celestial objects (e.g. the Sun and stars) around Earth, or more precisely around the two celestial poles, over the course of one day”

        Nothing to do with day vs night in this context. Please explain how day vs night has to do with ANYTHING he says in this section.

        • Clint R says:

          “Care to explain that comment in light of that quote.”

          Sure, bring Newton’s whole section here (it’s short), rather than taking things out-of-context. It’s easy to explain that way.

          “Please explain how day vs night has to do with ANYTHING he says in this section.”

          “…over the course of one day. You need to understand that night follows day. This is grade-school stuff. See what a cult does to your mind?

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            “… over the course of one day”

            That’s right – he is referring to a whole day. NO reference to day vs night.

            .
            .
            .

            “Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h 56′ (I trust you are not going to claim that that is anything but the time for Jupiter to rotate on its axis), … the sun in 25.5 days (ditto), and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.”

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            “… over the course of one day”

            That’s right – he is referring to a whole day. NO reference to day vs night.

            .
            .
            .

            “Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h 56′ (I trust you are not going to claim that that is anything but the time for Jupiter to rotate on its axis), … the sun in 25.5 days (ditto), and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.”

          • Clint says:

            Sure, bring Newton’s whole section here (it’s short), rather than taking things out-of-context. It’s easy to explain that way.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            You know that copy-paste doesn’t work well with that old book, and I am not about to type it all. You can see it, I can see it … what is the issue? Or are you looking for an excuse?

          • RLH says:

            Newton’s Principia full text as translated into English by Andrew Motte in 1846.

            https://redlightrobber.com/red/links_pdf/Isaac-Newton-Principia-English-1846.pdf

          • Clint R says:

            Well Ant, RLH was able to find it. And, Im able to find the section and copy/paste the intro:

            That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.

            So, it looks like you got caught misrepresenting Newton.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Which says absolutely nothing about whether or not it rotates.
            That is stated as clear as day in the part I cited.

          • Clint R says:

            Ant says: “Which says absolutely nothing about whether or not it rotates.”

            You’re starting to get it, Ant. That section is NOT talking about lunar axial rotation. It’s talking about what motions cause day/night on the planets/moons. Newton uses the clarifying phrase “with respect to the fixed stars” twice in the short section.

  44. Maz says:

    Brilliant, And Ive got to say its all starting to wear on me. I spent 6 years reading IPCC reports and blogs and whatever else, but I think more importantly perhaps visualising whats going on with the molecules we are interacting with. ( lol it seemed more sensible than imagining the moon orbit/rotation whatever …. thanks guys)

    For some time now, Ive been wondering why people who simply MUST know they are lying are lying? Its laughable to suggest any gas molecule “traps” heat, yet it is repeated in writing almost everywhere

    • Maz says:

      got to say I do sometimes trap fish. The release of a fish is was Id call trapped. Might take even a minute or two

    • Clint R says:

      Max, what you’re seeing is how a cult works. The members can no longer think for themselves. But, that does not really explain it. They can think quite well when supporting their cult beliefs. It’s better explained by “they reject reality”. That’s why they end up supporting such nonsense as “ice cubes boiling water”, “passenger jets flying backward”, and “Earth has a REAL 255K surface”.

      A cult can’t accept reality, or it wouldn’t survive.

  45. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    “Its laughable to suggest any gas molecule “traps” heat, yet it is repeated in writing almost everywhere”

    It is not polite to laugh at your host.

    To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.

    Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket real or greenhouse doesn’t actually create the separation between hot and cold…it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold.

    Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D., April 1st, 2009.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

    • Clint R says:

      The fact that Earth’s surface can warm the atmosphere, and the atmosphere can act somewhat as a blanket, comes for physics and thermodynamics. But nowhere in that quote is the claim that CO2 can raise surface temperatures.

      Once again Ark, you don’t understand any of this.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Yes, hospitality and etiquette are important cultural norms that transcend boundaries and play a significant role in shaping human interactions. One such unwritten rule of social decorum is the principle of not laughing at one’s host.

        Laughter is undoubtedly an essential aspect of human interaction, bringing joy and merriment to gatherings and social events. However, it is vital to exercise sensitivity and tact, especially when interacting with our hosts. The principle of not laughing at one’s host is rooted in respect, cultural awareness, and empathy. By adhering to this unspoken rule, we can nurture strong bonds, foster a positive atmosphere, and ensure that the experience of hosting and being hosted remains an enjoyable and cherished one for all parties involved. Remember, genuine laughter shared with one another will always create lasting memories, while laughter at the expense of our hosts can leave lasting scars on the beauty of human connection.

        • Clint R says:

          Ark, you sure went to a lot of trouble to create that useless straw man.

          It’s laughable….

          • Arkady Ivanovich says:

            Thank you for reading my posts. As I conclude this interaction, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your time and engagement. Our exchange, no matter how brief, has been an opportunity to share knowledge, foster understanding, and build connections.

            In today’s fast-paced world, communication has become more essential than ever. The ability to connect with individuals from diverse backgrounds and perspectives, regardless of geographical boundaries, is a testament to the power of technology.

            I hope that the information I provided has been insightful and helpful to you.

            As you continue your journey of exploration and learning, remember that the pursuit of knowledge is a lifelong endeavor. There will always be more to discover, more to understand, and more to share with others. Embrace curiosity, seek truth, and be open to new ideas and perspectives. In doing so, you contribute not only to your growth but also to the collective advancement of society.

          • Clint R says:

            You’re welcome, Ark. I’m glad I helped.

            I can recognize straw men as quickly as I can recognize blog diarrhea. Some people just can’t control themselves.

          • Swenson says:

            Ark,

            So you can’t provide a description of the GHE, either?

            Clueless clod.

      • bobdroege says:

        Sure about that Clint R?

        “To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.”

        • Clint R says:

          Did you get triggered, bob?

          I recognize the incompetent, ineffective flak.

        • Swenson says:

          Bobby,

          Reduced to sly appeals to Dr Spencer, are you? Are you hoping he will ban anyone who disagrees with him?

          How are you going with your new and improved description of the greenhouse effect? You don’t seem to like your previous one – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”, so much anymore.

          Maybe you prefer Willard’s – “not cooling. Cooling over time”?

          Come on bobby, you can’t describe something that doesn’t exist, can you?

          All you can do is claim you have a secret description which you aren’t going to share with anyone!

          Well done!

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            I’m rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off.

            At you.

          • Swenson says:

            Bobby,

            Reduced to sly appeals to Dr Spencer, are you? Are you hoping he will ban anyone who disagrees with him?

            How are you going with your new and improved description of the greenhouse effect? You dont seem to like your previous one Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better., so much anymore.

            Maybe you prefer Willards not cooling. Cooling over time?

            Come on bobby, you cant describe something that doesnt exist, can you?

            All you can do is claim you have a secret description which you arent going to share with anyone!

            Well done!

          • bobdroege says:

            Still ROTFLMAO

          • bobdroege says:

            “Reduced to sly appeals to Dr Spencer, are you? Are you hoping he will ban anyone who disagrees with him?”

            He banned you before and you came back as a sockpuppet.

        • PhilJ says:

          Hello Bob,

          I suppose you think the polar ice cap warms the ocean too..

          • bobdroege says:

            Well, not by very much.

            But do you know that the polar ice cap starts as frozen seawater, and eventually through many freeze and thaw cycles, the ice cap becomes almost pure ice with no salt content.

            Thus it melts at about 0 C.

            And I have been under the ice cap and have measured the temperature of the seawater and it is colder than that at about -2 C.

            So the meltwater from the ice cap is warmer than the ocean.

            But mostly the Sun melts the ice cap.

    • Maz says:

      Arkady I agree with your sentiments and I also have the greatest respect for Dr Spencer. May I point out Dr Spencer never uses either of the words trapped or trap in his post.
      Best regards

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        You may also like this:

        Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation – the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

        • Clint R says:

          Another example of how the cult tries to pervert reality. By pulling a quote out of context, they make it appear Spencer is saying something he isn’t saying. The first sentence of that paragraph: But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Also by Roy Spencer:

        As of 2009, it is estimated that humanity’s CO2 emissions have increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by close to 40 percent. This has caused an estimated 1.6 watts per square meter of extra energy to be trapped, out of the estimated 235 to 240 watts per square meter…

        From THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING BLUNDER. Page 48.

        • Swenson says:

          A,

          Ooooooh! Appeal to authority much?

          Won’t work.

          Dr Spencer, like anybody, is wrong from time to time. When he becomes aware of new facts, he appears to change his views.

          What about you? Still denying that the Earth has cooled, and the surface is no longer molten? Or denying that during the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat?

          It must be a richly bizarre fantasy that you inhabit.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Roy is obviously talking theoretically. He appears to be quoting the alarmist position, not declaring it as a fact.

          If you read Roy on CO2 from much earlier posts, he makes a compelling case for just how much CO2 is a trace gas.

        • Stephen P Anderson says:

          Dr. Spencer does believe in AGW. He believes man has contributed greater than 50% of the warming. However, he does state that his belief is more faith than science. He essentially has said he doesn’t know how much, if any, man has contributed to the warming. Also, the model he uses is that natural CO2 is at some steady state equilibrium and man is responsible for all the increase above this equilibrium level. Ed Berry among others such as Harde have falsified this model.

          • Norman says:

            Stephen P Anderson

            I think, in reality, the only thing Ed Berry did was use his knowledge to confuse people so willing to believe AGW is fake that they do not question the fundamental flaw in his logic. I have addressed it but it does not reach into your closed mind. I think you are more a political animal than science minded. You see the world in Black/White mentality the Left is evil the Right good (even though the Right lies a lot and makes up things to feed the hungry parrots who mindlessly repeat the Right’s mantra).

            If you have a set amount of CO2 in various sinks (ocean, air, biological processes) even if the amounts in each sink vary the total amount remains the same. If you add more to the whole system than it is likely each sink will have some increase.

            I really can’t believe you can’t see how illogical Ed Berry’s argument really is. I downloaded the paper and it does not change his whole premise is garbage. You might close your mind and turn off all logic and keep parroting his illogical thinking, I don’t know.

            I have little hope that there are many scientists left who follow evidence. You certainly don’t seem to. You will parrot whatever the Right-Wing media feeds you. Never questioning any of it but convinced the Left is an evil monster.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you’re full of it, as usual.

            I haven’t been interested in Berry’s work, as I consider it a distraction. (Who cares how much CO2 mankind puts into the atmosphere? It’s plant food — the more the better). But for you to be so obsessed with him, he must be onto something. You don’t have the science to do anything but parrot your cult leaders.

            You did speak out against the “passenger jets fly backward” nonsense, finally. (It’s so basic even you could understand that it’s fraud.). But you fully accept the bogus “Earth’s REAL 255K surface”, “ice cubes can boil water”, and “fluxes simply add”. And you can’t provide a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”.

            All you can do is attack others.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”the only thing Ed Berry did was use his knowledge to confuse people so willing to believe AGW is fake that they do not question the fundamental flaw in his logic”.

            ***

            No need to ‘believe’ AGW is fake, it is fake. Outright chicanery. There is no fundamental flaw in Berry’s logic, the flaw is in your belief system.

          • Entropic man says:

            Still waiting for you to explain how CO2 molecules can move from the deep ocean to the atmosphere against a partial pressure gradient without work being done.

            You know as well as I do that Berry’s model makes no physical or thermodynamic sense.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Norman,
            So you think Berry is a quack? He spent his undergrad at CalTech and his Ph.D. at Nevada, but he must have some axe to grind, is that it? Let’s try this another way. If Berry’s model is correct, then it falsifies AGW, agree?

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Also, he has several dozen papers in Atmospheric Physics journals. So, he must understand the process of scientific publication and the scientific method, agreed?

          • Nate says:

            Stephen, so you think all the thousands of scientists, also with good credentials, and who disagree with Berry, are quacks?

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Nate,
            If Berry’s model is correct, then it falsifies AGW, agree?

  46. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    In physics, the term “forcing” generally refers to the application of an external influence or driver on a system that leads to changes in its behavior or dynamics. This external influence can be in the form of a force, a field, or any other perturbation that causes the system to deviate from its natural or equilibrium state.

    Forcing is a prevalent concept in various branches of physics, including classical mechanics, fluid dynamics, electromagnetism, and climate science.

    In classical mechanics, a common example of forcing is the application of an external force to a particle or a system of particles.

    In fluid dynamics, forcing can refer to the imposition of specific boundary conditions or the application of external fields (such as pressure gradients or magnetic fields) to a fluid.

    In electromagnetism, forcing can involve the application of electric or magnetic fields to charged particles, influencing their motion and generating electrical currents or magnetic effects.

    In climate science, as mentioned in one of my previous posts, “climate forcing” refers to external factors or drivers that influence the Earth’s climate and cause changes in its energy balance.

    The term “forcing” has been widely used across different fields of physics. The term has likely evolved over time, and its introduction might not be attributed to a single publication or author.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        We are currently seeing a strong anomaly in the distribution of ozone in the upper stratosphere within the southern polar vortex. It is this anomaly that is causing strong ripples in the polar vortex and will move into the lower layers of the atmosphere.
        https://i.ibb.co/WtBztBX/gfs-t05-sh-f00.png

        • Clint R says:

          IP, is anyone mentioning the disruption of the PV/ozone is related to remnants of HTE?

          Or are they completely unaware of the physics involved?

    • Clint R says:

      Ark presents us with another ‘learning opportunity’.

      Ark says: “In climate science, as mentioned in one of my previous posts, ‘climate forcing’ refers to external factors or drivers that influence the Earth’s climate and cause changes in its energy balance.”

      In REAL climate science, a REAL forcing will raise temperatures. An example is an El Niño. Another example was the Hunga-Tonga eruption. And, don’t forget Sun!

    • gbaikie says:

      “In physics, the term forcing generally refers to the application of an external influence or driver on a system that leads to changes in its behavior or dynamics. ”

      In global climate the average temperature of the ocean determines the global climate of Earth. The average temperature of our ocean is 3.5 C.
      Whenever the ocean average temperature is 3.5 C or say 5 C, Earth is in an Ice Age. Our Ice Age is called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age and it the latest of 5 known Ice Ages Earth has had.
      The warmest climate state which Earth has had are called Greenhouse global climate. and Earth has had many Greenhouse global climates and average temperature of the Ocean is 10 C or warmer.

      The Late Cenozoic Ice Age has been ongoing for last 33.9 million years and in last couple million years it’s been the coldest time of the 33.9 million you. And it’s common call last few million year an Ice Age, Ie:
      Pleistocene epoch: The last ice age
      “The Pleistocene epoch is a geological time period that includes the last ice age, when glaciers covered huge parts of the globe. Also called the Pleistocene era, or simply the Pleistocene, this epoch began about 2.6 million years ago and ended 11,700 years ago, according to the International Commission on Stratigraphy. ”
      https://www.livescience.com/40311-pleistocene-epoch.html

      The glaciation period ended and it was one coldest periods in the history of Earth. But it’s expected we will enter another glaciation period. Or over the millions of years, we have short periods of interglacial period and the start quickly with 100 meters of sea level rise and rapid increases in global temperature, and this used to called “global warming”. And our recent global warming occurred about 10,000 years ago and over last 5000 years, we had gradual cooling. And before 5000 years ago, the Sahara Desert was a lot greener than it is today.
      Some think that if Sahara Desert was a green as it was +5000 years ago, that Earth global temperature could be about 1 C warmer than it is presently, as greener Sahara desert would have global effect.
      Of course generally all of Earth present deserts were greener more than 5000 years ago. But Sahara location and size, would make it a more dominate factor in terms of increasing global temperature.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      First year engineering is an eclectic mix of disciplines aimed at giving the student a state of each engineering discipline. In physics, we took two separate courses, one general physics and the other aimed at statics and dynamics. Not one course referenced a ‘forcing’.

      In mathematics, we did encounter the word forcing and it was related to a forcing function. As I explained, a forcing function is a mathematical representation of something like a square wave which will force an equation representing an amplifier to respond.

      In the real world, a square wave is applied to an amplifier to make it respond in an extreme fashion. That’s because the rising edge of the square wave is so abrupt as to causes the amplifier to oscillate, or ring. That’s why they using a forcing function in differential equations, to test the response of the DE representing the amplifier. They can tweak the DE to minimize oscillation. Also, to check the frequency response.

      We don’t need the word forcing in the real world because we already have the word ‘force’. The word forcing is nothing more than an ignorant term created by alarmists and their models.

      A problem with using the word is the non-reality it presents. CO2 is claimed to be a forcing even though it is a forcing only in climate models. In real science, there is no proof of that.

  47. Swenson says:

    Here’s bumbling bobdroege’s latest effort to extract himself from the pile in which he finds himself –

    “Swenson, you realize I am making fun of you with that definition of the greenhouse effect.

    Its only for you, for smarter people I could give a more detailed description.”

    Previously, the slightly impaired bumbling bobby gave a description of the GHE –

    “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”

    When he realised how silly he appeared, he then claimed I had provided that piece of silliness, which of course I hadn’t. Then, he tried to weasel out of his lie by saying he had “paraphrased” a description which I never provided, turning it into a “definition” along the way.

    Alas, bumbling bobby has now admitted his definition was only a joke, and that his previous position that he possesses a GHE description which he is keeping secret, is really what he meant all along. What a strange lad he is! Lives in a dream world, obviously.

    There is no greenhouse effect. Neither CO2, nor any other gas, has any innate heating ability whatsoever. People like bumbling bobby and his ilk are quite mad.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      bob d is a visitor from another planet, in another galaxy. His understanding of physics does not work o the planet Earth.

    • gbaikie says:

      As I have said many times, global warming is a more uniform global temperature.
      I don’t know if anyone can understand this.
      So, I am going to more clues.

      Generally the tropics has a fairly uniform yearly average temperature.
      And the tropics always will have a fairly uniform temperature.
      And the tropics always has a fairly high average temperature.
      So in the last glacial maximum {LGM} when Earth was at coldest time it has ever been, the tropics had a fairly uniform temperature and
      it had fair high average temperature.

      So, when talking about low or high global average temperatures- it’s about outside of the tropics. Or tropics is 40% of world, so it’s about the 60% of the rest of the world.

      So what does Earth look like if it has average global temperature of
      20 C, as compared to the world which we have poorly measured but we imagine is somewhere around 15 C?

      China’s average temperature is about 8 C.
      And it get very hot sometimes in China. The reason it’s about 8 C is it has cold nights and cold winters.
      It’s yearly average temperature is not anywhere near uniform- it’s warmer summers are averaged with it’s cold winters.

      A lot more people die from colder conditions than warmer conditions.
      If China average temperature was 10 C rather than 8 C, and a lot less Chinese would die.
      And their heating bills would be lower.

    • bobdroege says:

      Remember Swenson,

      I was plagiarising your description of the greenhouse effect.

      There is such a thing as the greenhouse effect.

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

      • Clint R says:

        Poor bob has now gone full circle. He’s linking to wikipedia’s description of the GHE. It’s the same old blah-blah.

        1) Solar shortwave blah-blah
        2) Earth long wave blah-blah
        3) Long wave gets “trapped” blah-blah
        4) “Trapped” long wave heats the surface

        1) and 2) are REAL. 3) and 4) are BOGUS.

        Poor bob never learns. What will he try next?

        • bobdroege says:

          You can lead Clint R to science, but he will never drink.

          Even wiki level science is to difficult for him.

          Here is the notch!

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#/media/File:Spectral_Greenhouse_Effect.png

          The greenhouse effect on a graph.

          Energy that doesn’t make it to space, hence trapped in the atmosphere.

          • Clint R says:

            Poor brain-dead bob, that graph he believes in has Earth at about 160K, -112C, -170F!

            What will he try next?

          • Nate says:

            “has Earth at about 160K”

            No it doesn’t. You just don’t understand what the y-axis is.

            No surprise.

          • Clint R says:

            Brain-dead bob uses wikipedia for his GHE support. Only his “support” makes the same mistakes as the rest. There’s no explanation as to how a cold sky can heat a warmer surface. So bob throws some more crap against the wall, presenting the wiki graph. But the worthless graph has Earth with a surface temperature of 160K!

            Then, tro11 Nate jumps in thinking the y-axis is part of the problem!

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Arkady Ivanovich says:

            TO: Nate and bobdroege

            RE: A slightly different look at your wiki graph.

            https://skepticalscience.com/pics/modtrangreenhouseUSstandard280ppmv.jpg

            Taken from https://skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html

            Regards.

            A.I.

          • bobdroege says:

            No Poor Clint R,

            You are referring to the reference curves on the graph.

            Not the spectrum which has the notch.

            You are having more difficulties.

          • bobdroege says:

            Arkady,

            Notches, Notches, what to do with all the Notches.

            Lets make notchos!

          • Swenson says:

            Bumbling Bobby,

            You wrote –

            “Energy that doesnt make it to space, hence trapped in the atmosphere.”

            Complete and utter garbage. The surface cools every night – no energy trapping at all.

            Are you deranged?

          • Swenson says:

            AI,

            SkepticalScience is generally full of crap, based on rubbish like the following snippet from your link –

            “As a result, the Earth’s surface radiates energy to space, and over time the incoming energy balances the outgoing energy.”

            Nonsense. The Earth radiates energy as it must, mainly being a big molten blob sitting in space. Luckily, after four and a billion years, there is a congealed crust around 20 km thick covering most of the glowing interior. The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so, whether you like it or not.

            The “incoming energy” is nowhere near enough to compensate for the outgoing energy.

            GHE true believers live in a dream world, disconnected from reality.

            Try and describe the mythical GHE in some way that reflects reality. If you can’t, you are just another deluded cultist.

            See how you go.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            You know you can chew bubble gum and fart at the same time.

            The atmosphere can trap energy while the surface is cooling.

            You see, they are different objects doing different things.

            Keep it up, it’s good entertainment.

          • Swenson says:

            Burbling Bobby,

            SkepticalScience is generally full of crap, based on rubbish like the following snippet from your link

            “As a result, the Earths surface radiates energy to space, and over time the incoming energy balances the outgoing energy.”

            Nonsense. The Earth radiates energy as it must, mainly being a big molten blob sitting in space. Luckily, after four and a billion years, there is a congealed crust around 20 km thick covering most of the glowing interior. The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so, whether you like it or not.

            The “incoming energy” is nowhere near enough to compensate for the outgoing energy.

            GHE true believers live in a dream world, disconnected from reality.

            Try and describe the mythical GHE in some way that reflects reality. If you cant, you are just another deluded cultist.

            See how you go.

  48. Gordon Robertson says:

    maz…”Its laughable to suggest any gas molecule traps heat, yet it is repeated in writing almost everywhere”.

    ***

    We have to be careful with this one. A gas can trap heat but not by radiation. Maybe the word ‘trap’ is misleading.

    There is an error in the claim that CO2 can trap heat, or slow the dissipation of heat from the surface. However, nitrogen and oxygen receiving heat from the surface are essentially trapping that heat by conduction and carrying it vertically by convection.

    Those are the only two ways by which heat can be transported (or trapped, for want of a better word).

    Radiation is another animal altogether in that it does not transport heat like oxygen and nitrogen. Technically, it can be argued that the end result is a transfer of heat but heat in the surface is lost as radiation is produced. Therefore the thermal energy in the surface is converted to electromagnetic energy then converted back to heat in the absorbing CO2. That is not surface heat and any accumulation of it via CO2 cannot be described as surface heat being trapped.

    Also, how much heat is produced by CO2 after absorbing only 7% of surface radiation? G&T worked it out using an equation dealing with heat diffusion, a term describing heat diffused from one gas into another. This is not conduction or convection but any means available to the CO2 to warm the rest of the atmosphere, like via colliion.

    For a doubling of CO2, G&T estimated about 0.06C warming for every 1C warming of the atmosphere. The Ideal Gas Law gives a similar warming. Therefore the alleged heat trapping of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant.

    As far as slowing heat dissipation that comes down to Newton’s Law of Cooling. The law defines the amount of heat dissipation based on a temperature difference between the surface and its environment, the atmospheric temperature. The atmosphere is 99% N2/O2, so those are the gases that govern heat dissipation with dissipation by CO2 being again, insignificant.

  49. Swenson says:

    Gordon,

    Maybe climate scientists are unaware that CO2, like every other matter in the universe, cools if allowed to do so.

    As far as I know, the Nobel Prize in Physics 1911 was awarded to Wilhelm Wien “for his discoveries regarding the laws governing the radiation of heat”.

    Wien’s Law provides no exclusion for CO2.

    Nor does Newton’s Law of Cooling, etc. In the absence of a heat source, CO2 solidifies. No self heating properties at all. Thermometers show no temperature increase due to the presence of CO2.

    The GHE is, quite simply, an example of a popular misconception.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Good points, I am well familiar with Wien. He proved essentially that the peak of Planck’s EM curve moves as temperature rises.

      My understanding as well is that CO2 naturally sinks in air. It’s claimed to be well-mixed but I watched a demo on the Net in which they poured CO2, as a gas, into another container.The other container had a candle in it and when the CO2 was poured into it, the CO2 sank to the bottom and extinguished the candle.

      Found this demo…

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWybQPxKy1U&ab_channel=FlinnScientific

      There is no reason to claim CO2 is well-mixed.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        If you watch the entire video, the guy actually siphons CO2 from one container to another just like one would syphon a liquid.

        He makes a reference to diffusion. Because the syphoned gas is mixing with air in the second beaker it is diluted. He refers to that as diffusion, which it is, one gas diffusing into another.

        If that gas was transporting heat, the heat would be diffused as well. Using an equation for diffusion, G&T calculated that the amount of heat diffused from a trace gas like CO2 into air, for a doubling of CO2, would be about 0.06C per degree C warming of the entire gas.

        That was my argument using the Ideal Gas Equation in the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere has a natural negative pressure gradient, as a more dense air from below diffuses into the thinner upper air, it must reduce its pressure and temperature. This why heat simply disappears.

        The IGL also reveals that CO2 at a mass concentration of about 0.06% in the atmosphere can heat it no more than 0.06C, the 0.06 being it’s mass percent.

        The figure 0.06% is used rather than its actual concentration of 0.04% since CO2 is heavier (has more mass) than either the oxygen or nitrogen molecule.

  50. Gordon Robertson says:

    Neil Oliver on the climate scam. It takes half the video before he talks about climate but the first 50% is well worth the listen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvvBp25eh0U&ab_channel=GBNews

  51. Eben says:

    Nir Schaviv & Henrik Svensmark – What role has the sun played in climate change?

    https://tinyurl.com/4nbzufyh

  52. gbaikie says:

    The falcon heavy is planned to have 3 more launches this year, and next week will lift largest satellite to GEO, and then later launch NASAs Psyche asteroid mission, and also be doing another US military classified launch.
    And next year the falcon heavy will launching 5 to 6 times and one will lifting a part of Gateway station in latter part of 2024.
    And also latter part of 2024, SLS will launch crew which will go around the moon- sort of demonstration/test mission for crewed missions to lunar surface which might happen in 2025.
    Meanwhile India going land a rover in south pole in late August 2023.
    And later, falcon-9 will launch lunar lander and the new Vulcan Centaur will also launching lunar lander before end of year {though both have already been delayed and they might be further delayed- or fail in some way even if launched on time].
    Now, if Vulcan Centaur successfully reaches orbit, it would mean New Glenn will be less delayed in terms it’s planned launches in 2024.
    Like Starship, the main thing about New Glenn is becoming a reusable rocket- and it’s big.
    And Starship is crazy big, including the constant idea of making it bigger- current idea is it getting 200 ton of payload to LEO, and no reason that even more then 200 tons will not be considered, anytime relatively, soon. Anyhow next week {maybe in weeks] Starship may get a static fire on improved launch mount and if looks good, a test launch within a month. And if that looks, good, a starship launch every month or two.
    The idea we could have 3 Starship launches by end of year, could considered a hope, but greater hope is to recover a first or second stage {or both] before the end of year.
    And one will have similar situation with New Glenn rocket, the focus
    being to successful recover the first [and/or] second stage.
    Both SpaceX and Blue Orgin have separate NASA contracts to land crew on lunar surface. And purpose of it, is if one fails, then there is back up {and/or to have competition- NASA probably want 3 rather than two, if it could get it, though one could count SLS and Gateway as a third back up/alternative pathway, option}. But in terms not delaying lunar crew landing a lot, Starship and/or New Glenn are the two options}.
    Anyhow, 2023 has been good, but 2024 should be a lot busier. But getting those robotic lunar landers on lunar surface and they work will make 2023 a very good year.

  53. Gordon Robertson says:

    aq…for Gordon…”But because the lunar day, ARISING FROM ITS UNIFORM REVOLUTION ABOUT ITS AXIS, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb

    ***

    Did Newton actually make that statement or was it embellished by the translator? There is evidence elsewhere in Principia that translators did exactly that.

    I have gone through this several times and made these points…

    1)this is about the only reference in Principia where Newton is translated as talking about an alleged lunar rotation. If he thought it was important, I am sure he’d have spent scads of time on it going into the subject in depth. A lunar rotation would be a major event and would affect his calculations re the lunar orbit and momentum.

    However…

    2)Newton notes that…

    a)the Moon moves with a linear motion
    b)the lunar motion is converted to curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field
    c)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth.

    For me, this disqualifies a local lunar rotation for the simple reason that a) and b) and c) can describe only curvilinear translation without local rotation. It also describes the motion of a ball on a string, or a car driving around an oval track, or a wooden horse on a merry-go-round.

    3)Neither Motte nor any other translator could converse with Newton to get the meaning of his Latin. Much of what Newton was describing in Principia was new science and all the translators had as a reference were existing and popular theories from the likes of Cassini.

    4)if you look at the translation for revolve in Old Latin it does not necessarily mean a body orbiting a central body. It could easily be translated as simply ‘moving through space’ about a central body. In that case, the Moon is moving through space about the Earth, making Earth an external axis. As it moves through space it re-orients wrt the stars but it is not rotating about a local axis.

    That description perfectly fits with a), b), and c) above with Earth as the axial point. In that case, Newton was describing a re-orientation wrt the stars, not to a rotation about a local axis.

    Consider what a translator is facing in each case. He/she is trying to translate the Old Latin for revolve and trying to make sense of it. Without Newton to advise them their only alternative is to go to Cassini’s idea of local rotation, which is obviously wrong. So, they translated the Latin ‘revolvir’ to mean rotation about a local axis. But why use revolve to describe rotation?

    Google translator interprets revolvir as ‘it turns around’. Pretty vague to me. Try to find the interpretation in Old Latin, it gets pretty interesting.

    5)Newton is translated as using revolution to describe one orbit of the Moon about the Earth and also to mean one rotation about a local axis. I find it highly unlikely that Newton would have been so unclear on the matter. I think it is clear, considering a), b), and c) above that by revolution about its axis he is talking about a re-orientation of the near face of the Moon wrt the stars.

    Newton went into great detail in other parts of Principia so why was he so vague about this? I think it’s clear that the translator interpreted it incorrectly.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Interesting wiki article on revolve…

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/revolve

      “Etymology

      From Middle English revolven (to change direction), borrowed from Old French revolver (to reflect upon), from Latin revolvere, present active infinitive of revolvō (turn over, roll back, reflect upon), from re- (back) + volvō (roll); see voluble, volve”.

    • RLH says:

      “A lunar rotation would be a major event and would affect his calculations re the lunar orbit and momentum”

      Rotation about an axis would have no effect on its orbit.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        True, but there are factors that cause the orbit to rotate every 7 or 8 years. That’s is, the factors keeping the Moon in orbit are variable. Therefore, the orbit is not static and the ellipse rotates.

        Newton did cover minor perturbation on the Moon’s orbit, like gravitational force from the Sun, which has slight effect on the Moon’s orbit. He went into that in some detail so why would he skim over something as important as a lunar rotation in one sentence?

        Newton does talk about libration and I need to take a closer look at what he said. The libration is only a few degrees and it involves the near face re-orienting slightly so we can see more around the edge of the Moon. That occurs only between the intersection of the minor axes and apogee. At apogee and perigee there is no libration because our view angle is dead on.

        That libration can be explained if the orbit involves curvlinear translation without rotation.

        I have yet to see anyone offer a subjective explanation of the Moon rotating on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Moon. If anyone has that ability it is you, so please don’t keep us in suspense.

        • bobdroege says:

          That’s because it’s not subjective, we have given plenty of objective explanations that the Moon rotates on a local axis.

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry bob, but that’s wrong.

            You don’t have “plenty of objective explanations”. What you have are the mistakes made by ancient astrologers, especially Cassini. Then, these mistakes were compounded by attempts to pervert physics with nonsense like “tidal locking”.

            Your Moon nonsense is an example of how science (reality) gets corrupted, just as we see with the GHE nonsense.

            If you don’t have a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”, then you’ve got NOTHING.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            I see you have changed it to orbital motion without spin, from orbital motion without axial rotation.

            Why?

            Just shows you don’t know what you are saying.

            The Moon rotates on its axis because it doesn’t face the same direction all the time. It can’t change orientation without rotating or spinning on its axis.

          • Clint R says:

            bob asks “Why?”

            Fair question, bob. I found that most of your cult got confused by “axial rotation”. They couldn’t understand it. But, they seemed to understand “spin”.

            I’m happy with either, but I also like to “Keep It Simple, Stvpid”, to help those with learning disabilities.

            The Moon DOES face the inside of its orbit all the time. That’s how we know it is NOT spinning.

            If you want a responsible discussion, you need to present your valid model of “orbital motion without spin”. Otherwise, it looks as if you’re just throwing crap against the wall.

          • bobdroege says:

            I have already given you a model of an object orbiting but not spinning.

            The Hubble Space Telescope when observing a distant star.

            Always facing the inside of an orbit is not always facing the same direction.

          • Clint R says:

            Your “model” of the Hubble is a FAIL, bob.

            The Hubble uses a complex design of gyroscopes, sensors, and actuators to allow it to maintain a fixed point in space. Otherwise, it would be constantly pointing in different directions because its orbit changes its orientation, just like Moon. Hubble must compensate for its orbit by enough spin to hold its attitude

            .https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-space-telescope-pointing-control-system

            You have no model of “orbital motion without spin”. You have NOTHING.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            “The Hubble uses a complex design of gyroscopes, sensors, and actuators to allow it to maintain a fixed point in space.”

            No it doesn’t, those items maintain its orientation to a fixed direction.

            NOT A FIXED POINT IN SPACE

            From wiki

            “The Hubble Space Telescope is a space telescope that was launched into low Earth orbit”

            The Hubble Telescope is in orbit.

            EPIC FAIL Clint R

          • Clint R says:

            Yes bob, Hubble is orbiting. But, it can also “spin” to maintain a view of some object in space. Hubble is an example of orbiting AND spinning, like Earth.

            Your mission is to come up with something that is orbiting but NOT spinning.

            So, if Hubble did not use it positioning equipment, it would only be orbiting. Then, one side would always be facing the inside of its orbit, just like Moon.

          • bobdroege says:

            Clint R,

            When the Hubble is focused on a distant star it is not spinning, but it is always orbiting.

            So why do you NASA as a source when it doesn’t agree with you?

            “When Hubble rotates, its gyroscopes measure the direction the telescope is turning and the rate of that rotation.”

            Implying that quote does, that the Hubble does not rotate when it has acquired a specific direction.

  54. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    If we look at Zharkovas prediction of the strength of the solar magnetic field we can see that it is of the same magnitude in cycles 24 and 25 and decreases dramatically in cycle 26. This works perfectly in the latest Stanford WSO update.
    https://i0.wp.com/solargsm.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/image-1.png?resize=768%2C291&ssl=1
    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif

    • gbaikie says:

      Yup, but seems to indicate peak somewhere around 2025. And I think it’s halfway thru 2023, or past mid-point of 2023.
      But in either case it’s solar grand Min.

      But back to linked graph, it indicate +200 somewhere around 2025.

      And so, +200 has something to do with how active the sun is and something to do with cosmic rays {as that is one of her “interests” to do global climate- more volcanic activity].
      Anyhow mid 2023 I am guessing is peak solar activity which lowers cosmic ray. Or by beginning of 2024, we should start and continue to have more cosmic rays, which is different than mid 2025 time predicted in graph.

      • gbaikie says:

        Daily Sun: 23 Jul 23
        https://www.spaceweather.com/
        Solar wind
        speed: 420.0 km/sec
        density: 0.49 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 103
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 174 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 20.43×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -1.8% Below Average
        48-hr change: +0.4%

        A sunspot is coming farside as is one leaving.
        We going to have around 100 sunspot number for a while.
        July might exceed June or be second sunspot month- which what
        I was guessing, but June and July have been less active than
        I guessed. And guessing Aug will be less sunspots, than June and July
        and will get as high as June and July in later months and years.
        And graph indicates than in many months we stay around this currect level and than goes up a lot and stays higher than June and July for many months. Or quite different than my wild guess.
        what do others, guess?

        In terms of an official guess:
        –Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
        17 July – 12 August 2023

        Solar activity is expected to be at low to moderate levels on 17
        Jul-12 Aug.

        There is a chance for an S1 (Minor) solar radiation storm on 17-19
        Jul due to potential significant flare activity from Region 3363 as
        it transits around the west limb.–
        https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast

        • gbaikie says:

          “And guessing Aug will be less sunspots, than June and July
          and will get as high as June and July in later months and years.
          And guessing Aug will be less sunspots, than June and July
          and will NOT get as high as June and July in later months and years.

          Forgot the not.

        • gbaikie says:

          In terms of what I am interested in, next launch window from Earth to Mars is:
          2024.7387 9 26 2024
          So for simple Hohmann trajectory it’s Sept 26 2024 and it arrives at
          Mars:
          2025.4474 6 11 2025
          June 11 2025 lands on Mars surface {or goes into orbit}
          But would do simple except for cargo- so cargo could arrive by June 11 2025, and faster transit with crew could get there before May of 2025. Or leave later, and arrive much earlier- 6 or 7 month rather than 8.6 months for cargo.
          The graph seems to say it’s good in terms radiation levels on the way to Mars, and fast return to Earth {if possible- I didn’t check} would also be pretty low radiation levels.

          And I am guessing in terms of radiation levels, it’s bad either way.
          I could revisit using Venus orbit, but I won’t.

        • gbaikie says:

          Daily Sun: 25 Jul 23
          Solar wind
          speed: 399.9 km/sec
          density: 0.63 protons/cm3
          Sunspot number: 141
          The Radio Sun
          10.7 cm flux: 165 sfu
          Thermosphere Climate Index
          today: 20.38×10^10 W Warm
          Oulu Neutron Counts
          Percentages of the Space Age average:
          today: -1.7% Below Average
          48-hr change: +0.4%

          Spots are going to farside.

          • gbaikie says:

            Daily Sun: 01 Aug 23
            Solar wind
            speed: 392.1 km/sec
            density: 9.27 protons/cm3
            Sunspot number: 197
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 174 sfu
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 20.64×10^10 W Warm
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: -2.9% Below Average

            Current Space Weather Conditions
            on NOAA Scales
            Solar Cycle Progression
            July month number: 159.1 average sunspot
            June was: 163.4

            My guess was June and July would be highest sunspot months
            and a lot more active than Jan [143.9].
            They had more spots but sun wasn’t more active than Jan.
            So, I guessed wrong, but I still think June and July are the peak.
            Or Aug 1 was high spotnumber, and and big spot is going to show up soon, but I think Aug will have less spots and be less active.
            And by Nov it will be seen as crashing, and will continue to crash into 2024.
            My guess. Anyone want to guess, too?

  55. Entropic man says:

    Testing

    • Eben says:

      I give internet lessons, only $190 an hour

    • Entropic man says:

      Perhaps you should offer to maintain this website. It desperately needs someone.

      • Eben says:

        Are you related to Twerpy ???

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        You wrote –

        “Perhaps you should offer to maintain this website. It desperately needs someone.”

        Oh yes, and why would that be? If you have a complaint, don’t just whine – do something about it! Unless it’s too much for you, of course.

        Poor baby.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Roy is a busy man and I appreciate him offering us this forum. If you detail the issues you are having maybe we can work through it as users.

        I run into issues all the time, especially a post not posting for reasons unknown. It could be issues at WordPress or maybe Roy’s site is down for maintenance. If we put our heads together and come up with something intelligent we could forward that to Roy for checking.

        I think time of day could be an issue. I have been unable to post between the hours of 5 PM and 7 PM PDT then got my post through later in the evening.

        Running a server is not something I’d want to take on.

        • Entropic man says:

          I was unable to post between 0900 on July 21st and 0830 on July 23rd. During each attempt the loading bar would extend about 80% across the page and would then revert to the top of the article. This happened on a tablet, a mobile phone and a desktop, which is why I think the problem is at Roy’s end.

  56. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    All the blue parts of the oceans are colder than average, and the orange, red and pinkish white parts are hotter than average.

    For those wondering what that blue spot is doing in the North Atlantic, that’s caused by the northernmost hurricane ever observed in July, stirring up colder deep ocean water locally.

    https://imgur.com/a/ReCgWPh

    Satellite temperature datasets like UAH & RSS measure the lowest several kilometers of the atmosphere.

    When there is an ocean warming event, e.g. El Nio, surface warming spikes a few months before the satellites, as it takes time for surface warmth to move into the atmosphere.

    So, even though RSS & UAH measurements of the lower troposphere aren’t at record levels right now, we can expect them to increase in the next few months.

    Except in the tropics where you have a pretty direct connection between ocean temperatures and lower atmosphere, there isn’t much of a lag.

  57. RUSSELL says:

    I asked once upon a time for a reference for what the Hunga Tonga eruption would do to global climate. Someone here gave it to me and the reference stated the water vapor in the upper atmosphere was increased by 5%. This then will lead to global warming for 2-5 years. Why is nobody talking about this as we have these higher temps currently. And common sense dictates the upper atmosphere wants to return to normal atmospheric water vaper content. That would help explain all the flooding throughout the last 2 years world wide. Lake Mead water level is up 19 feet over last year. Just saying, why no coverage.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Well, first the volcano is in a remote part of the Pacific, so it is not close to news organizations in the ‘rich’ parts of the world. Damage and deaths were relatively small.

      Second, the projected warming seems to be about 0.03 or 0.04 C. So that is about 1/3 of a grid on Roy’s monthly plots. This month’s UAH temperature might have been 0.34 or 0.35 instead of 0.38. That’s not nothing, but it is not a huge impact.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        Given that the atmosphere is chaotic, you don’t have the faintest idea about the size of the impact of anything at all.

        You don’t seem to accept the IPCC’s admission that it is not possible to predict future climate states, but you won’t say why.

        You can’t even describe the effect of the mythical GHE, let alone say how a volcanic eruption impacts its non-existent operation.

        Here’s your best effort about the GHE – “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.” Obviously, the long-term slope over the past four and a half billion years is one of cooling. Hardly due to CO2 in my view, but if you want to believe a fantasy, that’s your right.

        Carry on.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…this so-called projected warming, is it the same catastrophic projections offered by the IPCC but in reverse?

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Ask Clint about the Hunga-Tonga. He knows it is “a REAL forcing” that warms the earth.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          tim…no such thing as a forcing, we already have the proper name which is energy. Energy produces a force not a forcing. Leave the mangling of English to the alarmists.

          Oh, sorry, I forgot, you are an alarmist.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Heres your best effort about the GHE .. ”

        Haha. Anyone reading this blog for more than a few days knows that I have given many and varied descriptions of the GHE … both the science behind it and the observed results. You only look more silly saying something like this.

        • Clint R says:

          Sorry Folkerts, but your “many and varied descriptions of the GHE” don’t “hold water”.

          Typically, all such descriptions have the same basic format:

          1) Sun warms Earth’s surface. (True)
          2) Surface then warms the atmosphere. (True)
          3) The atmosphere then re-warms the surface. (False)

          The solar energy can NOT be used twice. That’s effectively violating the laws of thermodynamics.

          You need a description of your bogus GHE that does NOT violate the laws. There isn’t one….

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            (3) is a sloppy short-hand for what it happening. (Much like ‘trapping heat’ or ‘acts like a blanket’ are sloppy short-hands). They get the idea across to the general public. But the ideas can be (and have been) described in more scientific detail.

            A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface”. A 500 C block of metal cools more slowly and loses heat more slowly if it surrounded by a 300 C furnace than if it is surrounded by a 20 C room. And similarly, a 288 K patch of ground loses heat more slowly when surrounded by 220 – 288 K atmosphere than if it is surrounded by 3 K space.

            No laws of physics are violated when warm surroundings slow the cooling rate of an object.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You wrote –

            “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface”. A 500 C block of metal cools more slowly and loses heat more slowly if it surrounded by a 300 C furnace than if it is surrounded by a 20 C room. And similarly, a 288 K patch of ground loses heat more slowly when surrounded by 220 288 K atmosphere than if it is surrounded by 3 K space..

            I assume that you are talking about the GHE, but correct me if I’m wrong.

            If you are saying that the GHE is just a cultist redefinition of Newton’s Law of Cooling, I would ask what’s the point?

            As you say “similarly, a 288 K patch of ground loses heat more slowly when surrounded by 220 288 K atmosphere than if it is surrounded by 3 K space.” Sir Isaac Newton provided a law which allows the calculation of the rates of cooling. Surely you are not trying to imply that slow cooling results in raised temperatures?

            Maybe you could actually state what the GHE is supposed to do – does it raise temperatures, and what mechanism is involved? Previously, you wrote “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”

            CO2 certainly heats nothing at all. Did you mean it results in cooling?

            Maybe you could say what you mean, rather than beating around the bush, and making oblique insinuations.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:
            ”No laws of physics are violated when warm surroundings slow the cooling rate of an object.”

            Here is proof your 3rd grader radiation model doesn’t work:

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

    • Clint R says:

      Russell, the reason the HTE is being ignored is that it does not fit the agenda. It is a REAL climate forcing, unlike the bogus GHE.

      The HTE basically negated the 3-year La Niña. It continues to affect UAH results, now over a year later. I suspect the effects are lessening, but it’s hard to know for sure. I’m looking for a polar vortex that appears normal. That would be a first clue the HTE has died out.

      • Clint R says:

        PS: My guess is the HTE varies between 0.15-0.35C. The variation is due to the fact that the HTE was an impulse forcing.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      russell…”Why is nobody talking about this as we have these higher temps currently”.

      ***

      For one, no one has seen a volcano dump so much water into the stratosphere. It’s new science.

      For another, flooding worldwide, and droughts, is known to be related to La Nina. It disrupts the jet stream, causing variable issues in different locales affected by the jet stream.

      The WV dumped into the stratosphere by H-T operates in a similar manner. disrupting the jet stream and producing chaotic weather.

  58. gbaikie says:

    South Korean Defence Strategy – Mass, Firepower, Industry & Existential Threats
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXZw_YGzxCc

    This to me, is not a boring hour.
    It noted that like other countries, South Korea also has population collapse problem but, as is the case, everywhere, there are more immediate problems. A short summary is South Korea is armed to the teeth, and wants and is capable of exporting, a lot more.

  59. Swenson says:

    Bobdroege got caught out with his silly description of the non-existent greenhouse effect “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”

    Bobbing and weaving, first he claimed he was plagiarising a description of mine (fat chance, the GHE is mythical), then he claimed he was paraphrasing that same non-existent description.

    He also claimed he had a better description, which he was keeping secret!

    His latest effort to avoid looking like a retard is this –

    “Remember Swenson,

    I was plagiarising your [non-existent] description of the greenhouse effect.

    There is such a thing as the greenhouse effect.

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

    Unfortunately, blundering bobbys link merely asserts that a GHE exists, and is a “process”, which apparently had no effect at all on the Earth bringer colder now than four and a half billion years ago, when the surface wa# molten.

    Bobdroege may be suffering from a severe case of religious mania, devoutly believing in something nobody can describe in any way which reflects reality.

    Religious fanatics are sometimes prepared to martyr themselves rather than accept reality. Blundering bobby is probably faking his GHE obsession, and just trying to get people to think he has a brain.

    Time will tell.

    • bobdroege says:

      Swenson provides more hilarious entertainment.

      • Swenson says:

        Bobdroege got caught out with his silly description of the non-existent greenhouse effect “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”

        Bobbing and weaving, first he claimed he was plagiarising a description of mine (fat chance, the GHE is mythical), then he claimed he was paraphrasing that same non-existent description.

        He also claimed he had a better description, which he was keeping secret!

        His latest effort to avoid looking like a retard is this

        “Remember Swenson,

        I was plagiarising your [non-existent] description of the greenhouse effect.

        There is such a thing as the greenhouse effect.

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

        Unfortunately, blundering bobbys link merely asserts that a GHE exists, and is a “process”, which apparently had no effect at all on the Earth bringer colder now than four and a half billion years ago, when the surface wa# molten.

        Bobdroege may be suffering from a severe case of religious mania, devoutly believing in something nobody can describe in any way which reflects reality.

        Religious fanatics are sometimes prepared to martyr themselves rather than accept reality. Blundering bobby is probably faking his GHE obsession, and just trying to get people to think he has a brain.

        Time will tell.

        • bobdroege says:

          Swenson,

          You have an obsession with me.

          Please seek professional help.

          Maybe at a local institute devoted to treating mental health issues.

  60. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Climate misinformers are pushing the “1930s was warmer” trope. This is classic cherry picking.

    Which was warmer: the 1930s or the last 10 years
    Are cherries your favorite fruit?

    https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/which-was-warmer-the-1930s-or-the

    “The bottom line is that when you see a plot that looks suspicious (like heat waves in the 1930s were worse than today), it’s worth asking whether you’re being told the whole story. In this case, you’re not.

    • Swenson says:

      I agree. Some cultists cherry pick furiously, but get upset and bent out of shape when I point out that over the longest period possible, the Earth’s surface has cooled. No longer molten, is it?

      It is always interesting to see the futile intellectual contortions that climate cultists go through, trying to cherry-pick a period supporting their cult fantasies, while furiously denying that they are doing any such thing!

      By the way, what is a “climate misinformed”? Someone with whom you disagree, but can’t say why?

      Maybe you are trying to be too clever by half.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        The surface hasn’t been molten for 4.4 billion years.

        It took less than 100 million years to cool to a solid surface from that molten state.

        • Norman says:

          bobdroege

          Swenson not understand the difference between Earth surface and total Earth. He correct the whole Earth is very slowly cooling (I think maybe a degree every million years). He does not grasp the surface is solar heated and depends upon the solar input which is why Northern Hemisphere cools during winter months and warms up in the summer. Difference of several degrees. You would have a better chance reasoning with a rock than Swenson.

          • bobdroege says:

            Yeah, Norman

            You can’t reason with any of them.

          • Entropic man says:

            Swenson understands. He’s just being an arsehole.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”You would have a better chance reasoning with a rock than Swenson”.

            ***

            Alternately, you might try a scientific rebuttal.

        • gbaikie says:

          If you don’t count eruptions the size of Texas.
          Recently, say within our 33.9 million year Ice Age, we imagine there hasn’t been much.

          But the most volcanic region, is our ocean which cover 70% of Earth surface, in terms of exploration of ocean floor which has been done, we know it’s young surface, less 200 million year- or a large part it is created [had lava at/near the surface] in last 200 million year.

          Climate science isn’t about recent weather, we are looking at global climate tens to hundreds of million years ago. Though in particular alarmist tend to focus periods many millions of years ago and the further into the past, the more uncertainty and we get things like imagining there was Snowball Earth.

          • Arkady Ivanovich says:

            “… in particular alarmist tend to focus periods many millions of years ago…”

            such as:

            “…I point out that over the longest period possible, the Earths surface has cooled. No longer molten, is it?”

            Your denial is a lost cause: https://imgur.com/a/pRnxDPb

          • gbaikie says:

            Anyways, in terms of Earth, rather than the brief amount of time humans have been on Earth, Earth has low CO2 levels and is currently quite cold.
            And just because Earth has low CO2 levels, it does not mean, that low CO2 level caused Earth to be cold.
            It’s much more accepted that a cold Earth will cause low CO2 levels and it’s known that our cold ocean holds and draws in, a large amount of CO2.
            And it’s known our cold ocean is why we are in an Ice Age.

          • Swenson says:

            I point out that over the longest period possible, the Earths surface has cooled. No longer molten, is it?

            Don’t blame me for an inconvenient truth.

        • Swenson says:

          Bobby,

          You wrote –

          “The surface hasnt been molten for 4.4 billion years.”

          Exactly. It has cooled.

          I suppose you want to claim that the Earth magically heats up and cools down at random, do you? No doubt you will provide your “better explanation” of the GHE to explain how this particular miracle occurs.

          Go to it.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            You must have left your brain in a suitcase somewhere.

            “Exactly. It has cooled.”

            But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a greenhouse effect.

            But the Earth did not form in a molten state, and it was nearly frozen over a couple times and has warmed since then.

            It warms and cools at various times.

            You need to keep better track of your “facts”

            Some of them are wrong.

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          You wrote –

          “Swenson understands. Hes just being an arsehole.”

          Mind reading, ad hom argument, and irrelevant bad language, all at once! Well done!

          The surface has cooled from the molten state. What’s so hard to admit?

          Four and a half billion years of sunlight couldnt stop the surface cooling.

          High CO2 levels couldn’t stop the surface cooling.

          The mythical GHE couldn’t stop the surface cooling.

          All you can do is deny that it happened, I suppose.

          Carry on.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      If you look back at the older posts on climateaudit, you will see Steve McIntyre going after GISS for trying to replace 1998 with 1934 as the hottest year in North America. GISS retracted the claim with some mealy-mouthed explanation but both GISS and NOAA has since re-written the record to show modern temps as being warmer.

      Tony Heller is a good source of NOAA/GISS chicanery.

      If you look at the UAH records you will see that 1998, despite being the hottest year at the time, was cooler than 1932 in NA. 1998 is a fraction of a degree cooler than 2016.

      https://climateaudit.org/2010/05/03/ar4-on-1998-was-the-warmest-year/

      More detailed debunk…

      https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf

  61. Eben says:

    China is playing Biden officials for suckers.

    Kerry is the third administration official in the last month to make the pilgrimage to Beijing in hopes that China will play nice. They all came back empty-handed.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/china-playing-biden-officials-suckers-climate

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Secretly, Biden, Kerry, Gore et al would like an administration like China’s so they could play God officially.

    • Clint R says:

      Ent, now you’ve ran into this:

      Typically, all such descriptions have the same basic format:

      1) Sun warms Earth’s surface. (True)
      2) Surface then warms the atmosphere. (True)
      3) The atmosphere then re-warms the surface. (False)

      The solar energy can NOT be used twice. That’s effectively violating the laws of thermodynamics.

      You need a description of your bogus GHE that does NOT violate the laws. There isn’t one….

      • Entropic man says:

        3) is true.

        If it were impossible, then multiple reflection between two mirrors would be impossible. Ever stood between two mirrors?

        • Clint R says:

          Sorry Ent, but 3) is FALSE.

          You seem to be confusing “absorp.tion” with “reflection”. That proves once again that you don’t understand ANY of this.

      • Entropic man says:

        Incidentally, have you noticed an inconsistency?

        You recently claimed that the water vapour from the HTE is causing warming due to the GHE.

        Yet you just claimed that there is no GHE

        • Clint R says:

          No inconsistency, Ent. Just a lack of competence on your part.

          I NEVER claimed that. If you believe I did, provide a link.

          What will you try next?

          • Entropic man says:

            Please explain how you think I that extra water vapour inthestratosphere can warm the surface.

          • Clint R says:

            Please explain why you can’t support the false accusations you spew.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/yes-virginia-there-is-a-climate-crisis/#comment-1514336

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            Maybe you can actually state what it is that you claim.

            You can’t describe the GHE, so maybe you are claiming something else.

            Could you let me know what it is?

            Hopefully you are not claiming that adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter, but if I am wrong, you might explain how this miracle occurs.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ent…”Please explain how you think I that extra water vapour inthestratosphere can warm the surface”.

            ***

            It’s not warming the surface as far as I understand. The wv is interfering with the normal interaction of the stratosphere with the jet stream as well as the Arctic vortex. The wv is simply helping to redistribute weather in an abnormal way.

            There is no general global warming increase related to Hunga Tonga just a redistribution of existing heat. The Sun is still our only source of heat.

            All the hype about heat waves and abnormally high temperatures is nonsense.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Gordon Robertson says:
            July 24, 2023 at 7:09 PM

            entPlease explain how you think I that extra water vapour inthestratosphere can warm the surface.

            ***

            Its not warming the surface as far as I understand. The wv is interfering with the normal interaction of the stratosphere with the jet stream as well as the Arctic vortex. The wv is simply helping to redistribute weather in an abnormal way.

            There is no general global warming increase related to Hunga Tonga just a redistribution of existing heat. The Sun is still our only source of heat.–

            The greenhouse effect can’t warm the surface- if surface, is land or ocean surfaces- increasing average surface air temperature [what is measured in regards global air temperature] is a different question/matter.

            The Hunga Tonga is from Geothermal heat.

            It seems it added gas to atmosphere. Adding gas to atmosphere should heat atmosphere. And removing gas from atmosphere should cool atmosphere. If removing gas is condensing into liquid or solid, H20 gas has a lot heat per ton of water or ice made, so if gas disappeared, it’s disappearance/removal it’s cooling, but it’s change of state is adding a lot heat: Not cooling but a lot of heating.

            So, it seems everyone assumes the water vapor is not going stay up there forever, but I am sure how, when, or where it disappears.
            But if changing state anywhere near polar regions- it should be a significant warming effect.
            But it could interacting with Ozone and/or lots of stuff.

            But also it seems even though this seemed like a freak event, it’s probably more common than it might seem to be.

      • Norman says:

        Clint R

        I would not state GHE as:

        “3) The atmosphere then re-warms the surface. (False)”

        The correct version of GHE is the GHG in atmosphere reduce the heat loss via radiation from the surface so with the same solar input the surface will reach a higher average temperature. It works like insulation so it does not itself warm the planet surface but by lowering the heat loss it will allow the solar input to increase the surface temperature. I have linked you to measured values multiple times but rather than try to understand them you use your standard (that means nothing) “another link you don’t understand”

        If you reduce the heat loss by convection you will also increase the surface temperature without any other change needed.

        The Earth’s surface is close to an IR blackbody (0.95 emissivity or so) so it will absorb the DWIR which becomes just another part of the surface energy distribution.

        There is no cut-off frequency as proposed by Claes Johnson, he is just wrong.

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

        • Clint R says:

          All wrong, Norman. You’re dancing in circles with rambling blah-blah just to end up with “The atmosphere then re-warms the surface”, which is FALSE.

          And the “proof” you claim is the Surfrad graphs which you don’t understand. I offered to explain, but you refused the learning. The offer still stands, should you want to leave your cult.

        • Norman says:

          Clint R

          No dancing in circles or rambling. Solid physics established science is what I state and yes SurfRad graphs clearly show what I am saying and actually prove it quite well.

          No I am not claiming the atmosphere rewarms the surface. It lowers the rate of heat loss. It does not reverse it. On the SurfRAD graphs the DWIR is usually less than the UWIR except for clouds, than it might be the same.

          At night the surface generally cools because the atmosphere is not re-warming the surface. But the surface does not get as cold because you have reduced the rate of heat loss.

          You can understand it with convection but your brain farts on radiant energy. Why? Same concept different mechanism.
          ]
          If you reduce convection with the same solar input you will find the surface will heat up, no new energy added just less removed.

          You seem to fail to understand new energy is always reaching the surface (somewhere) on the Earth. The atmosphere does not have to add energy to increase the temperature of the surface, it just has to lower the amount lost.

          Insulation effect think about it.

          • Swenson says:

            “The atmosphere does not have to add energy to increase the temperature of the surface, it just has to lower the amount lost.”

            And cooling results.

            Insulation effect – think about it.

            Slowed cooling is still cooling, isn’t it?

            Or maybe you prefer Entropic Man’s description of the GHE – “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets.”

            Want to lower the temperature of the surface? Toss a stack of blankets on it!

            Not terribly bright, SkyDragon cultists – don’t like reality.

        • PhilJ says:

          Hello Norman,

          Do you think the polar ice cap warms the ocean?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ent…same old, same old.

      They start out talking about looking at the problem from the molecular level and fail to do that. Had they done that, they would be required to go deeper, to the atomic level then to the electron level. At that level, they may have understood why infrared energy cannot transport heat and why air molecules cannot trap heat via radiation.

      This article is using obfuscated science to infer a GHE.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        I would say the same about you…same old same old. You do not understand what molecular vibrations are or how the result of such is the primary emitter of Mid-Range IR.

        You reject established science in favor of your opinion. You also reject a complete branch of Chemistry (Spectroscopy) that uses IR spectrum to analyze substance to see what they are made of. This branch of Chemistry uses MOLECULAR VIBRATION as it foundation and uses the equations based upon molecular vibration to determine what type of IR will be emitted by each molecular type. It is sad you are so closed minded you wont even attempt to understand the science behind it or how it works. I have sent you several links on it with hope you might learn but you are a very closed minded person. You only allow ideas into your brain that agree with what you believe.

        A scientist follows evidence, you follow your beliefs.

        • Clint R says:

          Gordon is very similar to you, Norman. Neither one of you can learn, but both of you believe your beliefs are correct. Both of you attack REAL Skeptics. You’re both cultists.

          The only real difference is you belong to different cults. You belong to the traditional “NASA” cult, and Gordon belongs to the newer “Gordon” cult.

          But cults are cults.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            It seems you want me to react to your posts. Not sure what your goal is. You are the one close to anti-sceince Gordon. You do not understand valid physics and give your endless opinions on things.

            You belong to your onw cult as you seem to have a hard time recruiting members to your physics based upon your opinions.

            I give you evidence and your response? Same as always…”Another link you don’t understand”. That is a cult mentality. You see it it others but not yourself.

            Nothing can be done, you and Swenson are bricks in a wall. Not wanting to learn and not accepting evidence that clearly shows you are wrong on many points you make.

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry Norman, but there is no evidence for your false accusations.

            YOU are the one that believes in nonsense. I choose reality.

            You believe Earth has a “REAL 255K surface”; “fluxes simply add”, and “Earth is 33K warmer than it should be”. You have NO viable model for “orbital motion without spin”, and you have NO viable description/definition of your bogus GHE.

            YOU are the one promoting “anti-science”.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            The reality is I have addressed all your issues. The problem is you do not accept anything but what you believe. You do NOT accept any evidence only what you believe. There is no way to change this, you are stuck in your own world of belief. Evidence is not your friend, you reject it all.

            But since you keep bringing up these issues and I keep giving you evidence but you keep rejecting it.

            Your first one: “REAL 255K surface. I think I have explained this to you a dozen times but it does not sink in. What is a poster to do?

            I said there was a radiating surface of 255 K (that would be the edge of all the IR coming off the Earth, I have linked you to many visual examples of what it is…Like the Sun’s surface, no solid surface but an edge of where the radiation is coming from to create a spherical image that can be seen and imaged).

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            YOU: “You have NO viable model for orbital motion without spin

            Actually I have given you a couple but you do not accept them.

            One is to walk around a table without rotating as you do it. That means your feet can’t rotate (pivot). It can be done you will walk backward some. Or you can use cans and move one can around another in an “orbit” without rotating it. It is not that hard to do but you will not do it and then you will falsely claim I never gave you viable model.

            so that is a couple. It will be the same. You will reject it all and then repeat the cycle.

            Are you and Swenson twins from birth? You both just endlessly repeat things over and over regardless of what any poster says. It is endless with the two of you. Never changing, never thinking, never supporting anything (ever). Just endless stating your opinions and repeating issues that have been addressed hundreds of times by multiple posters.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, there is NO “edge of all the IR coming off the Earth”. A REAL surface would be visible and have a measurable area. You’ve got NOTHING.

            You have no clue what you’re talking about. You’re just throwing crap against the wall, trying to pervert physics.

            What will you try next?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Norman says “I said there was a radiating surface of 255 K ”

            This is only sorta right. The radiation come from many layers at many heights and many temperatures. Some of the radiation comes from the warm (above 255 K) surface. Some radiation comes from near the cool (below 255 K) tropopause. The remaining radiation comes from various sources (clouds, GHGs) at various temperature.

            The NET flux emitted from a patch of ground (about 240 W/m^2 on average) is the same as the flux from a 255 K surface. But it is NOT the spectrum of a single 255 K surface.

            Here is a typical example showing parts of the spectrum at different temperatures. It is NOT the spectrum of a Blackbody at 255K, but a combination of radiation from varying temperatures
            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Tuckett/publication/268744256/figure/fig3/AS:295426751254534@1447446634908/Infrared-emission-spectrum-escaping-to-space-as-observed-by-the-Nimbus-4-satellite.png

            As a slightly poor analogy, I could have 10 stacks of brick stacked 5 high, and 10 stacks of brick stacked 3 high (80 bricks). This is the same amount of bricks as 20 stacks that are (5+3)/2 = 4 high, but I DON’T have an actual surface 4 high. I still indeed have stacks that are either 3 or 5 high.

          • Clint R says:

            That’s a lot of blah-blah Folkerts, just to say that there is NO “REAL 255K surface”.

            But some people just can’t be concise.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Some molecules have charges. A positive and negative end that are sustained by the nature of the bonding. The charges vibrate moving closer and further apart at some frequency that Chemists can figure out. If an IR photon (wave) of the right frequency reaches the molecule it is absorbed and the amplitude of the vibration is increased (no electrons are moving to higher orbitals). When IR energy is released from the molecule the vibration amplitude decreases. The IR released matches the frequency of the vibrating charges.

        • Clint R says:

          Norman, what happens when a photon impacts a molecule with higher frequency?

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            The photon would not be absorbed. That is what the whole branch of spectroscopy is about. Molecules have some frequency bands that they vibrate at based upon the bonding. Only photons of that frequency will be absorbed. If the photon has the same frequency as the molecular vibration it will be absorbed and increase the amplitude of the vibration (but not frequency). There are multiple levels of molecular vibration and in a higher vibrational state does not exist long before a photon is emitted and the molecular drops to a lower vibrational level.

          • Clint R says:

            Mostly correct, Norman. Except you could have used more correct terminology, like “reflected”.

            But, you’re learning.

            And also, that’s the reason ice cubes can’t boil water and fluxes don’t simply add.

  62. Swenson says:

    Poor old bobdroege is now getting confused.

    He wrote “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”

    He claims this is a description of the GHE. He also claims it is a definition of the GHE.

    As to its origins, bobdroege can’t figure out whether he plagiarized it in its entirety, or he paraphrased something that someone else wrote.

    “Not to worry” says bumbling bobdroege, “for smarter people I could give a more detailed description, but I’m not going to, because Im not!”

    Bobdroege lives in a richly bizarre fantasy world, by the look of it. He just reverts to claiming that he has a “more detailed description” – but of course can’t actually produce it!

    Just another deranged cultist.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swenson…”Poor old bobdroege is now getting confused”.

      ***

      What do you means ‘getting’ confused?

  63. Gordon Robertson says:

    troubleshooting…

    tim f…”No laws of physics are violated when warm surroundings slow the cooling rate of an object”.

    ***

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      part 2…

      There is a violation when it is claimed CO2 alone controls heat dissipation from the surface and nitrogen/oxygen are ignored.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “There is a violation when it is claimed CO2 alone controls heat dissipation … ”
        So you seem to agree that the atmosphere DOES help control heat dissipation — just not by CO2 alone. And hence the atmosphere helps control (ie helps raise) the surface temperture. That is a good start!

        “… and nitrogen/oxygen are ignored.”
        No, they are not ignored. N2 and O2 play a huge roll in convection and in setting the height of the tropopause. They serve as a heat sink/source to pass energy to/from CO2 molecules. The setting where N2 and O2 *are* pretty much ignored is when comes to directly emitting/absorbing IR, since they are 99.9+ % transparent to earth’s thermal IR.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Tim Folkerts says:
          ”No, they are not ignored. N2 and O2 play a huge roll in convection and in setting the height of the tropopause.”

          Where do you get that from Tim? The tropopause is the delineation zone of the virtual extinction of water vapor.

          Water vapor in the troposphere is at least 25 times that of CO2. In the stratosphere CO2 is approximately 80 times more common than water vapor.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            I am not sure what you are objecting to.

            Without N2 and O2, the atmosphere would be much thinner and much closer to the ground. The tropopause would also be closer to the ground, meaning the tropopause would be warmer and the surface cooler to get the same total radiation.

            These gases matter mostly because of the space they occupy and the heat capacity they provide, rather than the IR radiation they emit/ absorb.

          • bill hunter says:

            none of your explanation goes to the claim ”N2 and O2 play a huge roll in convection and in setting the height of the tropopause.”

            o2 and n2 are prevalent in the troposphere, tropopause, and stratosphere.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bill…” In the stratosphere CO2 is approximately 80 times more common than water vapor”.

            ***

            In a recent post I provided evidence that CO2 tends to sink in air. You can actually pour CO2 from one beaker into another and it flows like water. The demonstrator actually used a syphon to transfer CO2 from one beaker to another.

            I am wondering how accurate the claim is that CO2 is a well mixed gas. Any comment?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            It seems that CO2 is well mixed. I once ran once numbers such that the lift provided by collisions is in excess of the additional molecular weight of CO2.

            Then there is this: https://www.britannica.com/science/mesosphere saying the mix rate is essentially the same.

            Though I did see an article that said that CO2 drops by a handful of parts per million in the transition to the stratosphere.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “In a recent post I provided evidence that CO2 tends to sink in air.”

            CO2 can be poured in STILL air. But stir the air up (eg with convection) and the CO2 will mix.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Sorry Tim you are mistaken. Convection is not required to mix CO2 into the atmosphere.

            Diffusion arising from collisions is all that is necessary. For instance small dust particles heavier than water will evenly mix in the water without falling to the bottom. I remember one adventure as a kid trying to get the mud in muddy water to settle to provide drinking water. We filled a bucket and left it for two days and upon inspecting our success we had accomplished nothing.

            This is called Brownian motion.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          tim…”So you seem to agree that the atmosphere DOES help control heat dissipation…”

          ***

          I have been saying that all along, offering Newton’s Law of Cooling as proof. My argument is that CO2, as a trace gas, plays an insignificant role.


          “No, they are not ignored. N2 and O2 play a huge roll in convection …”.

          ***

          Agreed. But you hear alarmists claiming that CO2 is the control mechanism for surface heat dissipation and not N2/O2.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “But you hear alarmists claiming that CO2 is the control mechanism …”

            Many, many factors are important for climate — the total number of moles in the atmosphere, the composition of the atmosphere, the tilt if the earth, the intensity of sunlight, etc etc.

            Many factors are are quite steady — eg sunshine and the tilt of the axis and the total amount of N2. So while these are very important for the climate, they not important for climate CHANGE.

            One factor that IS changing is CO2, and that means it can potentially change the climate. And even thought it is a SMALL partial pressure, it is an IMPORTANT part of the absor.b.tion of IR. SO it is am IMPORTANT part of the thermal energy flow from the earth to space. So CHANGES in CO2 can result in CHANGES to temperature. (Much like the recent volcano was a CHANGE in the atmosphere and hence could CHANGE climate.)

            CO2 is not the only ‘control mechanism’. But is it one control mechanism. And one that can be directly tied to humans.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You said previously “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”

            Resulting in four and a half billion years of surface cooling?

            Could you please specify what your “small long term slope” means. Increasing temperatures? Decreasing temperatures? Too small to measure?

            All a bit vague – you need to be a tad more specific.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Could you please specify what your “small long term slope” means. ”

            Just look at Dr Roy’s monthly temperature posts! Over the past decades, temperatures have risen 0.13 C/decade. That is a small (+0.13 C/decade), long term (40+ years) slope.

            As opposed to large (om the order of +/- 100 C/decade) short term (monthly) trend as the temperature jumps up and down from month to month.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:
            Many, many factors are important for climate the total number of moles in the atmosphere, the composition of the atmosphere, the tilt if the earth, the intensity of sunlight, etc etc.

            Many factors are are quite steady eg sunshine and the tilt of the axis and the total amount of N2. So while these are very important for the climate, they not important for climate CHANGE.
            —————–
            You mean your daddy told you they weren’t important to climate change but you nor your daddy has any evidence of that. Its just a ”convenient claim” to ransack the public budget.

            Tim Folkerts says:
            One factor that IS changing is CO2, and that means it can potentially change the climate.
            ———————–
            Yes but potentially change doesn’t mean it will change.

  64. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…”I was unable to post between 0900 on July 21st and 0830 on July 23rd. During each attempt the loading bar would extend about 80% across the page and would then revert to the top of the article. This happened on a tablet, a mobile phone and a desktop, which is why I think the problem is at Roys end”.

    ***

    Happens to me regularly. Sometimes it’s my fault, using letter combo’s like d.c without the dot. Sometimes, for some strange reason, it doesn’t like certain words.

    possible solutions…

    1)post in parts till the offending sentence is isolated. I have found at times that I’ll get an error message when posting the offending part…something to do with a server error. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for the server error but sometimes I find that a specific word triggers it. Possibly certain letter combinations are being interpreted as errors at times and at other times not.

    Note…the behavior you describe is common, where the browser simply returns to top of page without indicating an error.

    2)try another browser. I’ve had success with the Tor browser at times when Firefox would not work. Problem is, Tor appears to systems as a bot and is rejected. With Tor, you can change the sending stations and sometimes that works.

    I have noticed with Tor that it sometimes gets hung up on Roy’s site by Paypal.

    3)rewrite the post using many different words and phrases. That worked for me recently.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ps. on certain days when Firefox would not work at all, I have been able to post using Tor.

    • Entropic man says:

      Anyone who posts here for long learns that certain words and letter combinations are taboo. As you say, you subdivide posts, or rephrase them until something works.

      When the site spends 48 hours rejecting “Testing”, the problem is probably more technical.

  65. gbaikie says:

    There Could be Trillions of Rogue Planets Wandering the Milky Way
    https://www.universetoday.com/162522/there-could-be-trillions-of-rogue-planets-wandering-the-milky-way/#more-162522

    I think so.
    Can they be habitable?
    Well, can they be impacted with space rocks?
    If they can be impacted by say 10 km diameter rock,
    does it make them inhabitable or habitable?

    Living on Earth we have range of impact velocities which
    average about 20 km/sec [44,640 mph} and we have vague ideas
    of probabilities- say a rock a big impacting earth around 10 km
    diameter every 100 to 200 million years.

    And wild guess say 10 km diameter would hit rogue planet every 500 million years.
    What is the average speed limit of such an impact?
    It could be 5 km/sec plus whatever the escape velocity of rogue planet. Or 100 km/sec or more.
    It seems if average in low velocity impact, rogue planets might
    have moons. And if high velocity, planet will be hot due to energy of impactors.
    If average is high velocity- then Earth or other bodies in Sol system
    have also been hit interstellar rocks which going faster then the few interstellar objects we have detected which have passed thru our solar system.
    Or evidence we have, argues against high velocity interstellar objects in are part of the galaxy.
    Or suggest low velocity impacts- and less warming of rogue planets by high velocity impacts, though they could have captured moons, which generate tidal heat.
    But in terms space aliens and assuming they make nuclear energy, why not go to these rogue planets rather than planets orbiting stars?

    • gbaikie says:

      ‘Swarm of boulders’ in space shows the gory aftermath of NASA’s asteroid-smashing DART mission

      “The Hubble Space Telescope has spotted the gory aftermath of the first-ever intentional collision between a spacecraft and an asteroid, revealing a debris field of at least 37 “boulders” flung thousands of miles into space.”
      https://www.livescience.com/space/asteroids/swarm-of-boulders-in-space-shows-the-gory-aftermath-of-nasas-asteroid-smashing-dart-mission

    • gbaikie says:

      Access to Venus
      by John Strickland
      Monday, July 24, 2023
      https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4623/1

      –Purpose

      Note: This article is not about terraforming Venus, although the method described could eventually be used, as a first step, to start doing just that, given access to a staggeringly large amount of energy.
      …–
      It’s long.
      I would say, you use Venus orbit and don’t make sunshade, you have billions of people harvesting solar energy- and that freezes Venus.
      But if artificial gravity doesn’t work {humans can’t live in orbit [anywhere]}, then might need to make sunshade, if wanted live anywhere other than Earth- unless Mars lower natural gravity allows humans to live on Mars.

      But it seems artificial gravity will work, mostly, though might have various minor fixable issues that would need to resolved somehow.
      And it seems quite likely that within a few years we could have artificial gravity stations in Earth orbit and therefore we find out the various problems related to using them.

  66. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Two typhoons in the Philippine Sea.
    https://i.ibb.co/vLqmz8h/pobrane.png

  67. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Florida Sea Surface Temperatures Challenge The World Record; and it’s not even August.

    On Monday at about 5 p.m., a water temperature gauge in Florida Bay, just south of Everglades National Park and north of the Florida Keys, registered 99.3 degrees. At the time, that appeared to be the hottest temperature ever recorded in this area.

    But then, just after 7 p.m., there was a buoy just north of Key Largo called Manatee Bay that registered 100.1F. Just as is the case in Murray Key, the observation is measured around 5 feet below the surface.

    Then, at about 7:30 p.m., water temperatures at Manatee Bay registered 101F. Ordinarily meteorologists would assume the gauge was broken, but at least 3 sites in the region registered 98 or greater today, so this adds some credibility. And this comes amidst weeks of record breaking water temperatures in Florida Bay and the Keys.

    If verified this may challenge the World record for hottest sea surface temperature of 99.7F in Kuwait Bay. Still, NOAA will need to certify this.

    https://imgur.com/a/2Ts3Fzi

    • Clint R says:

      Some folks don’t believe HTE is contributing to this.

      They believe low energy photons can raise Earth’s temperatures, but not REAL thermal energy.

      We live in interesting times.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Yes HTE was the highest reaching volcanic eruption ever observed. Totally unprecedented (at least in the vocabulary of CAGW).

        Scientists are puzzle why large amounts of SO2 was not detected in the plume. One explanation being considered is that because it was an underwater eruption that the SO2 was instantly chemically combined with water.

        Typically SO2 goes up and blocks sunlight from reaching the earth up until that SO2 molecule finds a rare water molecule in the stratosphere and combines with that and becomes sulfuric acid where now it is largely transparent to light. It then finds an ozone molecule and destroys that allowing more high frequency sunlight to reach the earth’s surface.

        Science suggests that the healing of the ozone layer could cool the earth by a half degree. . . .which obviously would be a process of having reversed a half degree of warming caused by damage to the ozone layer by whatever means.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bill…as we learned in a geology class, voclanoes that have a breach, allowing sea water to enter, build up a tremendous amount of steam so quickly they blow big time.

          Krakatoa had a breach in its side that allowed sea water to enter and it blew big time. I still don’t have the details on Hunga Tonga but it is claimed to be an under-water volcano. If it was completely or mainly submerged the volume of water entering would have been immense and the sudden boiling of that water should have erupted steam and water without SO2. The So2 likely converted to sulphuric acid on contact.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I’ll bet those temps were measured in a shallow tidal pool set up by alarmist media types. Pranksters in Canada did the same by putting a thermometer directly into the Sun and registering temps of 55C while in the shade it was 45C.

      The other day, I fired up the hose that had been sitting in the sun for some time. The water coming out initially was lukewarm and likely around 100F.

      Maybe you should consider joining the Jehovah’s Witnesses. You seem like a good candidate.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        On this point I will agree with you and evidence seems to support your point.

        I do not think they are artificially manipulating water temperature but I do think the high temperatures are in the shallow water near the coast.

        Here are buoy temperatures for water around Florida.

        https://seatemperature.info/florida-water-temperature.html

        And from someone who swims in Florida water

        http://www.beachhunter.net/thingstoknow/gulfwatertemp/index.htm

        ” You’ll find water temps above 90 during July & August on the Gulf coast. 96 or even 98 degrees is not unheard of in the Gulf of Mexico along the beach.”

        The ocean water is hotter than average, they are having a heat wave. So it is valid to say water temperatures are higher than normal and may have broke records for some areas.

        The really high temperatures sound like shallow water and it does reach near 100 F in this water but much cooler for the normal ocean temp.

        I think the data in the first link shows ocean water a few degrees warmer than average temperatures.

    • gbaikie says:

      So, Europe is being foretold to become drier and a lot colder.

      “This would be a very, very large change. The Amoc has not been shut off for 12,000 years.”

      If hasn’t happened in 12000 years, it seems it won’t happen anytime soon. Unless they mean Europe will become a little drier and colder, which seems possible and a higher chance, as that has happenned a lot in last 12000 years.
      If we get our predicted, Grand Solar Max, it seems it could turn around.
      Other than whatever happen with volcanic activity, it seems cooling and drying will not be worse than 1970’s.

      Oh, does anyone know what caused the cooling 1970s.

      • bill hunter says:

        ocean overturning

        • Clint R says:

          I’m going with bill hunter on this one. If we see multi-year trends, and nothing explains it, ocean oscillations work.

          The one thing we can be certain of is CO2 can NOT raise surface temperatures.

      • bill hunter says:

        bottom line is these are common occurrences. collapse isn’t common.

        so we have at hand indicators of a poorly understood oscillation which of course build on top of solar oscillations of various periods that isn’t well explained by Milankovitch cycles but in which those cycles do exist. and of course we also have volcanism and human interference.

        what we really know nothing about is magnitude of effects from any of these. but in the typically random nature of constrained cycles you have much rarer instances of alignment of the variables.

    • RLH says:

      https://os.copernicus.org/articles/17/285/2021/

      A 30-year reconstruction of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation shows no decline

      15 Feb 2021

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      They talk about ‘tipping points’ and point to examples like Greenland ice melting and a warming Arctic. That should imply a warming Antarctic as well.

      Are these people seriously lacking intelligence? As long as Earth maintains its current orbit and its axial tilt, no ice will be melting in the polar regions. A tiny bit will melt in the brief summers but the rest of the year temperatures will be -30C or more.

      In order for a danger to present itself, the Arctic and Antarctic would have to warm 30C to 50C or more.

  68. gbaikie says:

    From AI to Nuclear: UK launches Strategic Plan for Future Space Exploration
    by Robert Schreiber
    London, UK (SPX) Jul 25, 2023

    https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/From_AI_to_Nuclear_UK_launches_Strategic_Plan_for_Future_Space_Exploration_999.html

    “Following a close consultation with the space sector, the UK Space Agency recently unveiled the Space Exploration Technology Roadmap, a strategic guide that will shape the direction of research, development, and funding allocation for the next ten years. The plan anticipates working closely with key international partners, including NASA, the European Space Agency, and JAXA (Japan’s space agency).

    The roadmap is designed to address existing gaps and build upon current areas of strength. This will help the UK leverage the opportunities arising from the rapid commercialisation of space exploration and the global space economy, which is projected to be worth $1 trillion by 2040.”

    If don’t $1 trillion is much {particularly, if thinking of inflation}
    As aspect about it, is that launch cost will lower and making satellites will lower. Which is a given, that simply the long term trend. But also possible launch cost and satellite costs could lower by a crazy amount- which has happened already, but it could far more crazy.
    And another factor is all countries {including UK, but players like India and what used to called 3rd world countries or most human being on this planet are getting involved- and India is currently doing low cost lunar lander mission. So a lot more governmental activity {rather just private sector} can be lowering there total cost.
    Or 1 trillion dollar in 2030 AD a lot more, that what 1 trillion bought in 2020 AD. And by 2040 AD, the difference could a lot greater.
    Though it is possible these guys can underestimate it, and it also could be a 2 trillion dollar space market by 2040. Or 2 trillion by 2030 AD.
    It seems what we find on the Moon, could effect it, a lot, and I don’t know what we going to find out with lunar exploration of lunar polar region.
    It’s possible NASA lunar crew exploration could like Apollo- Apollo with 30 nations involved in it.
    Even if it’s somewhat less than Apollo, Apollo was quite significant.
    But it might be a lot more exciting than Apollo, particularly if seems like it’s an Apollo which is then going to explore Mars.

    • gbaikie says:

      Oh, looky:
      Breakthrough rocket engine could accelerate to 99% the speed of light

      [July 24, 2023: Staff Writer, The Brighter Side of News]

      https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/breakthrough-rocket-engine-could-accelerate-to-99-the-speed-of-light
      linked from Instapundit
      –David Burns produced an engine concept that, he says, could theoretically accelerate to 99 percent of the speed of light – all without using propellant. (CREDIT: Creative Commons)–

      Does it work?
      Do I look like rocket scientist??
      But I wondered whether it could use solar wind- but it says no rocket propellant. I heard about such non propellant claims, before- and bit skeptical.
      Also recently I was wondering if one could ride gravity waves- but that would annoy, Gordon.
      But generally, I like to focus on near term, as in becoming a spacefaring civilization.

  69. Clint R says:

    I missed Norman’s comment from above but nonsense like this needs to be seen by everyone.

    Norman is trying come up with an example of “orbital motion without spin”. So, he invents a new way to walk!!!

    “One is to walk around a table without rotating as you do it. That means your feet can’t rotate (pivot). It can be done you will walk backward some.”

    This is nothing more than Ent’s example of passenger jets flying backward.

    Their ignorance balances their desperation. It’s called being “brain-dead”.

    • Norman says:

      Clint R

      It might be wise for you to consider what I wrote rather than blab nonsense about what you are not understanding. You go around the table without pivoting or rotating your feet or body. It stays in the same orientation as you go around the table. If you are not intelligent enough to figure out how to do this or what it means go ask 5-year-old maybe they can help you figure it out. As it seems you are unable to understand how to do this.

      • Clint R says:

        Norman, your concept of “orbiting” is incorrect. It’s okay to “change direction”. That is NOT axial rotation, or spin. The ball-on-a-string is changing direction due to the vectors acting on it, just as Moon is changing direction. There is NO spin involved.

        Your example of walking around a table foreward/sideway/backward is an example of both orbiting and spinning. You’re both “changing direction” AND spinning.

        It’s also an example of brain-dead….

        What will you try next?

        • RLH says:

          A ball-on-a-string is only a model for a ball-on-a-string. It is not a model for gravity between Earth and the Moon.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Richard, you have repeated this numerous times and it is no more true now than when you began. The tension in the string models Earth’s gravitational force but, more importantly, the ball always keeps the same face pointed to its external axis. Also, the ball cannot rotate about a local axis due to the tension on the string.

            Maybe if it was a yo-yo (aka climate alarmist) set up with a string that allowed the yo-yo body to rotate you might have a point. Then the yo-yo body might rotate, offering an inaccurate model of the Moon which cannot rotate like that.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c74H0oOIg1A&ab_channel=YoTricks

            ps. they sure make lame, plastic yo-yos these days. They used to make them out of polished wood and they were very smooth.

          • Clint R says:

            Poor RLH, he still can’t understand the ball-on-a-string. It’s a very simple model, but he still can’t understand it. He believes it’s a model of the Earth/Moon system. But, as has been explained to him numerous times, it’s a model of “orbital motion without spin”.

            Poor guy….

          • RLH says:

            I understand a ball-on-a-string very well. It will never represent gravity between 2 (or more) bodies.

          • RLH says:

            “it’s a model of ‘orbital motion without spin'”

            No. It’s a model of rotation about an axis. Such as a record on a turntable as has been described elsewhere.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            rlh…”I understand a ball-on-a-string very well. It will never represent gravity between 2 (or more) bodies”.

            ***

            We non-spinners acknowledged that a long time ago. The B0S was introduced to get around an argument by spinners that a car orbiting a track was actually rotating about its COG. The BoS cannot rotate about its COG, but like the car on the track, it keeps the same side pointed inwardly toward the track.

            It’s really based on a misunderstanding that a body orbiting a central body while keeping the same side pointed at the central body can also rotate about a local COG.

            A wooden horse bolted to a carousel cannot possibly rotate about its COG unless the carousel is rotating in space about the horse. Under normal circumstances, the horse is bolted to the floor and the horse is rotating about an external axis at the centre of the carousel.

            That’s the spirit in which the BoS is intended. The ball cannot rotate about its COG because it is restrained by string tension. In the same manner, since the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth, it cannot possibly rotate about a local axis.

            The focus is on ‘keeping the same side pointed at an external axis’, and not on the mechanics.

          • RLH says:

            The forces that keep a ball-on-a-string as one object are not the same as 2 (or more) objects joined by gravity.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            rlh…”The forces that keep a ball-on-a-string as one object are not the same as 2 (or more) objects joined by gravity”.

            ***

            I agree with you and using a BoS was never intended to claim that. The BoS was introduced along with a wooden horse bolted to the floor of an MGR, a car following a racetrack oval, A locomotive following an oval track, and an airliner flying around the equator at 35,000 feet. The BoS was intended only as a demonstration of an object orbiting while keeping the same side facing the interior of centre about which it was orbiting.

            The BoS and other examples were introduce to counter the spinner argument that each of those bodies was also rotating about a local axis. It’s obvious from the examples given above that a body orbiting a central axis while keeping the same face pointed at the axis, cannot also rotate about its own local axis.

            I went deeper, explaining with the use of tangent lines, why that is the case. I have asked for spinners to supply evidence that the Moon can rotate exactly one per orbit and thus far no one has supplied that evidence. All I have received are appeals to authority.

        • Norman says:

          Clint R

          No you are not spinning or rotating if you move around the table (orbit) without rotating your body in any way.

          It is an example of not rotating and orbiting and it would be a more valid model than your ball on a string. A ball on a string is just a rotating object. It is not orbiting. It is like a record on a player, the whole record spins but it would not be considered to orbit the spindle.

          You already would know that if you walk around a table (closer to an orbit than a ball on a string) and pivot your feet so the same side of you always faces the table you will achieve the identical rotating if you stood in one spot and rotated or you walked around the table. You will have to pivot your feet and rotate your whole body and a person on the table will only see one side of you. You are “orbiting” around the table and rotating once each orbit and you keep the same side to the person on the table.

          If you do not rotate or pivot your feet in any way but move around the table the person on the table will see all sides of you but you will not have rotated once on your axis (which you can observe by looking at your feet as you move around the table, no pivot, no rotation.)

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”A ball on a string is just a rotating object. It is not orbiting”.

            ***

            That’s silly Norman. It’s obviously orbiting the person’s hand who is operating it.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            So if you have a rod connected to a spinning axle you would say the rod is orbiting?? Or a record on a record player is orbiting the spindle? The string and ball are just one connected object, the differentiation is not real. The string and ball rotate around your hand but it is not really an orbit. If the ball string were a rod would you say the end of the rod is orbiting but the rest is rotating?

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, maybe it’s “walking” you don’t understand?

            None of your rambling blah-blah makes sense. You have spoken against the “passenger jets flying backward” nonsense, yet now you’re walking backward, which is just as absurd.

            I’m pretty sure this is way over your head, and you will NEVER understand.

            I’m content with that….

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            I have differentiated in the past between rotating bodies that are attached physically to an axis and bodies that are not, like the Moon. The BoS strikes me as being in-between.

            Although the ball is technically attached to to the hand of the ball spinner by a string it is an independent body trying to fly tangentially at each instant of time, as is the Moon.

            I agree that the mechanics between the BoS and the Moon are quite different but the BoS was introduced only as an example of a body that orbited an exterior axis while keeping he same face pointed at the axis. It was never intended to model the lunar orbit.

            If you glued a ball to the end of the rod would you then claim the ball is orbiting the axle? Or, what if the rod was attached to an outer bearing race that was rotating on roller bearings? Would the rod then be orbiting the inner bearing race?

          • RLH says:

            “The BoS strikes me as being in-between”

            You would be wrong in that. It is clearly an extension of rotation about a single axis contained within the overall body. Like a record on a turntable.

          • Clint R says:

            RLH, the ball-on-a-string has you so confused but you seem to understand a turntable. So simply glue a tennis ball to the edge of the turntable. Now, the ball is orbiting (revolving), but NOT spinning (no axial rotation).

            Hope that’s not too confusing for you.

          • RLH says:

            The turntable is rotating about an axis in its center. Everything attached to it directly is also.

          • Clint R says:

            Focus RLH. The issue is the ball is NOT spinning.

            This is simple concept is WAY over your head.

          • RLH says:

            When you rigidly attach anything to a turntable (regardless if it is a stick, a ball, a fully bear, etc.) it becomes part of the turntable, unable to rotate on its own about anything but only about the axis in the center along with the rest of the turntable.

          • RLH says:

            …a fluffy bear…

          • Clint R says:

            You just can’t admit the ball is NOT spinning, can you RLH?

            Just can’t accept reality.

          • RLH says:

            If it is rigidly attached to a turntable then it is spinning about the axis at the center of the turntable.

          • Clint R says:

            Now you’re playing with definitions again, RLH. You just can’t admit the ball is NOT spinning.

            Earth is both orbiting (revolving) and spinning (rotating). Moon is only orbiting. The ball is only orbiting. You can’t admit the ball is not spinning because that would mean Moon is not spinning. And, you can’t defy your cult.

            What will you try next?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            rlh…”When you rigidly attach anything to a turntable….”

            ***

            You have to be a bit careful with this analogy because a turntable is an independent rigid body. A BoS has a ball that is an independent rigid body and a string, under tension, applying a force to it as the ball orbits a hand, which supplies a complex of forces to the string.

            Suppose the turntable is a portable grinder disk turning at high RPM and the disk shatters. Each piece flies of along a tangential path. Same with the ball if you suddenly cut the string. In other words, for each instant of motion, the ball is following a series of tangential, straight-line paths. When the string is cut, it immediately stops moving in an orbit and flies off in a straight line.

            Spinners argued that once the sting was cut, the ball would spin at the same rate it had been orbiting. In other words, they argued that the ball was actually rotating about a local axis while the string was holding it in place, preventing local rotation.

          • RLH says:

            So an image to a ball and the 3d ball itself are 2 different things. From above, both would look the same however.

            Both will appear to be rotating/spinning about an axis in the center of the turntable.

          • RLH says:

            “Spinners argued that once the sting was cut, the ball would spin at the same rate it had been orbiting.”

            No they don’t. The pieces will rotate about their individual centers as those centers move along straight lines outwards. Each becoming a separate body.

  70. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    With wildfires & heatwaves hammering Rhodes, Greece etc, how about heading instead to Switzerland for a relaxing break?

    https://imgur.com/a/OfnzmzQ

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Surprisingly, it is summer in Greece as well. Being a typically hot, arid country, I would imagine that things dry out and become more prone to wildfires.

      Has Greta Thunberg been spotted down there recently?

  71. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman…”Some molecules have charges. A positive and negative end that are sustained by the nature of the bonding. The charges vibrate moving closer and further apart at some frequency that Chemists can figure out. If an IR photon (wave) of the right frequency reaches the molecule it is absorbed and the amplitude of the vibration is increased (no electrons are moving to higher orbitals)”.

    ***

    Norman…I offered an explanation for this and you did not comment. The bonds to which you refer are shared electrons (covalent bonds). It’s important to get it that bonds are electrons in orbitals around both nuclei, in the case of CO2, for example. Bonding orbitals are still quantum orbitals and subject to transitions.

    The bonding is electrostatic in molecules in that there are positive nucleii with negatively charged electron orbiting the nucleii. The electrostatic attraction between the two keeps the electrons in orbit just as Earth gravity keeps keeps the Moon in orbit. With electrostatic attraction, vibration is the rule rather than the exception. That is, bonds like that vibrate naturally with the degree of vibration dependent on the balance of the charges.

    Of course, I am talking theory as I have learned it both in electronics and in chemistry classes. No one knows for sure. However, if we are going to talk about covalent bonds, we need to go with the known theory.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      With molecular bonds there is also an issue with electronegativity. An atom like oxygen tends to attract orbiting electrons to its side of the bond, more than say a carbon atom in CO2. So, the electron charge density tends to be more negative in the oxygen end than on the carbon end. That sets up a dipole bond. In Co2, there are two of them, one on either end of the O – C – o molecule.

      The orbiting electrons forming the CO2 molecule can still transition from their ground state to higher energy orbitals if they absorb a quantum of EM. In that case, the energy level of the absorbing atom rises and unbalances the bond. So, it will vibrate more.

      This is far too complex to even discuss subjectively since it is purely theoretical. It should apply to the lower level atomic orbitals as well since any absorbed IR will upset the balance of energy between the atoms in a molecule.

      Your claim makes no sense that IR absorbed by a molecule can increase molecular vibration without an electron transition. I have asked repeatedly what is there in a molecule than can absorb EM/IR but an electron? Also, if the bonds are electron orbitals, how can the bond have a greater amplitude of vibration without the bonding electron gaining more energy?

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        EMR is a vibration of electric and magnetic fields that has a certain amount of energy based upon its frequency. These electric and magnetic fields can move things. When they reach a polar molecule that has an electric charge difference the electric fields of EMR the fields can interact and the molecules vibrational energy increases. The frequency does not change but the amplitude (how far apart and close the charged parts of the molecule get) will increase so when the nuclei vibrate (move closer and further apart) after the energy is absorbed by the molecule the distance the nuclei move is increased. And you have a vibrating molecule in a higher energy state. It will emit an IR photon and return to a lower state. It is similar to electronic transitions but different on what is moving. The electrons do not have to move at all, the nuclei are where the energy interaction takes place and they respond to the energy by increasing in amplitude of their vibrational state.

        • Swenson says:

          Norman,

          And CO2 can be heated by absorbing energy. It cools by emitting energy.

          I guess you think you are making some sort of point, but certainly not one which supports the mythical GHE.

          All matter in the universe absorbs IR. All matter in the universe emits IR.

          Do you disagree, or are you realistic?

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Norman says:

          EMR is a vibration of electric and magnetic fields that has a certain amount of energy based upon its frequency. These electric and magnetic fields can move things. When they reach a polar molecule that has an electric charge difference the electric fields of EMR the fields can interact and the molecules vibrational energy increases.
          ————————-
          The fact that something ‘can’ do something is different than something ‘does’ do something Normal.

          This experiment shows that does not always happen:
          https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

          So since you haven’t yet made a point that is supported by science perhaps you can provide an example of what you is unique about what you are talking about. If you can’t do that you should then recognize that your belief in this is really in the realm of religion rather than science.

          Norman says:
          The frequency does not change but the amplitude (how far apart and close the charged parts of the molecule get) will increase so when the nuclei vibrate (move closer and further apart) after the energy is absorbed by the molecule the distance the nuclei move is increased.

          And you have a vibrating molecule in a higher energy state. It will emit an IR photon and return to a lower state. It is similar to electronic transitions but different on what is moving. The electrons do not have to move at all, the nuclei are where the energy interaction takes place and they respond to the energy by increasing in amplitude of their vibrational state.

          —————————–
          So far all you have described is what everybody already knows.

          The reason the 3rd grader radiation model so passionately embraced by so many invokes skepticism from so many is the failure to demonstrate the effect. We know that GHG intercept full spectra sunlight because half of sunlight is IR. Thus per the experiments underlying MODTRAN the more GHG’s in the atmosphere the less sunlight reaching the ground. And that is empirically held up by just noticing the hottest temperatures are achieved on the hottest and driest days and not on days when there is a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere.

          So just stomping your feet and insisting on your belief that the institutional/industrial complex (establishment) is correct is completely unconvincing.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”EMR is a vibration of electric and magnetic fields that has a certain amount of energy based upon its frequency. These electric and magnetic fields can move things. When they reach a polar molecule that has an electric charge difference the electric fields of EMR the fields can interact and the molecules vibrational energy increases”.

          ***

          Unlike what theoretical physicists would have use believe, EM fields interact with the electric charges of electrons, not with their mass. The idea that EM, with no mass, has a momentum that can affect a mass, is just plain silly. If that was the case, air molecules would have to vibrate at the frequency of not only light, but at the frequencies of radio waves. We know that’s not the case because EM waves will pass right through air without affecting it for the most part.

          When EM interacts with a mass, it is interacting with the electric charges on electrons which are orbiting atomic nucleii at a very high angular frequency. The EM frequency must match that angular frequency to be absorbed by the electron. That’s why each element has very discrete frequencies at which it can absorb and emit EM.

          There is nothing in a molecule but positively charged nucleii and the negatively charged electrons surrounding the nucleii and the bonding electrons in the valence band that hold the molecule together. When EM interacts with any molecule, it is interacting with electrons only. There is no known effect on the nucleii. If there was, quantum theory would fall part.

  72. Gordon Robertson says:

    clintella…”Gordon is very similar to you, Norman. Neither one of you can learn, but both of you believe your beliefs are correct. Both of you attack REAL Skeptics. Youre both cultists”.

    ***

    This is an unprovoked attack by you. As usual, you supply no evidence to back your claim, mainly because you are too scared to take me on with anything to do with real science.

    The only thing of which you are skeptical is the truth and science. Norman has the courage that you lack.

    • Clint R says:

      That’s not an unprovoked attack, Gordon. It’s reality. You sound just like Norman. Look at your insults and false accusations.

      Just like Norman.

  73. Swenson says:

    String on a ball, gravity on Moon, no difference. Centripetal force. Newton’s Laws of Motion in action – describing the path of the object subject to a force.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      String on a ball, gravity on Moon, BIG difference.

      There is different constraints imposed by the two sources. A string can apply a strong torque on a ball as you start to spin the ball. This torque constrains one side of a ball to always face inward as the ball circles the hand. If the ball speeds up or slows down, that torque forces the same side always inward.

      Gravity does not apply such a constraining torque. A moon could spin fast or slow or forward or backward as it circles the earth.

      This feature nixes the ball-on-string model as an accurate model of an orbiting moon. A yoyo-on-string model would be better — the kind of yoyo that is free to spin on the end of the string. Just like a merry-go-round horse bolted to the platform is a poor model; it should better be a merry-go-round horse on a low-friction axle.

      [NOTE: Gravity *does* provide a tiny tidal torque that causes synchronous rotation. This is like the small friction on the yoyo’s axle or the horse’s axle.]

      • Tim S says:

        You are getting closer, but any attempt at an experiment will not work unless the experiment is done in total vacuum to eliminate possible differential effects from wind resistance. Spinning golf balls, baseballs, tennis balls, etc. curve from wind resistance.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        You wrote “A moon could spin fast or slow or forward or backward as it circles the earth.”

        Or it could not spin at all.

        In such a case, do you disagree with “String on a ball, gravity on Moon, no difference. Centripetal force. Newtons Laws of Motion in action describing the path of the object subject to a force.”?

        • Clint R says:

          Swenson, you just trapped Tim F. in reality!

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “Or it could not spin at all.”

          Yes. In that case it would maintain a constant orientation with the stars! That is what “not spin at all” would mean.

          Consider a stationary MGR horse (imagine the nose pointing north) on a stationary platform. I think we all agree both are “not spinning at all”.

          If the horse can turn on a pivot and I give the nose a push, now the horse is spinning, but not the platform. A torque was needed to do that.

          Alternately, I could turn on the MGR and cause a torque, and the platform will spin. But the horse on the pivot will keep pointing north because no torque was applied to the horse. As long as the nose points north, the horse is not spinning.

          I could push the nose and apply a torque to get the horse spinning on the spinning platform. Or friction could apply a small torque at the base, and slowly get the horse to spin synchronously with the platform. Now both the horse and the platform are spinning because torques were applied to both.

          • Clint R says:

            Fraudkerts, you pervert so well.

            Here’s the reality: The MGR horse is attached to the pole. So where the pole goes, the horse goes. The horse can NOT spin. It can only revolve (orbit). The horse keeps one side facing the inside of the MGR. Similar motion to Moon — one side always faces the inside of its orbit.

            Now, pervert some more.

      • Clint R says:

        This is another good example of how they try to pervert reality.

        First Folkerts explains that Earth cannot create torque on Moon, which is just basic physics. Then Folkerts claims that Earth can create a “tiny” torque!

        “Gravity *does* provide a tiny tidal torque that causes synchronous rotation.”

        If he can get you to believe in “tiny tidal”, then he’s got ya. Reality be damned!

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          The world is not all black and white. Sometimes it is easier to talk about the simplest of cases (no air resistance, no friction, massless pulleys, no resistance in wires, etc). Sometimes is important to include small details.

          Be wary of anyone who can only talk of black and white, but can’t discuss the grays.

          • Clint R says:

            You problem Folkerts, is that reality IS black and white. Cults and perverts don’t like reality. They want a world where everything is “relative” — there are NO absolutes.

            A cult can’t accept reality, or it won’t last. A pervert relies on excuses, aka, “frames of reference”. We see it here all the time.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:

            The world is not all black and white. Sometimes it is easier to talk about the simplest of cases (no air resistance, no friction, massless pulleys, no resistance in wires, etc).
            ———————–
            Seems to me spinners have buried their heads in this sand.

            Tim Folkerts says:

            Sometimes is important to include small details.
            ——————–

            Good you now are agreeing with non-spinners. An orbit is a rotation. It isn’t a rotation when you start dissecting it into black and white and start believing in the simplest of cases existing independently of the orbit(i.e. lorb and lspin).

            The problem with doing that is those concepts are not existing independently and you just admitted it when you said: ”NOTE: Gravity *does* provide a tiny tidal torque that causes synchronous rotation. This is like the small friction on the yoyos axle or the horses axle.”

            In the world of rotations on external axes there is never a lack of such a tiny force that is part and parcel to the rotation on an external axis and thus it isn’t independent of that.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Tim Folkerts says:

        String on a ball, gravity on Moon, BIG difference.

        There is different constraints imposed by the two sources. A string can apply a strong torque on a ball as you start to spin the ball. This torque constrains one side of a ball to always face inward as the ball circles the hand. If the ball speeds up or slows down, that torque forces the same side always inward.

        Gravity does not apply such a constraining torque. A moon could spin fast or slow or forward or backward as it circles the earth.
        ———————–

        Are we making progress? Sure the moon ‘could’ spin fast or slow or forward or backward as it rotates around the earth. . . .but it doesn’t.

        Tim Folkerts says:
        This feature nixes the ball-on-string model as an accurate model of an orbiting moon. A yoyo-on-string model would be better the kind of yoyo that is free to spin on the end of the string. Just like a merry-go-round horse bolted to the platform is a poor model; it should better be a merry-go-round horse on a low-friction axle.

        [NOTE: Gravity *does* provide a tiny tidal torque that causes synchronous rotation. This is like the small friction on the yoyos axle or the horses axle.]
        —————————–

        Hilarious pretzel logic. Yes Tim gravity provides a tidal torque that removes independent spin on its local axis and forces a complete spin on the external axis the moon, the yoyo, or anything else rotating around an external axis.

        A yoyo expert can sustain a round the world motion with a yoyo but can’t sustain the motion you are speaking of because of that tiny torque of friction. That is true in every real world scenario and is recognized to be true for planets and moons as well as any rotation on an external axis and in no case is such a rotation entirely ruled out given a force to bring it about other than the forces involved in the rotation upon an external axis.

        Thats were you spinners hang your hat. On a relative and undefined concept of rigidity (and of course anything else they can dream up as you attempt to define things in terms of perfection when perfection is an unreal concept.)

        That is why orbital rotation remains a viable concept. Logic demands that to consider orbital rotation a rotation one must not also have spin on a local axis as the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. An orbital rotation includes that claimed perspective which someone else might consider to be a separate rotation. Lorb + Lspin = Lrotation. Lorb is not a rotation. Lspin may or may not be a rotation. The angular momentum of the moon’s rotation with no spin on its local axis is Lorb + Lspin.

        Thus logic demands that the total angular momentum of the MOTR be
        Lorb + 2Lspin because there is the need of forces to sustain the counter rotation.

        If you choose to not recognize that fact you have eliminated all rotations upon external axes.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          The more I read this, the more confused it seem you are!

          “Logic demands that to consider orbital rotation …”
          What do you think “orbital rotation” is???
          Orbital MOTION is the path of the CoM of an object (ie a point moving along an ellipse).
          AXIAL rotation is a change in orientation of an object relative to some defined axis (eg a MGR around its center or the earth around a line through the poles).
          Please define “orbital rotation”.

          “Thus logic demands that the total angular momentum of the MOTR be
          Lorb + 2Lspin because there is the need of forces to sustain the counter rotation.”

          Lorb = mr x v (where r is the distance of the CoM from the focus of the ellispe, and m is the mass, and v is the velocity of the CoM.
          Lspin is I(omega) where I is hte moment of inertia about the objects axis and (omega) is the angular velocity relative to an inertyial reference frame)

          PHYSICS demands MOTR has L = Lorb + 0! This is bloody simple 1st year university physics! There is no need for any force or torque to sustain a ‘counter rotation’ because there in no counter rotation. If your ‘logic’ leads you to other conclusions, then your logic is inconsistent with classical physics!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Simple Tim. Orbital rotation is the same as any rotation on an external axis. . . .the axis you recognized when you said:

            NOTE: Gravity *does* provide a tiny tidal torque that causes synchronous rotation. This is like the small friction on the yoyos axle or the horses axle.

            this is identical to any motion around an external axis. All these motions are influenced by other forces that make all the rotations imperfect and all you are trying to do is cherry pick among them to satisfy your belief system.

            Orbiting bodies are primarily influenced by an external axis located at the COM of the object orbited.

            It is you that has redefined angular momentum as a dimensionless COM rather than the sum of the angular momentums of all its particles.

            If I did the same thing for Lspin (i.e. every particle has the same value for r as does the COM) Lspin amounts to zero also.

            But no way will you allow for that you want to use the sum of the angular momentum of all the moons particles to calculate Lspin and you want to deny that same treatment for the orbital motion.

            So its plenty easy to see how inculcated you are here and how you want to split practices into an imaginary COM with no dimensions (namely an imaginary object) to satisfy your inculcation.

            The moon has one real axis, an axis that one can use imagination to make into two axes. . . .one of which you claim to be an imaginary rotation. . . .not a real rotation.

            That fact is well established in the threads on this over the years. Desperate spinners have used dozens of artificial criteria to deny that an orbit is a rotation at all.

            And then when confronted with this imaginary dimensionless COM rotating on an external axis they suddenly want to now recognize it as a rotation.

            The challenge has long been there. Be consistent rather than flip flopping all over the place like a fish out of water.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            And Physics does not demand that the MOTR – – – Lmoon=Lorb+0

            As that comes up with the wrong number for the angular momentum of the moon as it doesn’t recognize that there are two rotations going on each of which has a definable cause. In fact if you take 90% of the argument levied here by spinners the MOTR would have zero angular momentum as the arguments have been that orbital motion is NOT a rotation.

            Since you accept it is then the only answer is rotation 1 is lorb+lspin and rotation two is lspin in the opposite direction as for rotation 1, meaning that it MUST be Lorb + 2Lspin as the momentum of the two spins are equal and angular momentum can never be negative.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Orbital rotation is the same as any rotation on an external axis”
            But orbits are not circles. Your definition is thus useless in the real world. What is “orbital rotation” for Halley’s Comet?

            “the MOTR would have zero angular momentum as the arguments have been that orbital motion is NOT a rotation.”
            Angular momentum is L = rxp. There does NOT have to be rotation (orbital or otherwise) to have angular momentum!

            Consider a particle of mass m moving at speed v at the end of a string of length r. Its angular momentum as about the center of the circle is L = mvr. if the string breaks and the particle flies off in a straight line, the angular moment about the center of the circle is …. still mvr, exactly the same as before the string broke! If you don’t understand, then you don’t understand angular momentum.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            the same thing would happen if the moon’s particles flew apart Tim. You are mixing metaphors, the moon would fly off spinning but particles without dimensions would not. All I am saying is be consistent and retain the torque arm to retain the angular momentum and be consistent in identifying the torque arm and its origin.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            I am not quite sure what “same thing” you mean.

            If we could ‘turn off gravity’ then both MOTL and MOTR would fly off in a straight line, with exactly the same Lorb as before, ie Lorb = mvr for both. (r = radius of initial circle)

            ” the moon would fly off spinning …”
            MOTR would NOT be spinning if we turn off gravity. It was not spinning before and it would not be spinning after. Lspin(initial) = Lspin(final) = 0.
            MOTL WOULD be spinning if we turn off gravity. It was spinning before and it would be spinning after. Lspin(initial) = Lspin(final) = I(omega)

          • Bill Hunter says:

            You are not following the logic. The MOTL and MOTR isn’t a distinction I am making I am talking about all particles.

            Particles are what are in orbit with a moon. The angular momentum of each particle going around the earth is part of the moon’s angular momentum. In fact the pull isn’t on an imaginary COM as thats just a concept. The pull that keeps the moon in orbit and tidally locked is on every particle the sum of which doesn’t equal Lorb which is the angular momentum of one particle with no dimensions but the moon isn’t one such particle that gravity is pulling on.

            The physics here is layered. Lspin is part and parcel to the orbital motion even if you can imagine it being separate. So what I am saying if you want to call your imagination real you need to find another force or momentum that creates this second motion other than the earth’s force of gravity on the moon.

            This is a fact for every rotation around an external axis.

            And when you do that all the moon has left is something identical to linear momentum.

            To see this imagine a flexible disk spinning on the earth’s axis of which the earth and moon are part of such that each particle follows an eliptical path (i.e. the particles are held together by gravity rather than molecular bonds. then you carve away everything but the earth and moon.

            So what I am saying is particles can break off the moon and fly off in a straight line just like the moon could fly out of orbit into a straight line. . . but to do that you would might have to switch off the gravity (since its never been done and you can’t for sure extrapolate such stuff) to make the motion match the path an object would take if the string that held the ball in orbit snapped. . . .otherwise gravity would still influence the moon while the string would not.

  74. gbaikie says:

    “The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) announced that the Chandrayaan-3 mission has successfully performed the Earth-bound perigee firing and is expected to attain an orbit of 127,609 km x 236 km after observations. The ISRO expects the next firing, the TransLunar Injection (TLI), to take place on August 1, 2023, between 12 midnight and 1 am IST.”
    Chandrayaan-3: Fifth orbit-raising manoeuvre performed successfully

    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/chandrayaan-3-orbit-raising-manoeuvre-performed-successfully/articleshow/102106147.cms?from=mdr

    So, the 236 km by 127,607 km orbit takes about 7 days to do a orbit.

    And so if going to Venus to hit atmosphere and slow down enough so it goes back out to 120,000 km from Venus. And at the 120,000 distance add some velocity so lifts up the lower part of orbit so it’s well above atmosphere. And get orbital time of about 1 week.

    Anyhow, most orbital time going far away and returning to close to Venus distance, about an hour near Venus and about a week being pretty far from Venus.
    You could be spend a lot time in Venus’ shadow, or could also choose not in it’s shadow.

    I hope take some pictures of Earth, when at that distance from Earth.
    They did that with Chandrayaan-2:
    https://www.space.com/india-moon-chandrayaan2-photos-of-earth.html

    • gbaikie says:

      Linked from that:

      SpaceX almost done with second Starship flight prep! Starship accidentally destroyed?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKJxQtE5Z0

      I am going guess, Aug 24th for second Starship test launch.
      And video mentions New Glenn and Vulcan Centaur are going launch a lot Amazon global internet satellites in 2024.
      So, 2024 could be very busy.
      But seems we could get 2 Starship launches before the first Vulcan Centaur launch which scheduled later this year.
      And get 4 Starship launches before will get New Glenn’s first launch “sometime in 2024”.
      Though it’s possible the coming Starship test launch has serious issues, and it’s possible Vulcan Centaur gets orbit before Starship does.

  75. professor P says:

    It is so sad to visit the depths of Roy’s thread here and see the same old rats and cockroaches scuttling about in the dark,
    repeating the same old mantras and, sometimes turning upon their own kind. What impoverished lives they must lead.

    • Swenson says:

      Ah! The psychobabbler returns!

      Babble! Babble! Babble!

    • Arkady Ivanovich says:

      “repeating the same old mantras”

      It’s a general lemming situation.

      • Swenson says:

        All the lemmings are terrified that they are in imminent danger of being roasted, toasted, fried or boiled!

        Quick! Someone needs to do something!

        Describe the greenhouse effect, perhaps? Maybe it is the source of the fiery cataclysm about to engulf humanity?

        All good for a laugh.

  76. Tim S says:

    I have stated that everyone claiming there is a climate crisis is either dishonest or incompetent. I will attempt to prove that assertion. Let’s assume for discussion that CO2 is 20% of the overall greenhouse effect at the current level of 420 ppmv. Let’s also assume that the current rate of emission remains constant with 2/5 of that accumulating in the atmosphere at a 2 ppmv accumulation rate per year. That rounds up to a 0.1% increase in the total greenhouse effect each year. How exactly is that possibly a crisis? More to the point, the claim that it is only going to get worse each year is clearly countered by ENSO and other effects.

    Even worse is the claim that “we” must do something before it is too late. I saw a popular political leader in the climate scam who was asked by a very liberal reporter, who boarders on hysteria, the following question: What about China? How can we get them to help? The answer was perfect. “We must show leadership”. Currently, the leadership we are showing is to panic and impose ridiculous deadlines and restrictions for almost zero actual benefit while China and the rest of the “developing” world gets a free pass.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “That rounds up to a 0.1% increase in the total greenhouse effect each year. How exactly is that possibly a crisis?”

      Well, the total greenhouse effect is about 30 C. 0.1% would be 0.03 per year. That would be 0.3 C per decade, which is faster than actual warming!

      It will not be a “crisis” next year. OR even next decade. But little bits add up and eventually become a problem!

      • Swenson says:

        Tim, you wrote –

        “Well, the total greenhouse effect is about 30 C. 0.1% would be 0.03 per year. That would be 0.3 C per decade, which is faster than actual warming!”

        Well, no, your description of the greenhouse effect as a temperature is a bit peculiar, to say the least. Where might this greenhouse effect be observed? Is any thermometer showing 30 C a greenhouse effect?

        Only joking – you really are that incapable of expressing what you really mean to say.

        You do realise that 0.3 C per decade results in the seas boiling in a few thousand years? No wonder you can’t describe the greenhouse effect. Do you really believe the seas are about to boil, or will the greenhouse effect magically stop working before this happens?

        Come on Tim, commit yourself to saying something.

      • Tim S says:

        You have correctly noted that I grossly exaggerated the effect of CO2. I did that on purpose to show that even an exaggeration is a very small year to year effect. The actual contribution of CO2 to the total greenhouse effect varies by region due to variations in water content, but a global value of 10% or less is closer to reality.

        My most important point is that all of the claims of a crisis are accompanied by a claim that immediate action is required to save the planet. The reality is that world wide emissions by China and others are almost certain to increase while we jump through hoops.

  77. The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  78. Entropic man says:

    For those here who think that climate models are running hot, comparison between model projections and July 2023 temperatures.

    https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/are-temperatures-this-summer-hotter

    • RLH says:

      https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming

      “But even the modelmakers acknowledge that many of these models have a glaring problem: predicting a future that gets too hot too fast. “

    • Clint R says:

      He did mention HTE. But, he attempted to dismiss it as “likely contributing”.

      That’s like saying a hailstone as big as a bowling ball “likely contributed” to breaking your windshield.

      He’s all about alarmism: “The world will not stop warming until our emissions of CO2 get down to (net) zero.”

      If that were really true, it seems like he would have some valid physics to support it. Where’s his “proof” that CO2 can raise temperatures?

    • Swenson says:

      “Climate change is real, caused by human activity, and is increasingly damaging to society. The world will not stop warming until our emissions of CO2 get down to (net) zero.” – from your link.

      CO2 produces no heat whatsoever.

      Your faith in Zeke Hausfather is touching. Self proclaimed climate scientist, and if you choose to believe that he has a PhD in “climate science” (which he is not on record as denying), good for you!

      The surface has cooled to its present temperature from a molten state. Neither CO2 nor anything else prevented this from happening. Maybe you can find an authority who can describe the GHE, if you think that might explain simultaneous heating and cooling of the surface.

      You previously stated “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets.”

      Do you think you might need to upgrade your explanation?

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “CO2 produces no heat whatsoever.”
        Neither does insulation, but it is helpful for keeping your home warm.
        You might need to upgrade your objection.

        “The surface has cooled to its present temperature from a molten state.”
        True, but the surface has WARMED to its present temperature compared to 50 years ago (or compared to 50,000 years ago). This is all the more remarkable in light of that 4.5 billion year general cooling trend you are fixated on.
        You might need to upgrade your objection.

        • Clint R says:

          Folkerts, if your claim is that the GHE is “insulation” then that is caused by N2 and O2. CO2 is then a window to space, as are the other radiative gases. So you’ve got N2 and O2 warming, and CO2 cooling.

          Good job, you just perverted your cult’s perversion, getting you almost back to reality.

          • gbaikie says:

            Mars has more CO2 in atmosphere as Earth does in it’s atmosphere- Mars atmosphere is about 25 trillion tons with 95% of it being CO2.
            And since Mars smaller planet, a lot more per square meter.

            Mars doesn’t have lower average temperature than Earth because it has more CO2.
            If Mars had 50 trillion tons of CO2, Mars would be a bit warmer.
            If Mars had 25 trillion tons of CO2, and added 25 trillion tons of N2 and O2 {50% of each} then Mars would also be a bit warmer.

            Now if added 25 trillion tons of CO2 to Mars atmosphere, one could argue, that the 25 trillion tons would eventually freeze out, and 25 trillion ton of N2 and O2, would not freeze out.

            One could also add 25 trillion tons of water to Mars atmosphere, and like CO2, it would also freeze out {evenually}.

            Of course when CO2 or H20 freezes out, it adds latent heat, H20 adds more latent heat than same amount of CO2.

            In Mars polar region in winter, it currently snows a lot of CO2 [and some water]- and one could count that as global warming effect.
            If 1/2 atmosphere was water, it would snow more water than CO2, and have a greater global warming effect.

            But as I said, if covered Mars with water snow, Mars would be warmer, but some might think that because Mars appears brighter- reflected more sunlight, it would be colder than it is.
            But also if Mars was covered in CO2 snow {and was brighter] it would also have warming effect [but less than than same amount of water].

          • gbaikie says:

            To have Mars settlements, you have to mine 1 billion tons of water
            per year.
            To explore Mars {NASA Mars crew program} you don’t have to mine thousands [or millions] tons of Mars water. Instead one thing exploration has to do, is find places on Mars where, future Mars settlement can mine 1 billion tons of water per year.

            In terms of starting a Mars settlement, you have start with 1 million tons of water per year, and it could cost more than 1 billion dollar
            to mine the first 1 million tons of water, but one has to increase the amount of water mined per year, and cost to mine a million tons
            has lower per years.

            Or you could think of it as static amount, start with 1 million tons, and continue at rate of 1 million tons per year.
            But I am saying you could start with 1 million but for Mars settlement amount mine has increase {to 1 billion tons per year} and the cost per 1 million tons {or per ton} has lower in cost and lower in price.

            So a site where there is settlement has to have +1 billion tonnes mineable water, near the settlement- and one might need to get mined water from a further distance {later}. But the more water available nearest Mars settlement {the better}.

            So, if mining 1 million tons, to start and will mining 1 billion tons
            within a decade, you should make a lake.
            And people want real estate in or near the lake.
            Lake with or without a dome.
            If land around the lake has snow on it, it’s real estate with more value, than without snow on it.
            And it looks pretty, when coming to area from orbit.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            The mystery of your thinking would be why you can understand insulation when it cones to conduction but can’t for radiant energy.

            N2 and O2 have no ability to reduce radiant surface heat flow so are a complete IR window from surface to space. GHG lower the radiant heat loss of surface emission to space. It is ehy GHG allow the Sun to increase surface temperature by 33C.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Folkerts, if your claim is that the GHE is “insulation” then …”
            Well, that was not the claim, so none of your further comments are germane.

            I was simply pointing out the illogic in the initial claim: “X produces no heat whatsoever.”
            This is not sufficient to show “X” has no warming effect.

          • Clint R says:

            That’s a lot of confusion in such a short comment, Norman.

            Insulation works best against conduction and convection. Radiation is a more complex issue and you can’t make a blanket statement that fits all wavelengths.

            N2 and O2 can definitely affect radiation in their wavelengths. But what happens when a CO2 15μ photon impacts a N2 molecule? Can you even make a guess?

            And CO2 does NOT increase Earth’s temperature 33C! That’s your cult nonsense and proves you have no understanding of the relevant physics.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            Most the IR energy would go through the N2 molecules with no effect.

            You can see this by looking at IR spectrographs. If the IR is not absorbed it goes through and reaches the detector.

            https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1

            You can see for yourself if you want to. This has a IR spectrogram of CO2. You can see that in IR energy that is not absorbed it goes to the transmitter. It goes through the CO2 sample with very little loss.

            Also it is not just CO2 that is responsible for the 33 C GHE. It is all the GHG and clouds. They all contribute to the overall effect. Contribution by CO2 is small maybe 10& of the overall GHE.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            You can use this model to get an idea of CO2 contribution.

            https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

            You can put in 400 PPM in one case. Set the value to looking up, make it a standard atmosphere and use 0 for your altitude. With no other changes you will get a 31.12 W/m^2 DWIR at the surface. Roughly 10& of the GHE.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you found some more links you can’t understand but you didn’t answer the simple question: What happens to a 15μ photon when it impacts a N2 or O2 molecule?

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            I did answer your question. Guess you missed it. Reread my response if you want the answer.

          • Clint R says:

            Your attempt at an answer was either evasive or incompetent, or both. You mentioned IR going through molecules and included the spectrum for CO2, which had NOTHING to do with the question. Let’s try again:

            What happens to a 15μ photon when it impacts a N2 or O2 molecule?

        • Swenson says:

          Tim,

          You wrote –

          “Neither does insulation, but it is helpful for keeping your home warm.”

          Insulation is also helpful for keeping your home cool in hot climates. Air conditioned homes love it, and it saves money as well.

          It is also helpful for keeping your food cold, and your firemen cool. Are you really so ignorant?

          As to surface warming, as Dr Spencer seems to be finding, it is likely due to man-made heat (ephemeral) causing thermometers to be hotter.

          Now if you are saying that the surface has warmed over the last 50 years (nobody uses surface temperature in their averages, surprisingly), then you might need to find some reason for the warming which hasn’t been around during four and a half billion years of cooling.

          Insulation wont work. Raymond Pierrehumbert said that “CO2 is just planetary insulation”, but CO2 has been present in the atmosphere for more than 50 years – in far greater concentrations. All the fossil fuels are based on carbon, which came from the atmosphere in past eons.

          As far as I can see, Anthropogenic Global Warming is likely due to Anthropogenally Generated Warmth.

          If you could describe the GHE in scientifically testable terms it would help. At present, just saying “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.” Is quite meaningless.

          As to “upgrading my objection”, you say nothing definite. I need to “upgrade” nothing. I just point that you say nothing definite – even when you say “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”, you are careful to avoid indicating the direction of the “slope”, and you use vague terms like small, long term, short term, and so on.

          Then you complain bitterly when I point out reality – the Earth has cooled, and continues to do so. Nothing has stopped universal physical laws from operating.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “you might need to find some reason for the warming “
            CO2 is one obvious reason.

            “CO2 has been present in the atmosphere for more than 50 years”
            Yes, but it has been increasing during those 50 years. Theory says (everything else being the same) more CO2 causes more warming; observations show that there has been warming (and roughly in line with predictions due to increased CO2).

            ” As far as I can see, Anthropogenic Global Warming is likely due to Anthropogenally Generated Warmth.
            An interesing hypoitheses. Calculate how much heat is generated by buring fossil fuels and running nuclear power plants (and any other source you can think of). THen calculate how much heat is required to raise the the temperature of the air and oceans by the amounts measured. IF you can get the two to agree, then you are on to something. If you can’t then this is just another failed hypothesis.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Well its one possible reason but certainly not an obvious one. One first must define a mechanism known to cause warming. Obviously the 3rd grader radiation model isn’t it. It fails to produce every time.

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

            Of course its on the proponents of a theory to produce a working model based on some established effect and to show causation rather than correlation.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, what “theory” says “more CO2 causes more warming”?

            You may not be aware of it, but a theory can NOT violate the laws of physics.

  79. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Science misinformer pushing the “orbiting electrons forming the CO2 molecule can still transition from their ground state to higher energy orbitals if they absorb a quantum of EM” trope.

    Infrared radiation does not possess enough energy to cause electronic transitions in molecules like carbon dioxide (CO2).

    For molecules like CO2, the primary mechanism of interaction with infrared radiation is through vibrational transitions.

    These vibrational transitions are responsible for the greenhouse effect, where greenhouse gases aβsorβ and re-emit infrared radiation, trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.

    To be clear, the correct mechanism for IR aβsorρτion by greenhouse gases involves vibrational transitions, not electronic transitions.

    Another reason IR radiation cannot induce electronic transitions in molecules like CO2, is that doing so would violate the Pauli exclusion principle.

    The Pauli exclusion principle states that no two electrons in an atom or molecule can have the same set of quantum numbers.

    It is essential to maintain accuracy when discussing complex scientific concepts.

    • Clint R says:

      Ark, you forgot to mention CO2’s 15μ photon can NOT raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature.

    • Swenson says:

      A,

      “It is essential to maintain accuracy when discussing complex scientific concepts.”

      Maybe you could discuss a complex scientific concept, and I’ll check it for “accuracy” – on the basis of scientific fact. How would that suit?

      You wrote “These vibrational transitions are responsible for the greenhouse effect, where greenhouse gases aβsorβ and re-emit infrared radiation, trapping heat in the Earths atmosphere.”

      Please describe this “greenhouse effect”. You don’t appear to have the faintest idea what you are talking about, but without a description of this “greenhouse effect”, it is hard to say for sure.

      You don’t seem to accept that all matter both absorbs and emits infrared radiation, so I’ll await your GHE description.

      Bananas emit and absorb IR, and are radioactive to boot, producing radiogenic heat. The radioactive form of carbon found in a cubic meter of CO2 produces less radiogenic heat than a banana. Is that accurate or not? Or too complex for you?

      Only joking, of course. CO2 heats the atmosphere less than radioactive bananas.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        “Bananas emit and absorb IR, and are radioactive to boot…”

        ***

        Darn it. Is nothing sacred? Radioactive bananas?

        Papayas apparently spread covid as well, since they test positive for it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ark…”Infrared radiation does not possess enough energy to cause electronic transitions in molecules like carbon dioxide (CO2)”.

      ***

      Can you explain why it has enough energy to cause electron transitions in hydrogen? The Paschen series and two other series lie in the infrared band.


      “To be clear, the correct mechanism for IR aβsorρτion by greenhouse gases involves vibrational transitions, not electronic transitions”.

      ***

      What is transitioning during vibrational transitions? There is only one particle in a molecule that can alter vibration and that is the bonding electrons.

      If you think otherwise, please supply evidence of what is vibrating. It’s the bonds that vibrate and bonds are electrons.


      “Another reason IR radiation cannot induce electronic transitions in molecules like CO2, is that doing so would violate the Pauli exclusion principle”.

      ***

      Pauli was one of many theoreticians following Bohr’s 1913 theory of electron transitions who were frantically trying to explain the behavior of electrons in multi-electron elements. They were stabbing in the dark and came up with ludicrous theories.

      Why those theories are still held in esteem today is a mystery.

      For example, helium has two electrons and the Bohr model set up issues that needed to be resolved. How could two electrons occupy the same orbital? Since no one has ever seen electrons orbiting a nucleus they needed to do some fancy footwork, so they invented theories that would explain the issues created by Bohr’s theory.

      Personally, I think Pauli was full of it and should be ignored these days. We should start doing science again and find out what is actually going on.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Can you explain why it has enough energy to cause electron transitions in hydrogen? The Paschen series and two other series lie in the infrared band.”

        This is basic Bohr theory! Your premise is false — IR does NOT have enough energy in hydrogen!

        The Paschen lines are created when an electron falls to the 3rd energy level from the 4th, 5th, 6th ….
        These are IR lines.

        But … the electron has to get TO the 4th, 5th, 6th etc levels first (or at least get to the 3rd level and then absorb an additional IR photon). IR can’t do that! It takes UV to get the electron up to those levels in the first place (or collisions with electrons in a high-voltage tube).

    • gbaikie says:

      –People also ask
      What is Manatee Bay Florida?
      Manatee Bay is a luxury condo development located at the very Southern tip of Fort Myers Beach in the exclusive Waterside at Bay Beach community.–
      There is a lake on Vancouver Island, which was best described a like bath water, even in the winter.
      When I was kid would visit relatives which had dock on the lake, it amazing and a lot fun. The lady was 94 and she claimed she walk a mile a day {or maybe it was it 3 miles- I can’t remember}. She apparently liked walking- rather the obvious of swimming in her lake.
      If she said swam a mile in her lake- it would made more sense to kid
      like me.

  80. gbaikie says:

    Almost 2 months into hurricane season and not much has happened for far. Hurricanes brought thunder and lightening and a bit of rain, last year, but it seems probably not this year.
    California has a lot water in it’s dams and rainy season starts normally in Oct. As general rule it doesn’t seems what happenned last year, is unlikely to happen next year. So in another year we could consider it a drought or very wet or normal.
    In terms of California water from out of state:
    Lake Powell, has past it’s peak:
    “Total inflows for water year 2023: 11,015,529 acre feet
    This is 119.82% of the July 25th average of 9,193,382 acre feet” And
    “Total releases for water year 2023: 6,964,731 acre feet
    This is 92.86% of the minimum required of 7,500,000 acre feet”

    Seem a given will outflow more than “minimum required”
    Lake Mead is still rising:
    “Total inflows for water year 2023: 8,135,625 acre feet
    This is 154.13% of the July 25th average of 5,278,468 acre feet” and
    “Total releases for water year 2023: 6,397,008 acre feet
    This is 71.08% of minimum required release of 9,000,000 acre feet”

    And again it seems it will release more than of “minimum required”
    And if get drought next year, will have enough stored from this year,
    but if get another like this year, these dam would far from being filled up, probably would not even get to 60%, and now around 32%.
    https://lakemead.water-data.com/
    So, they aren’t going to over fill within a year or two, but the one’s California could {and to some extent, did this year}.

    Anyways, it was a good year for California hydropower generation.
    And they haven’t screw up forest management much, this year.

  81. Dennis says:

    Joe Oliver: We are in the grip of climate-change catastrophism
    Opinion by Joe Oliver 8h ago
    Financial Post
    Joe Oliver: We are in the grip of climate-change catastrophism
    A Canadian Journalists assessment.

    The climate-change movement is a powerful cultural entity. It does not affirm or negate the reality of its core narrative, which is for science to decide. Culture does, however, explain the power and prevalence of the narrative, the political and societal responses to it and the apparent willingness of many people to incur immense cost to avert a supposed existential threat, without proof of either its existence or our ability to alter its impact. In a new book available from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, The Grip of Culture: the Social Psychology of Climate Change Catastrophism, Andy A. West, who works for the Philosophy Foundation in London, provides an academic analysis of the phenomenon. Its lessons have particular relevance to Canadas climate obsession.
    As we know, the overarching climate narrative is that human GHG emissions have created a climate emergency that calls for urgent and extraordinary action, without which the consequences for humanity will be catastrophic. In many ways, its cultural characteristics parallel religions and ideological movements, starting with an unshakable foundational belief impervious to contradictory evidence, and extending to incessant incantations from politicians, mainstream media, thought leaders and environmentalists.
    The faithful are reassured by groupthink, while apostates or sinful skeptics, i.e. deniers, are vilified, penalized and ostracized. Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeaults veiled threat to charge Premier Scott Moe of Saskatchewan criminally if he violates federal coal regulations evokes Thomas of Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition though so far absent the burnings at the stake. The movement has its high priests and priestesses Al Gore, Justin Trudeau, Greta Thunberg, King Charles and Mark Carney, none a scientist who convey certainty to the multitudes.
    Core principles and a multitude of subsidiary tenets are validated by exaggerated interpretations of scientific studies, as well as anecdotal evidence and conveniently chosen statistics that reinforce the sacred text. For example, the end of the Little Ice Age is invariably the starting point for calculating a global temperature increase which is like a government calculating its effects on economic growth by starting at the trough of the last recession . Confirmation bias is provided by influencers, including uniquely unqualified Hollywood stars, who propagate the doctrine of the faith. Fear is employed as a powerful motivator and is inculcated from childhood. Apocalyptic doom is preordained for collective disobedience and salvation promised for devotees and repentants who comply with onerous strictures, many of which have no practical utility.
    The instinctive response from climate alarmists to public hesitancy is that the science is settled, the facts are overwhelming and the need so urgent they cant waste time quibbling with ignorant or malevolent naysayers who in any case are probably racist, misogynist, far-right conspiracists.
    Climate alarmists have a fundamental problem, however, which may help explain their stridency. The complexity of climate science is not settled, as Steve E. Koonin, a physicist and former undersecretary for science in Barack Obamas Department of Energy, explained in his 2021 book, Unsettled. Other prominent scientists agree, although they are a distinct minority.
    Nor is climate apocalypse supported by the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), even though its conclusions go farther than the scientific studies on which it allegedly relies. Proffered evidence is based on models that have consistently run hot. Yet the conventional consensus is to accept at face value the predictions of people who have been consistently and spectacularly wrong and who, if they were around in the 1970s, were more than likely to have issued dire warnings about an impending ice age, like Paul Ehrlich and Kenneth Watt, as well as newspapers and journals like Time, Science Digest, The New York Times and Newsweek.
    Barring a miraculous technological innovation, there is virtually no chance of reaching global net zero by 2050 . Two-thirds of GHG emissions come from poorer countries that are deliberately increasing their use of fossil fuels, while the developed economies, including Canada, have consistently failed to reach the targets they have set themselves. And it takes centuries for excess carbon dioxide to disappear from the atmosphere, so any partial reduction in anthropogenic emissions would only slow their increase, not prevent it or eliminate them. Nevertheless, McKinsey says $275 trillion may be spent on the doomed gesture, disproportionately hurting the least advantaged and weakening the West in what may actually be an existential struggle with an expansionist communist China.
    Andy West writes that culture can be a great unifier of societies and even civilizations. But because it is not based on reason, it can also be extraordinarily destructive: witness the calamities perpetrated by communism and fascism. So it is uncertain where climate catastrophism may lead or what negative feedback could potentially provoke a counter-reaction. Last years European energy crisis did undermine support for it, even if green activists claimed it proved we need more of the renewable energy that had in fact made the continent more vulnerable to higher prices and inadequate supply.
    Zeitgeists do change. When people have to choose between food and heat and when the poorest countries are deprived of the affordable energy they desperately need to raise themselves up, then practicality and guilt may eventually change peoples beliefs. That they havent yet done so demonstrates the power of culture in the face of logic, morality, self-interest and the facts.
    Joe Oliver was minister of natural resources and minister of finance in the Harper government.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Barring a miraculous technological innovation, there is virtually no chance of reaching global net zero by 2050 ”

      It could have more to do discovery than “miraculous technological innovation”.

      We could find more mineable lunar water than “expected”.
      It also possible we find less mineable lunar than “expected”.

      It doesn’t matter much to me, whether it’s less or more than “expected”.
      The best result is predicting it, then seeing if somewhat close to a correct prediction.
      But we not doing that. There isn’t an “accepted” prediction of how much mineable water there is in the polar region of moon. Instead there are vague ideas.
      The deceased, Paul Spudis, claimed there was more than 1 million tonnes of mineable lunar water in polar regions {also that in terms total amounts about 10 billion tons of water {only portion as being mineable in near term} in lunar polar region.
      Some imagine trillions of tonnes more below the surface [10 billion was regarding top 2 meter of lunar surface.]
      But other than Paul, no one given prediction of what we will find when we explore the Moon. Though I will note that it seems as general idea, that more mineable water is at South polar region and it’s not even clear to me, that NASA going explore the northern polar region.
      But if not NASA, maybe some entity will.

      Of course if India successful lands on south pole, we might get results, which emboldens some guesses.
      We might see some courage within 2 or 3 months.
      Or at least people arguing with claims made by the Indians.
      People like arguing.

  82. gbaikie says:

    A Storm Hits Earth After a Farside Blast | Solar Storm Forecast 26 July 2023
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD5VbWvBXsE
    Dr.Tamitha Skov

    Ah, roughly, four days of not much excitement, but
    maybe, big spot excitement in 9 days.
    It might survive the passage.
    I am curious what month of July sunspot number,
    it won’t be very active month

    https://www.spaceweather.com/
    Daily Sun: 26 Jul 23
    Solar wind
    speed: 530.8 km/sec
    density: 10.64 protons/cm3
    Sunspot number: 137
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 20.43×10^10 W Warm
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: -2.2% Below Average
    48-hr change: -0.5%

    August should be less than July as will Sept be less than July.
    So sideways and starting around sept/oct looking like downward trend.

    • gbaikie says:

      “MYSTERY CME SPARKS GEOMAGNETIC STORM: Unexpectedly, a CME hit Earth’s magnetic field on July 25th (2235 UT), sparking a G1-class geomagnetic storm. It is unclear if this is the early arrival of a CME originally expected on July 27th or a completely different CME which was previously overlooked.” – spaceweather.com

      Dr.Tamitha Skov explains/predicts it.
      One of those snake like things, explode somewhat towards Earth [almost missed Earth but it’s tail got us.:)

    • gbaikie says:

      Daily Sun: 27 Jul 23
      Solar wind
      speed: 429.2 km/sec
      density: 4.80 protons/cm3
      Sunspot number: 147
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 167 sfu
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 20.60×10^10 W Warm
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -2.5% Below Average
      48-hr change: -0.9%

      “BIG FARSIDE SUNSPOT: There’s a spot on the farside of the sun so large it is affecting the way the whole sun vibrates. Helioseismic echoes pinpoint the active region in the sun’s southern hemisphere not far behind the sun’s southeastern limb. It should rotate into view this weekend.”

      And after weekend, be killing us!!
      July going to end with bang??
      And at least early August, going to be a banging?

      And one of solar probe got hit, what happening with Parker?
      http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
      It seems it’s as far away from the sun as it gets- and fairly close to Earth. We if get it, it will get it, first.
      It could just fade away- probably not.

      • gbaikie says:

        Daily Sun: 29 Jul 23
        speed: 386.1 km/sec
        density: 3.52 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 148
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 168 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 20.53×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -3.3% Below Average
        “A SUNSPOT VISIBLE FROM MARS: There is a sunspot on the farside of the sun so large it is visible from Mars. Perseverance saw it yesterday during a routine check of the sun. The rover monitors the brightness of the sun over Jezero crater as a way of detecting Martian dust stoms. The sunspot will turn toward Earth early next week.”
        It’s a bit more active, and we going to get this big spot, soon.
        But I still imagine it will fade away soon, but I hope the big guy
        isn’t over hyped.

        • gbaikie says:

          Daily Sun: 30 Jul 23
          Solar wind
          speed: 483.4 km/sec
          density: 7.34 protons/cm3
          Sunspot number: 147
          The Radio Sun
          10.7 cm flux: 179 sfu
          Thermosphere Climate Index
          today: 20.53×10^10 W Warm
          Oulu Neutron Counts
          Percentages of the Space Age average:
          today: -3.2% Below Average

          It’s remaining more active- so, big one should
          be, still coming.

  83. gbaikie says:

    Episode 2181 Scott Adams: UFOs, And Can You Distinguish A Real Story From A Dilbert Comic?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdiFH-P19J8
    So, he talking Flordia’s governor’s failing campaign
    and a fly having superior technology vs US air forces.
    And superconductors not needing to be as cold {and changing “everything”}.

    I would point out that the Moon is cold and so is Mars.
    And so is, “perhaps unexpectedly” Venus orbit.
    Or it’s not warm.

    If you can call 15 C air temperature, warm – which it certainly is, if you want to use a super conductor.

    Or that space is different than Earth is one of the main points about a spacefaring civilization.

  84. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Tim Folkerts took exception to someone saying that Tim used insulation as an implied analogy for a GHE that Tim cannot describe.

    His comment –

    “”Folkerts, if your claim is that the GHE is “insulation” then ”
    Well, that was not the claim, so none of your further comments are germane.”

    However, when I pointed out that CO2 produces no heat whatsoever, Tim wrote “Neither does insulation, but it is helpful for keeping your home warm.” Slyly tying to associate insulation with CO2? You decide.

    So Tim bobs and weaves, but cannot get away from the fact that he wrote “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.” – presumably relating to a GHE which he cannot actually describe!

    Tim doesn’t like reality, and strenuously avoids committing himself to anything definite, in case someone might point out that he was demonstrably off with the fairies.

    Just try and get Tim, or any of his deranged rag-tag ilk to actually commit themselves to a firm description of the GHE, and watch as they rush for the doors!

    Gutless wimps, all of them. No backbone at all.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Just try and get Tim, or any of his deranged rag-tag ilk to actually commit themselves to a firm description of the GHE, and watch as they rush for the doors!”

      I might be an ilk {things similar}.
      So, first, there isn’t a greenhouse effect theory.
      Or I am unaware of any author of something that is called, a greenhouse effect theory {or it’s ilk}.

      The greenhouse effect is something that acts like a greenhouse.
      Greenhouse “work” in different ways or there are way to make a greenhouse be transparent the sunlight, so plants can grow and keep
      warm enough at night {particularly don’t freeze and inhibt or kill the plant growth- and depends on what plants are being grown.]
      A main interest of greenhouses was to grow plants which could only grow in the tropics. Or if in tropics, you wouldn’t need to make a greenhouse effect. Or greenhouse could create an artificial tropical
      environment to grow tropical plants.
      Actual greenhouse block convectional heat loss, and/or simply a use heater to keep the air warm enough at night and during winter.

      Modern greenhouse add CO2 to make plants grow better, so greenhouse keep the enriched CO2 air within the greenhouse. They can also disease and insects.
      But greenhouse effect comes an earlier time, though in earlier times they might added CO2 to help plant growth {or noticed that burning “fossil fuel” helped growing plants in addition to keeping them warm.}

      One way to keep a greenhouse warm at night was to simply have barrels of water in the greenhouse, because barrels of water have a lot thermal mass and water is cheap way to do it.

      Which leads to my point, the ocean is a greenhouse effect.
      In addition to a ocean just sitting there. The tropical ocean is heat engine which heats the entire world.

      But what some people might more obsess about is the greenhouse effect related to the atmosphere.
      Well Earth atmosphere has a lot mass, and works like barrels of water but atmosphere mass is about 10 tons per square meter.
      And stacked water barrels so you have 10 tons of water per square meter, is a bit excessive in terms for a greenhouse- plus just wouldn’t warm up during daylight hours- and is not cheap.

      But another way to look at it, which I regard as more important is
      the greenhouse effect is about creating a more uniform temperature.
      Or if maintaining greenhouse one do things to control the air temperature- not make it too hot or too cold.

      And this is related to the global climate states of Icehouse global climate and Greenhouse global climate.
      A Greenhouse global climate has more global water vapor and far more uniform global temperature, as compared to Icehouse global climate- or Ice Ages.
      Which always has a “permanent” ice sheet in the polar region. And normal Earth climate and Greenhouse global climate don’t have ice sheets {but they do have glaciers- our tropics has high elevation glaciers and ice caps- or any Earth climate has snow in winter and/or in higher elevations}.

      • Swenson says:

        gb,

        You wrote –

        “The greenhouse effect is something that acts like a greenhouse.”

        Not terribly informative, is it? Rather like saying “water is something that acts like liquid H2O”?

        Seriously though, the “greenhouse”, or whatever the “greenhouse effect” is supposed to “act like” doesn’t seem to have acted at all to prevent the Earth’s surface from cooling to its present temperature over the last four and a half billion years or so, does it?

        There is no greenhouse effect. That is why nobody can actually describe what it is supposed to do! Maybe you can have a stab? Just saying that the “greenhouse effect” creates a more uniform temperature is so vague as to be useless.

        Current surface temperatures due to unconcentrated sunlight, range roughly between -90 C, and +90 C. The presence of an atmosphere reduces the extremes of temperature – but no additional greenhouse effect is needed to explain why.

        The Earth’s surface has cooled since it was molten, and continues to do so. Getting excited about thermometers responding to Anthropogenically Generated Warmth doesn’t seem to be particularly useful to me, but others may disagree.

        I might beg to differ about the ocean heating the world. The world heats the world. It’s a big ball of more than 99% glowing hot interior, with a thin congealed skin – roughly as thick as the skin on a largish apple. The ocean sits on top of this glowing mass, insulated from it by 6 – 7 km or so of rock. At 10 km depth, the rock surrounding the ocean (the crust being much thicker there), the temperature may be 250 C or so. At 10 km ocean depth, the water temperature is around 2 C or so. So the ocean is certainly cooling the rock on which it sits, rather than heating it.

        And still no GHE to be found!

        • gbaikie says:

          “There is no greenhouse effect. That is why nobody can actually describe what it is supposed to do! Maybe you can have a stab? Just saying that the greenhouse effect creates a more uniform temperature is so vague as to be useless.

          Current surface temperatures due to unconcentrated sunlight, range roughly between -90 C, and +90 C. The presence of an atmosphere reduces the extremes of temperature but no additional greenhouse effect is needed to explain why.”

          Well the atmosphere varying and the sunlight varying is not what explains why the global climate varies.

          Or we have glaciation and interglacial global climate states.
          And in bigger state is we in 33.9 million icehouse global climate
          which cooled the most in last couple million of years.

          Does Earth cooling over billions of years result in last couple millions or longer 33.9 million Ice Age {icehouse global climate}?
          I would say, no.
          Is it due to lowering CO2 levels? I would say, no.
          Is it due to a changing sun? I would say, no.

          But what is question? Are we interested in last 100 years?
          I would say roughly “natural variation” which largely ocean circulation patterns.
          Or we entered in the little ice age, and we are exiting it, but it’s been long period of ocean cooling which can seen temperature reconstruction over period of last +5000 years.
          Or over thousands of years, it cool, then warms, cools, etc over centuries of time.
          What is certain is that 15 C is not a warmer part of an interglacial period.
          And as I said, 15 C is a cold air temperature.
          It well below the temperature that people want their home air temperature to be. And not a warm temperature for animals, either.
          A Walrus, would consider it warm enough. but it lives in a cold ocean. And ocean as cold as 15 C is lethal to humans, and very fat human might survive longer than a less fat human in 15 C ocean.

          A lot humans are too fat, maybe they should lose some weight.

          • Swenson says:

            gb,

            You wrote –

            “Or over thousands of years, it cool, then warms, cools, etc over centuries of time.”

            Given that the oceans are actually a relatively miniscule thickness of water on a mainly glowing hot blob, I cannot see any reason reason why the total amount of water would cool, then warm, then cool again.

            Individual volumes will become warmer, say due to crustal hotspots which wander hither and yon, but warmer water floats to the top of the column, and radiates all its heat away come nightfall.

            If you have alternative explanations for observed facts, you might like to propose them.

            Spontaneous heating and cooling of a body suspended in space, exposed to a relatively constant heat source (the Sun) seems unlikely, to say the least.

          • gbaikie says:

            –gb,

            You wrote

            Or over thousands of years, it cool, then warms, cools, etc over centuries of time.

            Given that the oceans are actually a relatively miniscule thickness of water on a mainly glowing hot blob, I cannot see any reason reason why the total amount of water would cool, then warm, then cool again.–

            Well, I don’t think the reasons are known.
            And one common complaint, I have, is I am always saying the global average surface temperature is about 15 C.
            So, roughly we don’t know what the precise temperature of the global average surface temperature, is now. And obviously 100 years ago or more, it was less accurate.
            You might say, we don’t need to know the average global temperature is.
            One could say, the significant of this site, is a serious attempt at measuring it.
            I would also say the relative cost of measuring Earth surface temperature via satellite, is comparatively cheap to do- considering we have wasted trillion of dollars on this global warming cargo cult

            It seems it’s accurate to say, the global average surface air temperature is “surprisingly”, constant.

            And what is not surprising is very constant temperature of average temperature of the entire ocean. Which as I said, endlessly is actually the global average temperature.

            But I am not saying this, because it’s my crazy idea- rather it’s seems it’s well known.
            It’s more of the elephant in the room, kind of thing.
            NASA and NOAA both say, more than 90% of global warming is warming our cold ocean.
            They are saying recent global warming- but recent global warming is
            has been measured more accurately.
            It’s the Argo floats and satellite measurement which allows enough accuracy- and both are “recent”.

          • gbaikie says:

            So, that’s within 100 years.
            But I am pretty confident about things like having huge ice sheets on North America. And though there is a lot to know about plate tectonic
            it’s very young field, but I see plates and they are moving,
            And the youngest of ocean floor is at least within 100 million years of being accurate,
            And sea levels rising by about 100 meters, doesn’t have much doubt connected with it. Nor much problems related to ice cores, tree rings, fossils, measuring past CO2 levels, and etc, etc.

            Though I like to entertain other things which could refute such things. I admit I am quite closed minded about idea we living in computer sim. Mainly because makes the whole premise of science, a waste of time. I think exploration has driven and will drive science- if in a sim- it doesn’t.

          • Swenson says:

            gb,

            Whatever the globe’s “average temperature” happens to be, it is what it is.

            A big glowing hot blob like the Earth will cool, if it is emitting more energy than it receives from its environment. Eventually, a state of thermal equilibrium will eventuate, in theory.

            At the moment, the Earth seems to be losing around 44 Tw or so of energy continuously. The amount of sunlight is irrelevant, as all the heat of the day is lost during the night.

            Some people refuse to accept this as fact, despite the Earth demonstrably cooling in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight. Seems simple enough to me, accords with known fact, and is supported by theory and experiment.

            People are free to believe in anything at all, even if they can’t describe it, but simply claim that it exists, and is responsible for anything bad which occurs anywhere in the world. The GHE is an example.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gb…”…the ocean is a greenhouse effect”.

        ***

        Good point and good post. The problem is that alarmists are not interested in science, only in blaming humans for causing global warming/climate change. That’s the mandate of their supreme authority figure, the IPCC, and to further their mandate they have perverted science to the extent they have created a greenhouse effect that has no basis in science.

        There are far better scientific explanations for why the planet retains heat and the oceans represent one of them.

    • Tim S says:

      The secret to understanding the greenhouse effect, as something more technical than “heat trapping gases”, is to fulfill some basic requirements. One must first be intelligent, attend an accredited college, enroll in a technical discipline, and then most importantly, pay attention in class. There may be other ways to become educated, but a failure in the educational process could result in confusion. One effect of that confusion is for someone to endless ask educated and knowledgeable people to “prove” something that requires intelligence and education. You can lead a horse to water….

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim s…since when does a person need to attend a college to understand science? That is nothing more than intellectual snobbery. In other words, anyone lacking a formal education is not smart enough to understand general scientific claims.

        Paying attention in class is useless if what is being taught is nonsense. For example, in my engineering classes we were taught that electrical current flows positive to negative. Having been taught differently before attending university, I queried an EE prof on the claim.

        He was amused by my query and claimed I should not worry, that the theory being taught is merely a convention dating back to the 1920s. He agreed that current flowed negative to positive if the reference is electron current flow. Conventional current flow is based on a hypothetical positive test charge and we now know that no such charge exists. Holes are not positive test charges.

        Therefore, people without a university education would be right about current flow and engineers graduating with a degree would be wrong.

        Today, we have theories being taught that are just as wrong. Some universities are now teaching that gravity is not a force but some kind of relative space-time anomaly. In a similar manner universities are teaching the greenhouse effect, albeit incorrectly.

        The real greenhouse effect is based on air molecules being heated directly and indirectly by short wave solar energy. The solar energy heats the infrastructure and soil which heats the air molecules. Heated air molecules rise but cannot penetrate the glass, therefore the greenhouse warms.

        In university it is taught that IR radiated from infrastructure gets trapped by the glass and heats the greenhouse air. That misinformation lags to an atmospheric GHE model where it is claimed that a trace gas in the atmosphere traps heat, based on the trapping of air molecules as heat in a greenhouse.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “Therefore, people without a university education would be right about current flow and engineers graduating with a degree would be wrong.”

          No, they are just answering different questions.
          * PARTICLES flow from negative to positive.
          * CHARGE flows from positive to negative.

          Many people are not comfortable with the the idea of negative values and negative flows. This is understandable because we are familiar with quantities like mass or # of objects, which are always positive.

          Consider a capacitor. Plate #1 has 100.00 C of protons and -99.99 C of electrons, or a charge of +0.01 C. Plate #2 has 100.00 C of protons and -100.01 C of electrons, or a charge of -0.01 C. If 0.01 C of charge moves from #1 to #2 in 1 sec (ie both plates are now neutral), a current of 0.01 amp flowed FROM #1 TO #2. The electrical current was from #1 (positive) to #2 (negative). Every electrical meter in the world will measure a current FROM #1 to #2.

          Engineers understand BOTH concepts and recognize that they complement each other. Some others are stuck thinking concretely about only about particles and not about charge.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…this has to go down as one of your most ridiculous comments.

            “* PARTICLES flow from negative to positive.
            * CHARGE flows from positive to negative”.

            The particle flowing negative to positive is the electron and it carries the charge. Charge does flow electron to electron but in the same direction, negative to positive. There are no other particles flowing in a conductor since the positive charges in a copper conductor are stationary.

            “Consider a capacitor. Plate #1 has 100.00 C of protons and -99.99 C of electrons, or a charge of +0.01 C”.

            ***

            A capacitor stores charge but it can only store negative charges, that is, electrons. Electrons are the only particles free to move and you will not find protons in a capacitor plate other than in the elements that make up the plates of the capacitor, which is normally a metallic foil.

            Protons cannot move and the only real proton available is the proton that is the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. Protons in a metal foil are bound in place as the foil and if they come apart, the foil disintegrates.

            If you connect a capacitor across a battery (normally through a resistor, to limit the current), the capacitor plate connected to the negative terminal of the battery will charge WITH ELECTRONS. As the electron negative charges build up, they begin to repel other electrons and the input current slows as the negative charge increases until it finally stops. Then the capacitor plate is charged with a negative charge wrt to the other plate.

            The coulomb that you have indicated as ‘C’ applies only to electrons with regard to a capacitor. Electric current is a measure of electron charges only therefore the coulomb applies only to electrons and their charges.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You wrote –

            “Consider a capacitor. Plate #1 has 100.00 C of protons and -99.99 C of electrons, or a charge of +0.01 C.”

            Maybe you would like to rephrase your sentence? It is meaningless as is. As are the next ones.

            By convention, current in a circuit is considered to flow from a more positive point to a more negative point, even though the actual electron flow is in the opposite direction. Who cares anyway? Do you think it will help you to avoid providing a better description of the GHE than your best effort to date –

            “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”?

            Accept reality. You don’t have a clue, do you?

        • Tim S says:

          Gordon, you do get points for creativity if that is your goal, but not for any advancement of scientific knowledge. I cannot tell if you are being serious or just creative, but it is amusing. The fact that you do not understand the greenhouse effect only provides more proof that the total effect is complex and requires a combination of intelligence and education to understand. Failure of some individuals to understand a topic does make it false, when so many other do understand, and it is proven by well established science. Yes, I have studied Epistemology if you want to have that debate.

          • Tim S says:

            Okay, I should proof read before send. Normally I am very good a first draft basis. It should read this way”

            Failure of some individuals to understand a topic does NOT make it false, when so many other do understand, and it is proven by well established science.

          • Tim S says:

            There is someone here (not Gordon) who is very picky about proof reading (oddly, this persons does understand the greenhouse effect), so here is my best effort:

            Okay, I should proof read my work before sending. Normally, I am very good on a first draft basis. It should read this way:

            Failure of some individuals to understand a topic does NOT make it false, when so many others do understand, and it is proven by well established science.

  85. Gordon Robertson says:

    clint…Not fair to Norman, he tries to present his understanding of physics while you hide behind ad homs and insults.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Still awaiting your explanation of what energy is being transferred by heat.

      • Clint R says:

        Gordon, sorry but it’s not my fault you flunked thermodynamics. That happens often. Thermo is the “show-stopper” for getting through engineering.

        I’m enjoying your obsession with me. You stalk me more than Norman. Makes me feel like a celebrity….

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          I don’t think you’re enjoying anything, you are running scared, afraid of being exposed as a scientific fraud.

          Answer the question, if heat is simply a transfer of energy, what energy is it transferring?

          • Clint R says:

            I agree Gordon, you don’t think. That’s consistent with your OCD.

            Stay on your medications.

  86. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…”For those here who think that climate models are running hot, comparison between model projections and July 2023 temperatures”.

    ***

    To put things in perspective, we in the Vancouver, Canada area had an inordinately hot May 2023. The UAH contour map for May 2023 shows why. Note the heat island parked over one part of North America while the rest of the planet looks cooler than normal.

    What caused such a heat island while the rest of the planet appears to have cooled?

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/May/202305_Map.png

    Can we get over the alarmist meme that hot weather is due to anthropogenic climate change? 2023 will get a reputation as one of the hottest years yet the UAH map clearly shows that May’s average was clearly biased due to inordinately hot weather in one part of the planet.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ps. Look at the Apr 2023 map. Why did the heat island suddenly appear over North America and where did it come from?

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/April/202304_Map.png

      • Entropic man says:

        From various sources:-

        Jennifer Francis was right. Climate change is reducing the temperature gradient between the Arctic and North Temperate latitudes across the Polar Front.

        This is decreasing the velocity and energy of the jetstream causing it to become more variable in latitude as Rossby waves increase in amplitude. The waves also tend to spend longer periods at fhe same longitude rather than moving Eastwards.

        Check the jetstream maps for April and May 2023. You will see that a Northerly Rossby wave loop stalled over Western Canada and trapped warm air which became the heat dome.

        Was it caused by climate change? Not something you can answer yes or no. It was possible for something similar to form before AGW, but much less probable.

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          You wrote –

          “Climate change is reducing . . . “.

          You are off with the fairies again.

          Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Statistics change nothing.

          Try something else.

        • Clint R says:

          Ent, those upper-level disturbances were caused by the ripples from the Hunga-Tonga eruption, known as the Hunga-Tonga Effect, or HTE.

          You missed another great learning experience.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Jennifer Francis has a degree in atmospheric science from the University of Washington, a hotbed of climate alarmists. The fact that she even talks about climate change indicates she has an alarmist mentality.

          Anyone who claims climate change is decreasing the velocity and energy of the jet stream is talking a peculiar language related to the climate change religion. Climate, as a defined, is an outcome related to an average of weather over 30 years. How that can drive anything is the question.

          The driver of the entire system is obviously the Sun. It induces heat into the Earth system and it is heat that drives the system. The jet stream is driven by heat, not climate, which is also driven by heat. The jet stream is produced by colder northern air meeting solar heated southern air from Equatorial regions. Combine that with a rotating planet and you have a jet stream.

          Of course physics like that would not be taught in atmospheric science at Washington State since the focus in the particular brand Francis was taught would be on propaganda rather than science.

  87. Norman says:

    Gordon Robertson

    Basically you are stating you will hold stubbornly to your incorrect beliefs despite enormous evidence your view is wrong. Amazing level of blind belief even when the truth is presented to you you just ignore it.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Norman claims Gordon holds incorrect beliefs but provides zero evidence of such. No studies, no arguments . . . .he just stomps his feet and says Gordon is wrong.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Not my theory, Norman, if you dig into the textbooks you value, it’s all there. I studied atomic theory in both electronics and in chemistry. I got electronegativity straight from Linus Pauling, who invented electronegativity.

      The rest I got from the likes of Neils Bohr. Of course, it helps to have years of experience. Somehow, after gaining a lot of experience, when you read something new, it falls together easier. For example, when you read about resonance is atomic structures and you have applied resonance theories related electrons in circuits like transformers and filters, atomic resonance makes more sense.

      There are strong parallels between electronics theory and chemistry related to atomic structure. There should be, they are both based on the quantum theory of Bohr. The main difference is in the application. In electronics one is more interested in free electrons but in order to understand them better it is necessary to study atoms themselves.

      I recall a first year chem class exam in which I had to draw the shapes of different molecules. You could memorize the shapes of different atoms but you get caught out if they ask for the shape of a molecule you have not memorized. Therefore, it is far better to learn the theory of why molecules take on different shapes.

      I know for a fact the shapes are all based on electrostatic charge differences. There is nothing else in a molecule can produce such shapes, even the dipole charges you mentioned. It’s all about electron bonds, a molecule is nothing more than positively charged nucleii and their inner electrons and the negatively charged electrons that bond the nucleii together.

      There is nothing else in a molecule that can affect vibration and rotation.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S_bt3JI150&t=17s

        Watch these series of videos on the topic of IR interaction with molecules. There is a series of videos. I suggest you watch them all with an open mind and really try to understand what they are presenting. It is based upon much more than mere thinking and guesses. There is a tremendous amount of evidence suggesting the Molecular Vibration is the reason IR is absorbed and emitted by various molecules and exactly what is doing the emitting.

        • Swenson says:

          Norman,

          Everything absorbs and emits IR.

          Even monoatomic gases like Argon. Oh, and pure carbon, iron, mercury etc. etc.

          Everything emits wavelengths of IR proportional to its temperature- whether you like it or not. Wavelengths dont have to be integral multiples of anything – there are infinitely many wavelengths between any two integral values.

          I suppose you are trying to avoid providing a description of the mythical GHE by flying off at an irrelevant tangent. At least you have been cunning enough to date to avoid mentioning the GHE.

          Don’t be a wimp – give it a try. How about agreeing with Entropic Man that “The GHE is a pile of blankets.”? A pile of horse manure might be more appropriate.

          What do you think? Or are you just another gutless whining cultist?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…it’s vital that you understand that the bonds shown in your video are electron orbitals. For the formaldehyde molecule you have a carbon atom bonded to an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. The stretching and wagging of the double bond between carbon and oxygen means the electron orbitals are stretching and wagging.

          Here’s a good video on covalent bonds.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxWmyZmwXtA&ab_channel=Socratica

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…let’s go into this at a greater depth. Infrared energy is lower frequency electromagnetic energy (EM). EM is composed of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. What is there in a molecule that could absorb such energy?

          We need to know what constitutes a molecule. You saw the formaldehyde molecule in your video. It has carbon and oxygen atoms connected by a double bond and two hydrogen atoms connected by single bonds.

          What is a bond? It is the name given to valence shell electrons in an atom that can be shared with another atom. When the electron bonds are formed, the electrons join two or more atoms together to form a molecule via electrostatic forces. In essence, a bond is an extension of the electrostatic connection between negatively charged electrons and the positively charged nucleii of two or more atoms.

          Therefore, a molecule is nothing more than an arrangement of electrons and the protons in the affected nucleii.

          EM won’t reach through to the positively charged nucleus and interacts only with electrons that surround the nucleus. Therefore, the only particle in a molecule capable of absorbing or emitting EM is the electron. It’s no coincident that the electron has an electric and magnetic field and so does EM. In fact. EM derives its frequency from the angular frequency of the electron.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            The EMR interacts with the dipoles formed by a given molecule. There are exposed positive and negative charges at the ends of many molecules. The IR interacts with the dipoles and can increase molecular vibration by interacting with the dipoles. That is why O2 and N2 are very poor emitters of IR. No dipole to interact with EMR. It just goes through it.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, thanks for the reminder. You haven’t answered the simple question:

            What happens to a 15μ photon when it impacts a N2 or O2 molecule?

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            I have already answered your question.

            YOU: “What happens to a 15μ photon when it impacts a N2 or O2 molecule?”

            ME: “Most the IR energy would go through the N2 molecules with no effect.”

            So basically in most cases it would do nothing but continue on its path unaffected.

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry Norman, but that’s incorrect.

            A 15μ photon would have too long a wavelength for both N2 and O2. It could not “fit” though, or be absorbed. Consequently, it would be reflected.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            In your made up world of fake physics based solely on your own opinions with zero evidence to support it, I guess you can conclude it will be reflected. In reality it is not reflected it goes through to the other side basically like it would in a vacuum. You just make up stuff.

            I did present you with real evidence but you are not able to process or understand it. An IR spectrum through CO2. Most the energy goes through with no loss. If it was reflected as you believe (for reasons unknown to me) the energy would not make it to the detector on the opposite side and would appear to be absorbed. This does not happen so you are just wrong and you have no evidence to support your made up opinion. Try again, I am sure you will be wrong again.

            I think maybe Gordon Robertson has more physics background than you. You seem to have none at all. Just made up opinions.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, you’re too easy. I can’t lose with incompetents like you. As soon as you start your long rambling rants filled with insults and false accusations, I know I’ve won.

            And, I’m not the one making crap up. You can argue with yourself:

            Clint R: “Norman, what happens when a photon impacts a molecule with higher frequency?”

            Norman: “The photon would not be absorbed.”

            Clint R: “Mostly correct, Norman. Except you could have used more correct terminology, like reflected.”

            A photon with lower frequency can NOT transmit through a molecule with higher frequency. It gets reflected.

            Remember, YOU are the one making up your comical way of walking, to match Ent’s comical notion that passenger jets fly backward. Your cult is a joke. That’s NOT an insult, that’s reality.

          • Nate says:

            “A photon with lower frequency can NOT transmit through a molecule with higher frequency. It gets reflected.”

            OMG

            Where do you get these strange rules, Clint?

            Please do show us a source that supports this.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”The EMR interacts with the dipoles formed by a given molecule”.

            ***

            A dipole in this case is an electron bonding orbital, so you are saying that EM interacts with electrons, which is correct.

          • Clint R says:

            Good, tro11 Nate has showed up. The cult is beginning to realize the problem here. If N2 and O2 are “trapping” 15μ photons be reflecting them back to Earth, it’s just one more nail in the coffin for their cult nonsense.

            Norman and Nate have probably spent hours searching for evidence to support their bogus beliefs. Of course, it ain’t there.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Nate says:

            ” If N2 and O2 are trapping 15μ photons be reflecting them back to Earth, its just one more nail in the coffin for their cult nonsense.”

            But you don’t show a bit of evidence that they do.

            Cuz facts and evidence are not really your thing.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, are you claiming there is no back-radiation?

          • Nate says:

            Where’d you see me saying that?

          • Nate says:

            Are you going to show us evidence to support your made-up reflection rule, or not?

          • Clint R says:

            Nate, I can’t help you if you’re going to deny reality.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Doesn’t look good for McConnell. Looks like he blacked out temporarily which is typical with a transient ischemic attack (TIA).

  88. Entropic man says:

    Something interesting for the scientists here. An update on the main parameters describing climate change. The changes since AR6 are summarised in Table 9 and Figure 7.

    https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/2295/2023/

    The rest of you should ignore this because you believe it’s all a conspiracy and the results are fiddled.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Not a conspiracy theory, just bad and biased science. When the IPCC reviews skeptical scientists and evaluates them fairly, I might start listening to them. Meantime, I’ll leave it to you ‘believers’.

      • Entropic man says:

        And there’s your conspiracy theory, that the evidence against AGW is being unfairly suppressed.

        In practice the problem is more prosaic. The body of evidence supporting the CO2 AGW hypothesis is now so large that the sceptics find it difficult to write anything significant which is coherent, consistent and consilient; and therefore publishable.

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          You wrote –

          “The body of evidence supporting the CO2 AGW hypothesis is now so large that the sceptics find it difficult to write anything significant which is coherent, consistent and consilient; and therefore publishable.”

          You previously said “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets”.

          This is confusing. Is CO2 supposed to be a stack of blankets? Or only the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels, which consist of carbon compounds previously extracted from the atmosphere?

          You cannot even describe this “greenhouse effect”, far less propose a testable hypothesis.

          Making grandiose statements, hoping to be unchallenged is just bizarre. Do you suffer from some form of mental defect which leads you to believe that somebody values your opinions?

          Only joking – of course you do!

          Carry on.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          I am still waiting to see any evidence never mind a body of evidence. You keep talking about evidence but fail to supply it when asked.

          The IPCC have supplied no evidence either, just inference based on 19th century scientists and completely ignoring r-warming from the Little Ice Age.

          • Entropic man says:

            My attempts to discuss the evidence are invariably met by abuse.

            That rather discourages rational debate.

            If you genuinely want to discuss the evidence, can you suggest a different venue.

          • Clint R says:

            Ent, you don’t present evidence, you pervert reality. You present nonsense like “passenger jets flying backward”.

            It’s not reality that is abusing you. You’re abusing yourself. You can’t beat reality. Reality always wins.

  89. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Science misinformer pushing the “orbiting electrons forming the CO2 molecule can still transition from their ground state to higher energy orbitals if they absorb a quantum of EM” trope.

    Epilogue.

    Molecules containing more than one atom have natural frequencies of vibration which are known as the fundamental or normal modes of vibration.

    Each of the vibrations is a simple harmonic motion, and all of the atoms executing this motion are moving in phase passing through their center of equilibrium positions and reach their maximum displacements simultaneously.

    If the frequency of the EM wave is the same as the natural frequency of vibration of the molecule, then there’ll be synchronization and the molecule will absorb energy from the EM wave, and the molecule will vibrate more and more vigorously.

    The way in which the EM wave lays hands on the molecule has to do with the fact that the EM wave is accompanied by an oscillating electrical field while the molecule has different electrical charges on its different atoms.

    The number of possible modes of vibration a molecule may have is determined by the number of atoms it has. For any linear molecule, such as carbon dioxide, the formula for the number of normal modes becomes 3N – 5, where N is the number of atoms.

    This means that the vibrations of carbon dioxide can be resolved into four normal modes: two stretching modes (a mode which is asymmetric and a mode which is symmetric), and two bending modes which have the same frequencies because the same bond strengths and atomic masses are involved and combine to make a single motion.

    https://youtu.be/ch2t7NqYL4k

    As a result, the vibrational spectrum of the carbon dioxide molecule contains only a limited number of features, because the EMR must be absorbed in quanta corresponding to the natural vibration of the molecule.

    • Arkady Ivanovich says:

      What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “Molecules containing more than one atom…”

      ***

      A molecule, by definition, is two or more atoms bonded by electrons or their charges. Ergo, a single atom is not a molecule and referring to an atom as a molecule reveals a basic ignorance of chemistry. This author is describing a molecule as a single atom, giving me the impression he/she has no idea what a molecule is never mind anything related.

      Offering no evidence that the author understand that molecules are really atoms bonded by electron orbitals, he/she goes on to dig a deeper hole by claiming it is the molecule absorbing IR rather than the electrons in the bonding orbitals.

      This is a common mistake with modern students and Ark has leaped straight in with both feet.

      It should be pointed out that air is comprised of molecules like diatomic oxygen and nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and WV but argon a key component is an atom, not a molecule. However, as altitude increases. solar energy intensity increases and molecules like O2 and N2 break back to atoms.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Strawman notwithstanding, you get kudos for blowing the whistle on the punctuation foul. Which is better: “Let’s eat, grandma!” or “Let’s eat grandma!”

        You are an unserious person.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          It’s hardly a straw man reply when the author of the paper you present does not know the difference between an atom and a molecule. The paper is creaming ‘incompetence’ in the first paragraph and you missed it.

          There are far too many authors and others who fail to grasp that all there is in a molecule are atomic nucleii and electrons. There are no magical entities that absorb EM other than electrons. Because you fail to understand that, your reply to me becomes a straw man.

    • Swenson says:

      A,

      You wrote –

      “As a result, the vibrational spectrum of the carbon dioxide molecule contains only a limited number of features, because the EMR must be absorbed in quanta corresponding to the natural vibration of the molecule.”

      What a complete load of rubbish!

      For example, the temperature of CO2 can be raised by one millionth of a degree – by absorbing energy. You might choose to compress it, add it to gas which is warmer, or even expose it to sunlight which has travelled through some 150 million kilometers of vacuum.

      Now should you choose to raise the temperature of your CO2 by one degree, you will find it does so smoothly, not in discrete jumps. Well, unless you can measure Plancks constant (around 6.62607554 x 10-34 J), and measure temperature with similar precision.

      You have no clue what you are talking about, have you?

      You won’t even commit yourself to a description of the GHE, because you know that to attempt such a thing would expose you to ridicule.

      So carry on trying to convince people of the existence of something which you cannot describe. Sounds like religion or cultism to me.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swenson…from ark…”…because the EMR must be absorbed in quanta corresponding to the natural vibration of the molecule.

        I might add that Ark’s article misses the point that the absorbed quanta are absorbed by electrons, without which the molecule could not exist.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      And so we have it. The self-proclaimed experts who never studied physics ‘explaining’ how a theory that matches experiments is never-the-less wrong.

      Offering no evidence, but demanding evidence.
      Offering nothing better.
      Finding no specific flaws.
      Wanting both a one-sentence description and full details.

      Quantum theory works. Relativity works. Classical mechanics works. The Greenhouse effect works.

      It is time to leave the discussion.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…”Quantum theory works. Relativity works. Classical mechanics works. The Greenhouse effect works”.

        ***

        Tim’s evidence is based entirely on authority figures.

        Quantum theory works to a degree but the part that works can easily be explained subjectively using Newtonian science. Bohr, who made the breakthrough to form what we know today as quantum theory used Newtonian physics as the basis of his theory, as did Schrodinger with his wave equation. Bohr postulated electrons as masses orbiting a nucleus in a similar manner to planets orbiting the Sun. From that model, the electrons had momentum and carried the same charge proposed in electrostatic theory.

        The only difference came with Bohr’s insistence that the electrons had to reside in quantized orbits and he stipulated rules for electrons changing orbits.

        Relativity worked long before Einstein messed it up by making it dependent on time, a non-entity. Humans invented time and based it on the rotational period of the Earth, to keep tract of change.

        We know classical/Newtonian mechanics works, we use it 99.9999% of the time. We have no use for Einsteinian relativity and very little use for quantum theory. Although quantum theory is the basis for chemistry and electronics, it is never applied directly in either field other than for theoretical purposes.

        We also know greenhouse theory…for real greenhouses. It’s obfuscation as applied to the anthropogenic theory is simply wrong.

        • Nate says:

          “We have no use for Einsteinian relativity and very little use for quantum theory. Although quantum theory is the basis for chemistry and electronics, it is never applied directly in either field other than for theoretical purposes.”

          Yes, Gordon, we understand that ‘we’ means YOU.

          The rest of science and engineering finds these long established physics principles to be extremely useful.

          Most of modern electronics depends on quantum mechanics. Semiconductors and all devices that make use of them rely upon it. Band structure makes no sense without QM.

          The GPS system relies on relativity.

          Fission and fusion could only be developed with the understanding of relativity and QM.

          The masses in the periodic table only make sense with relativity.

          Any technology reliant on high energy particles, PET scanning, electron microscopy, proton cancer treatment, x-ray systems, relies on relativity being correct.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        Good try but . . .

        “Quantum theory works. Relativity works. Classical mechanics works. The Greenhouse effect works.”

        Maybe if you could describe the greenhouse effect better than “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”, it might help your cause.

        Just blithely lumping “the Greenhouse effect” in with experimentally supported scientific knowledge won’t help.

        You refuse to say whether the Greenhouse effect results in heating, cooling, or both – depending on how you feel at the time. Theory? You can’t even clearly state the effect of the GHE! Not very convincing, Tim.

        As to your attempts to discredit other anonymous and unspecified commenters, you can’t even support your accusations!

        Evidence of what? Four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? You don’t have to accept anything you don’t want to.

        Offering nothing better? Better than what? Better than something you can’t even describe?

        Finding no specific flaws. With what? Once again, it’s impossible to find flaws with what you don’t say.

        Wanting . . . . Oh well, use as many sentences as you like. Who demanded a one sentence description? One of your fantasy scenario participants, no doubt.

        Scuttle away as quickly as you wish. Good luck with finding someone whose care factor exceeds zero.

      • Clint R says:

        Folkerts says: “It is time to leave the discussion.”

        Folkerts, does that mean you’re going to take all your fraud and perversions and go home?

        Maybe take a break and learn to face reality?

        • gbaikie says:

          What about the idea that the Universe being twice as old as
          “it was thought” to be?

          Earth is not hot and is not going to get hotter anytime soon- unless due to the comet of death.

          Instead Earth been in an Ice Age for 33.9 million years and in terms of near future, it’s returning to another glaciation period where eventually sea levels will drop by 100 meters.
          But it’s not an immediate concern.
          It seems the concern is running out of so called “fossil fuel”
          Which due to “big oil” saying there is future shortage, to increase the near price of oil.

          If we weren’t facing the perception of shortage of fossil fuel, one would expect energy price to lower over time- which they did, but it would have lowered faster.

          The American and rest of world idea was for decades to get oil from the middle east- which shows how evil and dumb as bricks, politicians are. Though no one was ever in doubt about that from the dawn of time. Their lips are moving, they are lying.

          Anyways the global warming cargo cult is not about science.

          • Clint R says:

            I wonder if gb would slink off into the shadows if he realized the “global warming cargo cult” he criticizes is also the cargo cult he believes in — “…Earth been in an Ice Age for 33.9 million years…”

          • gbaikie says:

            So, Clint R does not believe our oceans are cold and/or doesn’t believe we are in an Ice Age?

            An ice age on Earth is defined by having a cold ocean and having a permanent ice sheet in the polar region.

            We had two ice sheets, one in south and one in northern polar region
            and we had them for about 2 million years. I would anything lasting more than 1 million year as “fairly” permanent.
            And I think they going to stay “permanent” for million or more years.

            Whereas some have a religion view that they going melt in the next decade or two.
            And past interglacial periods were a lot warmer than Holocene, and they didn’t.

          • Clint R says:

            Earth been in an Ice Age for 33.9 million years

            we had them for about 2 million years.

            These are beliefs gb, NOT science.

            You need to learn the difference. Otherwise you’re just clogging the blog with your confusion.

          • gbaikie says:

            Just go to Greenland or Antarctica.
            Anytime you want, it will be there.

          • Clint R says:

            You’re still confusing your beliefs with science, gb.

            The fact that there is ice at both poles does NOT mean it has been there 33.9 million years.

            You don’t seem to understand REAL science at all. You just keep swallowing the cargo cult nonsense, while seemingly criticizing the cargo cult. And you’ve been doing this for years!

          • gbaikie says:

            ” Clint R says:
            July 28, 2023 at 8:44 PM

            Youre still confusing your beliefs with science, gb.

            The fact that there is ice at both poles does NOT mean it has been there 33.9 million years.”

            No one saying any ice has there for 33.9 million years.
            I believe the oldest ice found has been around 2 million years old.
            I guess I should check that:
            “Scientists have unearthed what could be the world’s oldest ice core. Antarctic sample dated to between three million and five million years old extracted as international ice-drilling teams race to extend Earth’s climate record.”
            https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02129-5
            Next google hit:
            “Record-shattering 2.7-million-year-old ice core reveals start of the ice ages
            Clues to ancient atmosphere found in bubbles trapped in Antarctic samples”
            https://www.science.org/content/article/record-shattering-27-million-year-old-ice-core-reveals-start-ice-ages

            But issue is when ice sheets started to form and the coldness of the ocean- not that they found sample of frozen ice, 33.9 million years old. We know there were ice sheets in North America, but no ice from these ice sheets have been found, but ice sheet/glacier are a very erosive process- they grind a lot rock into dust, and such effects upon rocks can be found. And rocks as layers which has various kinds fossils and stuff, which can be dated.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Tim,
        That isn’t the question. Are humans causing runaway global warming so that if we don’t allow altering the world economy and limiting fossil fuel use, we are all doomed? Or is most of the CO2 rise due to natural emissions, and AGW has been falsified?

    • Arkady Ivanovich says:

      Tim Folkerts

      Per your comment, I am including experimental results showing that the limited number of features contained in the vibrational spectrum of the carbon dioxide molecule, exactly match predictions from theory.

      Data from the NIST Chemistry WebBook page: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Spec=C124389&Index=1&Type=IR&Large=on

      Regards.

      • Clint R says:

        Thanks Ark, Folkerts needs all the help he can get.

        CO2 can both absorb and emit, just as many other molecules can. But, that does NOT mean CO2 can raise Earth’s surface temperature. As Swenson has pointed out, bananas both absorb and emit, but no one would actually believe bananas are warming the planet.

      • Swenson says:

        A,

        And yet, you can heat CO2 from ambient to over 500 C, merely by compressing it. On the wa6 to 500 C, the CO2 temperature passes through every intermediate temperature – 100 C, 100.000 000 001 C, and so on.

        If we are to believe Richard Feynman, this can be explained by the following simple statements –

        An electron moves from place to place.

        A photon moves from place to place.

        An electron emits and absorbs a photon.

        You wouldn’t accept any of this, would you? Even if you did, you certainly wouldn’t understand it. Feel free to prove me wrong.

        You see, all your waffling about the vibrational spectrum is actually irrelevant. CO2 (or any gas) can be heated by radiation. It cools by emitting radiation. All too complicated for you, I know, but it explains why neither you nor the obsessed Tim Folkerts can actually describe the GHE.

        Carry on.

    • Tim S says:

      Your description that small molecules can have many degrees of freedom is correct. Water vapor appears to have more than CO2. These are very basic principles in thermodynamics.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim S,

        And completely irrelevant to nonsensical heating properties of CO2 (or any supposed greenhouse gas).

        Anybody who attempts to describe the GHE soon realises that it is an impossible task.

        The cultists who possesses enough rat-cunning simply keep changing the subject, then scuttling away. If they don’t commit themselves to anything specific, nobody can ever disprove anything.

        Who cares? (Unless it’s your money gurgling down the drain, winding up in the pockets of those more cunning than yourself, of course,)

        Life goes on regardless.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim s…”Your description that small molecules can have many degrees of freedom is correct”.

        ***

        What does ‘degrees of freedom’ reference? It is a reference to the freedom of a molecule to move about certain axes. But what is moving about those axes? It is the inter-atomic bonds being referenced and those bonds are made up of valence band electron orbitals. Therefore, degrees of freedom is a reference to the movement of electron orbitals about certain axes.

        CO2 has a linear shape…

        O=====C=====O

        The ==== lines refer to double electron bonds.

        The dipole bonds on either side of the C atom are free to waggle about the C atoms and the bonds on either side of the C atom are free to vibrate symmetrically or assymetrically. The entire molecule is free to rotate about an axis through all three atoms and I suppose to rotate while it is waggling about the same axis.

        No matter what the motion is, the entities being moved are electron bonds. There is nothing else in a molecule that can absorb/emit EM except electrons or change energy levels to increase vibration.

        BTW…electrons are also affected by adding or removing heat.

        Everything…translation, vibration, and rotation are a reference to electron bonds.

        • Nate says:

          “No matter what the motion is, the entities being moved are electron bonds. ”

          Plus the positively atomic nuclei are obviously moving in any vibration or rotation.

          And only if a molecule has a permanent dipole moment can a rotation or vibration abs.orb or emit photons.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            You wrote –

            “And only if a molecule has a permanent dipole moment can a rotation or vibration abs.orb or emit photons.”

            Rotations and vibrations absorb and emit precisely nothing.

            Maybe you need to understand what you are reading on the internet.

            All matter above absolute zero emits infrared radiation.

            All matter absorbs infrared radiation. Anybody who claims they know of some matter which does not absorb infrared radiation is simply in denial of reality. Ask them what this magical matter which stubbornly remains at absolute zero (neither absorbing infrared radiation) is.

            Listen to them immediately changing the subject.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”[GR]No matter what the motion is, the entities being moved are electron bonds.

            [Nate]”Plus the positively atomic nuclei are obviously moving in any vibration or rotation.

            And only if a molecule has a permanent dipole moment can a rotation or vibration abs.orb or emit photons”.

            ***

            I don’t consider myself some kind of guru on this subject, I am actually at about the same level as you. All I am trying to do is encourage thinking at an atomic level rather than the molecular level. The molecular level is good if you are discussing compounds and such and you don’t want to drag in details like electrons and protons. Sometimes it’s not helpful to think at that level but I just want to emphasize that it is there.

            Of course protons in the nucleus play a part overall, their positive charge helps hold the atom together when it interacts with the negative charge of the electrons. Basic vibration is induced in any interacting atoms by that +ve/-Ve interaction.

            With a molecule, however, we are more interested in the action of outer-shell or valence electrons because those electrons are the only ones that take part in molecular structures. They bind two or more atoms together. All I am emphasizing is this. When we talk about vibration in a molecule we are talking about vibration in the bonds that hold the molecules together and those bonds are electrons orbitals that affect two or more atoms bonded together.

  90. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Even At Fox Weather, Record Hot Ocean Forces Climate Change Discussion. July 27, 2023

    Really interesting dynamic here to see how this Fox Weather host approaches the discussion of this summer’s super warm Atlantic with legit expert Ben Kirtman of the University of Miami.

    Aptly named Amy Freeze, in questioning Dr Kirtman, approached the subject like she was handling a red-hot radioactive turd.

    To his credit, Dr Kirtman did not reach across the split screen and strangle Weather Karen, but played a perfect expert straight man, and explained the climate change component like you would to your frustrating, ignorant, deeply misinformed, – but sweet, – denier grandmother.

    https://youtu.be/_N3ePJNiKqc

    • Clint R says:

      That’s why I stopped watching cable news, years ago. (My wife can handle it, and keeps me informed.).

      That’s two bimbos, earning their keep. She’s likely paid for how fast she can talk, in “words/minute”, and he’s likely paid for how many times he can say “unprecedented”.

      He also cleverly omitted mentioning the HTE. No surprise there….

    • Swenson says:

      A,

      Misogyny, threats of violence, sexism,, ageism, mind-reading, cultist denial of reality and fear-mongering propaganda – all in one.

      Record Hot Ocean? Hardly, when it was first formed, the oceans were boiling, and have steadily cooled since.

      If you believe climatology is a science, then you probably likewise believe the same about phrenology, so you will understand when I surmise that you have an extremely large Bump of Gullibility.

      Get away, you silly person, there is no GHE. CO2 heats nothing.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Kirtman is spouting propaganda. He also seems to have an anxiety problem. So much for ad homs.

      He supplies no evidence of climate change, he simply infers it. That’s all you alarmists have to offer, inference. Even though the Fox weather person referred to La Nina as the cause, they both inferred that some of it was ‘likely’ due to climate change.

      • Swenson says:

        Gordon,

        I continue to be surprised that otherwise sensible people seem to think that a pattern of weather observations – say the anthropomorphised La Nia, has any effect on anything!

        It is just numbers, derived from historical weather data. It’s about as silly as saying that “climate change” affects weather, when climate is just the statistics of past weather observations.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          swenson…I agree. Even though ENSO gets some press, it’s hardly the main driver of weather.

  91. gbaikie says:

    “In the study, Korean researchers simulated how removing large quantities of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the air might affect the progress of local climate changes related to global warming. The study, based on computer modeling, examined a hypothetical scenario, in which carbon dioxide concentrations continued to rise from present-day levels for 140 years, then were gradually reduced back to the initial levels over another 140-year period. ”
    https://www.space.com/carbon-removal-does-not-reverse-climate-change-effects

    140 years.
    What were we doing 140 years ago?
    Newspapers were talking horse manure crisis in cities.
    I don’t know if we going to cities in another 140 years, but
    if have cities, it could be a human manure crisis.

    Anyhow, if living on the ocean, you probably don’t have cities on the ocean. Though if have cities on the ocean, they would seems to favor having cities underwater and perhaps people living in higher pressure
    environment. And we haven’t figured out how to live in 2 atm of pressure over long periods of time, yet- and I am thinking of 5 or 10 atm of pressure and I don’t see a “need” of having millions of people living +2 atm of pressure- unless there is some health benefit to it. But in terms of economics a hundred or maybe thousands of people living in higher pressure, but millions or billions doesn’t seem “necessary”. But then again, 140 years ago, cars weren’t seen as necessary.
    Of course if living in ocean settlements, cars aren’t necessary- or they are about as necessary as a horse.

    • Swenson says:

      gb,

      Here’s something for you, if you don’t mind a few assumptions.

      The atmosphere is chaotic. There is no minimum perturbation that can cause chaotic (and therefore unpredictable) behavior.

      Wind farms perturb the atmosphere, removing energy from the atmosphere, and transforming it into electricity, and eventually to low grade heat elsewhere.

      The effects of perturbing the atmosphere in this fashion are completely unknown.

      A characteristic of a chaotic deterministic system is that the approximate present does not determine the approximate future. Edward Lorenz in 1972 said “If the flap of a butterflys wings can be instrumental in generating a tornado, it can equally well be instrumental in preventing a tornado.”

      In other words, the future is unknowable. You might as well do what you consider to be best, depending on your personal assessment. Everybody dies anyway, so why not enjoy life as best you can?

      • gbaikie says:

        Maybe. But problem with wind power is it’s not viable energy source for electrical grids.
        Wind power has uses, but not a power source for electrical grid- and same applies for solar energy {being used to power electrical grids}.
        So, wind and solar just are toxic junk which is robbing trillions of dollars from people vote for this junk.

        In space, where solar power was invented and designed for, it works
        fine.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swenson…”Wind farms perturb the atmosphere…”

        ***

        Not to mention birds they kill that fly into them.

  92. gbaikie says:

    Wrong, USA Today, Ocean Currents Arent Near Collapse
    “By Linnea Lueken

    A recent article in USA Today, titled Atlantic Ocean current could collapse soon. How you may endure dramatic weather changes, claims that a major ocean current system is likely to slow down and collapse as soon as 2025. This claim is based on computer model projections of the future based assumptions about past ocean current behavior and the factors which drive ocean currents. Actual data and its use is limited. The studys conclusions are unsubstantiated by existing evidence and are contradicted by research which indicates that the Atlantic Ocean currents are likely speeding up.”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/28/wrong-usa-today-ocean-currents-arent-near-collapse/

    These lying newspapers seem to lack much imagination.
    They should have headline, the greatest waterfall on Earth has stopped falling.
    They might sell more.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The media is struggling to maintain their sales. They don’t really care about truth, just what sells.

  93. Tim S says:

    Test

    • Tim S says:

      What happened here:

      Internal Server Error

      The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

      Please contact the server administrator at [email protected] to inform them of the time this error occurred, and the actions you performed just before this error.

      More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

      • Tim S says:

        Test

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I get that error frequently for no apparent reason. It may have something to do with someone working on the server at a particular time.

        There have been times when I have broken the post into smaller parts till the offending section is identified. Even at that, there is seldom anything in the offending part that is obviously incorrect. It might come down to one word but the word works in other posts.

        It could also be related to your browser or an intermediate internet node injecting garbage into the message. Or maybe even Roy’s server, or WordPress reacting oddly.

  94. Gordon Robertson says:

    ent…”My attempts to discuss the evidence are invariably met by abuse.

    That rather discourages rational debate”.

    ***

    I agree with you in principle. My MO on blogs has never been to react to criticism by heaping abuse on the critic, unless, of course, the critic is abusive or making uncorroborated statements that represents a dogma rather than science. I would prefer to debate based purely on the science.

    I think, however, we are discussing a subject that tends to raise emotions. For me, emotions come into it, not from someone challenging my opinions, but the consequences of political plans related to climate alarmists having their way. There are ijit politicians talking about zero emissions by a certain year, a plan that is ridiculous unless we go back to bicycles as the primary means on travel.

    I have nothing against you personally, or anyone else on the blog for that matter. I think the best approach is to adapt to the emotional content and not take it so seriously that it affects your ability to participate. Although I don’t agree with your position but I think your participation is important.

  95. gbaikie says:

    Argentina signs Artemis Accords
    https://spacenews.com/argentina-signs-artemis-accords/
    {linked from instapundit}

    “Argentina is the 28th country to sign the Accords and the fifth to do so in the last three months. The Czech Republic and Spain signed the document in May, followed by Ecuador and India in June.”

  96. Gordon Robertson says:

    clintella…”I agree Gordon, you dont think”.

    ***

    Once again, clintella resorts to an ad hom/insult attack. Clintella lacks the science to explain what heat, that she defines as a transfer of energy, is transferring. Come on clintella, it’s not that hard, if heat is transferring energy what kind of energy is it transferring?

    While you’re at it, explain where disorder is referenced in the entropy equation…S = integral dq/T.

    • Clint R says:

      Gordon, sorry but it’s not my fault you flunked thermodynamics. That happens often. Thermo is the “show-stopper” for getting through engineering.

      I’m enjoying your obsession with me. You stalk me more than Norman does. Makes me feel like a celebrity….

      And now you’ve fully degenerated into tro11ing. That was easily predictable.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        clintella cannot answer a simple question in thermodynamics because he has no understanding of what heat is.

        Let me throw this open to the blog, if heat is a transfer of energy, what energy is being transferred? Clintella can’t answer the question.

        • Clint R says:

          Gordon, if I answer your lame question, will you agree to not comment here for 30 days?

        • gbaikie says:

          “Let me throw this open to the blog, if heat is a transfer of energy, what energy is being transferred?”

          If radiant heat is a transfer of energy, the energy transferred is
          radiant heat.
          If heat is a transfer of energy, it is generally kinetic heat transferred.
          If evaporative heat is a transfer of energy, the energy transferred is evaporative heat.
          If conductive heat is a transfer of energy, the energy transferred
          is conductive heat.

          The human body is largely regulated by evaporative heat transfer.

          Planet Earth is largely regulated by evaporative heat transfer.
          Planet Venus has some evaporative heat transfer {the acid clouds- and trace amounts of water}.
          Planet Mars has some evaporative heat transfer {a lot less than Venus}- CO2 mostly and trace water.

          • gbaikie says:

            And in terms of global warming cargo cult and it’s perversion of
            The ideal thermal conductive blackbody sphere, model.
            That model is all about conductive heat transfer.
            A Magical/Ideal conduction of heat.

          • gbaikie says:

            Also, in regards to Earth, a tiny amount energy is related to conductive heat transfers. The moon is less. Venus has none, unless it’s from it’s interior heat- which could be somewhere around Earth’s geothermal heat {which mostly warms the ocean- which is significant because Earth’s cold ocean controls global climate- but as with Earth it seems to be small- though it can vary. And we know even less about Venus and it’s possible varying amounts of interior heat source.}
            Mars has less perhaps, than the Moon or a larger amount could be convectional/evaporative heat transfer, and of course Mars gets less sunlight than the Moon.

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint R,

        I bet Gordon never met the prerequisites for taking a course that teaches thermodynamics.

        It’s usually a third year course for Chemistry, Physics, and most Engineering degrees.

        It can also be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

  97. Swenson says:

    Tr&#09olling?

  98. Swenson says:

    Entropic Man,

    Earlier, you wrote –

    “My attempts to discuss the evidence are invariably met by abuse.

    That rather discourages rational debate.”

    Maybe you should not bother, then.

    How about describing the GHE instead? Presumably, that is what your “evidence” relates to.

    Or is your “evidence” showing that thermometers respond to heat? If so, you’re a bit late.

  99. RLH says:

    Video: 2022 Nobel physics prize winner John Clauser rips climate idiocy, No ‘climate crisis’ and IPCC ‘one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation’

    https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-07-15-Grabien-YouTube-John_Francis_Clauser-2013617.mp4?_=1

    • Eben says:

      But 99.7 scientists agrease

      • RLH says:

        Science is not a consensus game.

        • RLH says:

          “[T]he work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      It’s good to see someone at the top of the pecking order come on and state the obvious, that science is rife with pseudo-science. A few points from Clauser…

      -The world we live in today is filled with misinformation. It is up to each of you to serve as judges, distinguishing truth from falsehood based on accurate observations of phenomena.

      -Misinformation is being spread by those with political and opportunistic motives.

      -Dr. Clauser, known for his stance [with respect to] climate change, diagnosed the current situation as not being a climate crisis and criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for spreading misinformation.

      He stated, I dont believe there is a climate crisis and expressed his belief that key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by approximately 200 times.

    • Nate says:

      Clauser, like some previous aging Nobelists, claims the mantle of authority to weigh in on any other subject, even if he has no actual expertise in it.

      And the gullible masses think he won the Nobel, so he must know about everything!

  100. Clint R says:

    Good news/bad news.

    The bad news is that the HTE appears to be dying out. The Polar Vortex has taken some hits, but is alive and well this morning, with wind speeds hitting 285 Mph over a month after solstice. I call that “bad news” because I wanted to see how hot HTE and the El Niño could make Earth. It would be easy to imagine UAH Global hitting 1.0C.

    Good news is that’s not going to happen, this time.

  101. gbaikie says:

    SpaceX’s Remarkable Full Pressure Test, Starship Sacrificed, & Record Breaking Falcon Heavy Mission
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmx918LUiC4

    Regarding 9.2 ton satellite to GEO {largest satellite placed in GEO} in addition to getting to this orbital height, the satellite needs to change it’s inclination from the 28 degree inclination at launch to around zero inclination of GEO. And this is a significant amount of Delta-v.
    Or if it was launched from near the equator {ie European launch site at 6 degree latitude} it require a lot less delta-v to get to GEO.

    One can also lower the total delta-v to get to GEO, by going around the Moon.
    Or another way to say this, is it takes less delta-v to around the Moon, than to get to GEO orbit. And one advantage of going around the Moon to get to GEO is you pay less delta-v to change the inclination needed for GEO, if launching from a non equatorial launch site.
    The disadvantage is the time added to get to GEO orbital.
    And in business, time is money.
    One can also go to the Moon, like India is going to the Moon {and use less delta-v] but again, it takes more time.
    And if time is more important, one can get to the Moon within 9 hours, rather days {or months}.
    An aspect of this, is, if you have cheap rocket fuel in LEO, people can get to the Moon, in less time, than it takes you to get to ISS.

    • gbaikie says:

      https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/falcon-heavy/
      PAYLOAD TO GTO 26,700 kg / 58,860 lb

      So, GT0 is part of way to GEO- you also have change inclination and circularize the orbit.
      Also a satellite needs significant amount of delta-v for station keeping delta-v requirement of keeping satellite in GEO for many years- a decade of time or more.

      And well here, GEO gives you a lot more solar energy- or LEO only gives about 60% of total time in sunlight.
      Of course on Earth surface, at best you get 25% of time to harvest a weaker amount of solar energy.

  102. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Tim S wrote:

    “Your description that small molecules can have many degrees of freedom is correct. Water vapor appears to have more than CO2. These are very basic principles in thermodynamics.”

    Just to be clear, I described the vibrational motion of polyatomic molecules by making the analogy to a coupled oscillator in which a particular motion is called a normal (or fundamental) mode of oscillation. Each normal mode has a characteristic frequency of oscillation.

    Every atom has 3 degrees of freedom (x, y, z coordinates), leading to 3N degrees of freedom for an N-atomic molecule with respect to a fixed reference frame.

    Three of these degrees of freedom describe a translational motion which does not give rise to any vibrational movement. These are the coordinates of the molecules center of mass.

    Another three describe rotation around the center of mass, which does not correspond to any vibrational motion. These are the three angles required to specify the molecule’s orientation in space.

    Thus, in general, the number of possible modes of vibration of an N-atomic molecule is 3N 6 (e.g., H2O: 3 x 3 6 = 3). For a linear molecule there is one more mode because there is no rotation around the long axis, and the number of possible modes of vibration is 3N 5 (e.g., CO2: 3 x 3 5 = 4). Two of the CO2 molecule’s vibrational modes have the same frequency and combine to make a single motion.

    When a molecule absorbs energy and increases its vibrational level, it generally absorbs light of the same frequency as one of its normal modes. So by measuring the frequencies of light absorbed, the frequencies of its several normal modes of vibration are measured.
    For example, see experimental results for the vibrational spectrum of the carbon dioxide molecule here (Data from the NIST Chemistry WebBook page): https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Spec=C124389&Index=1&Type=IR&Large=on

    • Swenson says:

      A,

      Just to be clear, you are totally confused.

      Linking to totally irrelevant graphics won’t make you look any smarter than you are.

      Just spouting rubbish like “When a molecule absorbs energy and increases its vibrational level, it generally absorbs light of the same frequency as one of its normal modes. ” won’t help.

      When you compress air to a temperature of 500 C (in any diesel engine, say), all the constituents are at the same temperature – 500 C, unless you are using some weird climatic laws of thermodynamics.

      All gases can be heated. All gases cool, if external heat sources diminish.

      You have no clue. Either describe this mythical GHE, fold your tent and slime off into the darkness, or be prepared to be an object of scorn and derision.

      [laughing at wannabe revered sage]

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ark…you are still not getting it that a molecule has no properties separate from its constituent parts. Those parts are atoms, made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. where two or more atoms are joined by electron bonds. Therefore a molecule is nothing more than protons in the nucleus interacting with inner-shell electrons as normal atoms but sharing outer-shell electrons with another atom.

      When a molecule is said to absorb EM and/or vibrate you need to look closer at what that means. What is absorbing EM and what is vibrating? There is nothing there but electrons to absorb EM and to affect vibration.

      Bonds vibrate and bonds are electron orbitals. Electrons absorb EM of discrete frequencies. The argument that electrons can only transition when EM is in the UV range is incorrect. Electron are responsible for all Em absorp-tion/emission, there is nothing else in a molecule to absorb or emit EM.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        “The argument that electrons can only transition when EM is in the UV range is incorrect. Electron are responsible for all Em absorp-tion/emission, there is nothing else in a molecule to absorb or emit EM.”

        No sane person says that, and I suspect you are just trying to yank a few chains. But let’s assume you’re being serious for a moment; why don’t you show your data?

        The energy required for electronic transitions in molecules is typically in the range of a few eV (i.e., in the visible or UV region). IR radiation’s much lower energies, typically ranging from 0.001 eV to a few tenths of an eV, are not sufficient to cause electronic transitions in molecules.

        https://imgur.com/a/ybDgzjH
        NIST database https://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/

        • Swenson says:

          A,

          I guess you are trying to imply that you understand why CO2 can absorb and emit IR of all frequencies, by avoiding addressing the subject!

          Go on, tell me that you agree that the wavelengths of photons emitted by CO2 at 1 K, 100 K, 200 K, 283.1234567 K have no relationship to any “vibrational” or “rotational” modes, but are proportional to temperature.

          You seem to be confused, and assuming that spectroscopy and spectrometry are somehow relevant to CO2’s supposed role in the mythical GHE.

          It’s OK, various people with PhDs share your bizarre thinking.

          They probably deny the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and that the surface cools at night, surrendering all of the heat of the day to outer space – never to be seen again. Vanished. Gone. So much for “energy out must equal energy in”, or similar garbage..

          If that was true, nothing could ever get hotter or colder, could it?

          Carry on dreaming.

    • Clint R says:

      A copy/paste text sometimes loses certain punctuation and symbols. In this case, the “minus signs” were lost.

      Should be:

      3N – 6 (e.g., H2O: 3 x 3 – 6 = 3). For a linear molecule there is one more mode because there is no rotation around the long axis, and the number of possible modes of vibration is 3N – 5 (e.g., CO2: 3 x 3 – 5 = 4).

      Otherwise, it’s correct.

  103. gbaikie says:

    Mysterious Chinese COVID Lab Uncovered in City of Reedley CA

    “Why would a COVID lab run by a shady Chinese company be operating in Reedley, CA in the central San Joaquin Valley? The lab, which was supposed to be an empty building, was discovered by Reedley city code enforcement officers when they saw a garden hose attached to the building and investigated.

    Darren Fraser at the MidValley Times reported earlier this week that the building has been illegally operated since October 2022 by Wang Zhaolin of Prestige Biotech, and the lab was used to produce COVID-19 tests and pregnancy tests.”
    https://californiaglobe.com/articles/mysterious-chinese-covid-lab-uncovered-in-city-of-reedly-ca/

    From: https://instapundit.com/

    • Swenson says:

      Maybe setting the stage for another mass murder of Chinese locals – just like the 1871 massacre in Los Angeles?

      Anything to divert peoples’ attention away from the apparent imminent danger of “global boiling ” (according to the UN head).

      Probably a Chinese or Russian plot – might as well kill a few before we all get boiled to death!

      Only partially joking of course.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      This on-going pursuit of laying blame for covid is merely a face-saving gimmick to divert attention from the hysteria that led to two years of lockdowns and the deprivation of democratic rights.

      When Wuhan announced a virus in January of 2020, they supplied zero proof of a virus. They merely swabbed the lungs of victims, a literal soup of bacterial infection and applied a bad theory to claim a virus.

      It would be irresponsible to claim there is no virus and I am not claiming that. I am merely pointing out that covid has never been physically isolated, therefore any test or vaccine based on it is fraudulent.

      Most deaths blamed on covid were identified by conditions of pneumonia, a lot of it non-specific. The test for covid, the RNA-PCR test has been proved fraudulent not only for covid, but for HIV as well.

      The RNA-PCR test was developed initially by Fauci and David Ho because no one could find HIV on an electron microscope, not even the scientist credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier. It’s obvious the same applies to covid and the Wuhan scientist who wrote the paper in January 2020 admitted he had not physically isolated covid.

      The truth is, we were deprived of two years of democratic rights based on faulty theories and ridiculous computer model projections.

  104. Eben says:

    CO2 = The most useful gas

    https://youtu.be/eVZhuj-ffZ4

  105. gbaikie says:

    Aussie NSW Farmers Call for a Ban on New Solar Projects
    “Australias largest state farming organisation, NSW Farmers, is calling for a temporary ban on the construction of new large-scale solar farms in the state, amid concerns developers are not acting in the long-term interests of regional communities.”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/29/aussie-nsw-farmers-call-for-a-ban-on-new-solar-projects/

    –The demand for a prepaid cleanup fund echoes existing arrangements in the mining industry, in which mining companies have to pay into a fund to ensure mining sites are restored after the mine is exhausted, even if the mining company fails.

    Solar panels frequently contain toxic heavy metals, like lead and arsenic, which potentially pose long term contamination issues for farmers seeking to rehabilitate end of life solar installations as agricultural land. —

  106. Tim S says:

    Testing 1,2,3

  107. Gordon Robertson says:

    clintella…”Okay Gordon, Ill be watching for ANY science from you”.

    ***

    How will you recognize it? You avoid discussing pseudo-scientific statements you make, like heat being a transfer of energy and not energy itself. When asked to explain what energy is being transferred by heat you resort to childish insults and ad home.

    • Clint R says:

      Gordon says: “I am here to do science.”

      Clint R says: “Okay Gordon, I’ll be watching for ANY science from you.”

      Still no science.

  108. Gordon Robertson says:

    clintella to gb…”You need to learn the difference. Otherwise youre just clogging the blog with your confusion”.

    ***

    Clintella is the one clogging the blog with confusion and misinformation. He claims heat is a transfer of energy and not energy itself then compounds the pseudo-science by claiming entropy is a measure of disorder and not a measure of heat transfer as Clausius defined it.

    Clintie seems to have a blog of his own. Maybe he could give us the URL so we can post there then he can act as lord and master.

    Meantime gb offers sincere opinions on science that he is more than willing to discuss civilly.

  109. gbaikie says:

    How carbon colossus China dwarfs Britains net zero push
    “The imaginary fight against climate change takes a new twist, as a few inconvenient facts get an airing from an unlikely source, showing just how ludicrous UK political obsessions have become. Example: Sir Tony was correct to note that in some years the rise in Chinas annual emissions has indeed been greater than Britains total CO2 output. ”
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/07/29/how-carbon-colossus-china-dwarfs-britains-net-zero-push/

    There is an economic theory that argues is good to import from other countries {and good to export to other countries}.

    And roughly the idea is some nations could do certain things better.
    In terms global warming cargo cultist, how is China doing things “better”- it’s inefficient, it burns a lot coal, it’s creating a massive pollution. Only thing it does better is pay it’s employees less and treats them as slaves. But roughly if export stuff from China, you cause the increased global CO2 emission.
    And UK imports a lot from China.
    If wanted to export a lot, it shouldn’t from the Country that has highest CO2 emission and which creating the most toxic pollution.
    You might want import from country which has a lot hydropower- like Canada or has a lot nuclear power. And didn’t make a lot of toxic waste. And didn’t treat it’s citizen as though they were disposal garbage.
    But UK is not emitting much CO2, except in the sense, they are importing a fair amount from China- and claiming to get the advantage or cheap labor. And to help them make cheap military which they are constantly threatening use {and they would lose it, if they did- C’mon, man!}

  110. Bindidon says:

    A nice little text about entropy

    What Is Entropy? Beyond Disorder

    Javier Yanes (2023)

    https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/what-is-entropy-beyond-disorder/

    • Clint R says:

      Bin, what did you find significant in that link?

      Or are you just throwing stuff against the wall hoping something will stick?

      • Bindidon says:

        People like you, Robertson and a couple of others, who discredit and denigrate ALL proofs of the lunar spin, hardly could be able to find anything ‘significant in that link’.

        • Clint R says:

          That’s what I figured, Bin. You’re just throwing crap you don’t understand against the wall.

          And, there are NO “proofs” of lunar spin. Not. Even. ONE. Because Moon ain’t spinning.

      • bobdroege says:

        Links between energy, entropy, disorder, information, and uncertainty.

        That most people would find difficult to understand.

        Like when a moon orbits and faces the inside of its orbit, how that maximizes entropy while minimizing energy.

        And how the moon is actually rotating.

        Some don’t get it.

        • Clint R says:

          bob, have you ever made a list of all the nonsense you actually believe?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bob d “Like when a moon orbits and faces the inside of its orbit, how that maximizes entropy while minimizing energy”.

          ***

          Bob, your posts get more daft with each post. There is no heat transfer in the Moon’s orbit hence no entropy.

          S = integral dq/T

          Let’s see you relate that to the Moon’s orbit.

          As for entropy and energy, Clausius claimed he was describing energy with entropy but that word was already in use. So, he devised a Greek work that described a transformation of thermal energy, aka heat.

          Disorder, uncertainty and information theory has nothing to do with entropy. The word was stolen by people who had no idea what entropy means. That’s why a simple concept like entropy has become mired in obfuscation.

          • Clint R says:

            Gordon spews: “That’s why a simple concept like entropy has become mired in obfuscation.”

            Wrong Gordon. The reason the concept has been “mired in obfuscation” is due to people like you that have never studied Thermodynamics.

            The equation you keep using, S = integral dq/T, is not accurate. It should be with an upper case “Q”, as S = integral dQ/T.

            q ~ energy per mass, or energy per area, depending on the application

            Q ~ energy

            Q(dot) ~ energy per time

            You need to learn the conventional symbols in order to understand the basic concepts.

            (I’m still looking for ANY science from you.)

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            You have no idea what entropy is.

  111. gbaikie says:

    The Black Sea & The Naval War in Ukraine – Drones, Grain, Blockades & the Bridge to Crimea
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8D7ioiW0JA

    Interesting.
    But the main takeaway for me, is more details about the various ways, this war could escalate.
    But perhaps, to go in different direction- and to be more cheerful, perhaps the war could end fairly quickly.
    I still think the US presidential election season could provide the “force” to cause movement in this direction.
    Another pathway would be Europe- and Turkey.
    And the above video, seems to remind me, that perhaps the African states could play a more major role is ending this war.
    Because, Russia’s involvement in wars in Africa, is only possible,
    because African states are allowing it.

  112. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    We’re gonna need a bigger Y axis: https://imgur.com/a/RWRemAj

    • gbaikie says:

      NOAA was saying it was not cold enough for hurricanes {or too warm}
      I guess that is what they meant.
      That reminds me:
      got 50% chance of disturbance becoming tropical depression:
      https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
      Right in area.
      And on my side, one with a 70% chance:
      https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac

      That looks most promising, so far for me.

    • Arkady Ivanovich says:

      Climate hoax alarmists and the lamestream LIEbral media are not going to tell you this, but the planet has actually been cooling since 2023-07-07.

      Is this the grand solar minimum kicking in?

      https://imgur.com/a/RdsPj4W

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      This is the NOAA who retroactively re-assessed the SST to give the planet a positive trend after the IPCC declared a flat trend in 2012 from 1998 – 2012. The same NOAA who declared 2014 the hottest year ever based on a probability factor of 48%.

      After such chicanery, why would anyone be interested in more data fudging from NOAA?

  113. gbaikie says:

    –Artificial Intelligence as a Game-Changer for the Travel Industry. A Closer Look
    July 27, 2023 by Brian Wang

    The ongoing AI revolution has continued to seep into several unique domains, with the travel industry being no exception. To this point, the dramatic rise of AI in recent months has impacted the sector to such a degree that it has not only made it more personalized and engaging but also helped streamline complicated booking/ticketing processes. —
    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/07/artificial-intelligence-as-a-game-changer-for-the-travel-industry-a-closer-look.html

    Linked from: https://instapundit.com/

    Just think of what it could do in terms of replacing politicians and lawyers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      AI…the most recent hysteria.

      Like computer models, AI is nothing more than a computer program. Programs are written by humans and the intelligence in the programming is only as good as the intelligence available to the programmer.

      Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, humans simply lack the intelligence required to write such programs. That’s why it’s called artificial intelligence.

      Real intelligence, like energy, has no definition because no one knows what either is. There are some excellent discussions on this between physicist David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti, a thinker who spent his adult life studying the difference between intelligence and thought.

      Thought is not intelligence. Intelligence can drive thought in the right context, but thought cannot drive or create intelligence. According to Bohm and Krishnamurti, based on compelling evidence, intelligence is an entity beyond thought and in the same realm as energy.

      When you try to mimic the human mind and physical attributes using AI, you are dealing with intangibles. There is simply no way to mimic the full spectrum of the intelligence to which the human mind is privy as the basis of its very operation. The entire basis of life is an intelligence so intricate and so unknown that it is currently not possible to even come close to emulating it. Therefore, even the best AI has to offer is a poor imitation of real intelligence.

  114. Gordon Robertson says:

    testing for posting issues…

    part 1…

    binny…from your link…”To express the unusable heat lost, he [Clausius] defined entropyetymologically, a transformation of energy contentwhich measures how spontaneously a hot body gives up heat to a cold body as the system tends to equilibrium, unless interfered with to prevent it. This is why entropy in a thermodynamic sense is an energy divided by a temperature,

    ***

    Why do ijits keep replacing the word heat with the word energy? Clausius defined entropy in words as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat over a process at temperature T. He gave the equation as…

    S = entropy = integral dq/T

    Since T is intended to be constant, as a heat bath, then T can be taken outside outside the integral sign and written as…

    S = 1/T (integral dq)

    That clearly makes entropy a summation of heat quantities since q = heat. Clausius was simply following the instantaneous changes in heat of a heat engine cycle. He was trying to prove there were losses in such a cycle due to the dissipation of heat as it was converted to work.

    The ijits could not understand the meaning because they had not followed the heat engine theory that Clausius laid out meticulously. So, like the ordinary ignorant SOB, they re-defined it to try making sense of it.

    In the article, they quote Boltzmann, who tried to express entropy statistically. What they don’t tell you is that he failed and ended up taking his life over it. If you look at the Boltzmann formulation it is about undefined energy states related to imaginary particles which are based on probabilities. Boltzmann lost the essence of the Clausius definition which was about heat, not imaginary particles in an imaginary space.

    Disorder was addressed by Clausius after he offered the heat-based definition. He defined entropy for a reversible process, noting that entropy = zero in such a process because the infinitesimal changes sum to zero over such a process. However, with an irreversible process, entropy is positive and that was related to the 2nd law which defined the direction of heat transfer from hot to cold, by its own means.

    Clausius noted that most processes in the universe are irreversible, meaning they move from an ordered sate to a state of disorder, simply because the process cannot be reversed. From that, he concluded that the universe was moving toward disorder but at no time did he equate that disorder to entropy as a measure of heat transfer.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson

      Why can’t you stop boring us with your ridiculous pseudo-knowledge you mostly obtain from 70-80 year old books or from contrarian blogs?

      It’s so boring, Robertson!

  115. Gordon Robertson says:

    testing again…posting issues…

    ark…”The energy required for electronic transitions in molecules is typically in the range of a few eV (i.e., in the visible or UV region). IR radiations much lower energies, typically ranging from 0.001 eV to a few tenths of an eV, are not sufficient to cause electronic transitions in molecules”.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      part 2…

      ***

      No one who understands science would think I am trying to yank chains.

      The eV has nothing to do per se with EM absor.p.tion or emission, it represents the theorized potential difference between electron orbitals around an atom.

      There is a significance to it only in the formula for electron transitions … E = hf.

      Here E is the energy difference between two electron orbitals. The ‘f’ refers to the angular frequency of the orbiting electron. When an electron transition down over the orbital eV difference the emitted EM has an amplitude of that amount in eV with a frequency generated from the electron angular frequency.

      For absor.p.tion, frequency is the issue. The EM frequency must match the electron angular frequency of a potentially absorbing electron in order to excite it. Since that frequency will be lower from cooler objects it cannot excite an electron in a hotter object which has a higher angular frequency.

      • bobdroege says:

        Gordon,

        Electrons don’t have an angular frequency.

        And you call me daft.

        • Bindidon says:

          bobdroege

          I have zero knowledge about this level.

          Thus my question: what’s wrong with this below?

          https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node82.html

          • bobdroege says:

            I was referring to electrons bound in atoms.

            You reference a problem that does not have an atom, it’s just a calculation for a free electron in a magnetic field.

            It’s not wrong, it’s just not a model of an electron in an atom.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”Thus my question: whats wrong with this below?

            https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node82.html

            ***

            Nothing wrong with it as theoretical problems go. A peeve of mine studying engineering were problems that made no sense but were given merely to apply theory. This is one of them.

            In the problem at your link they are firing an electron into a magnetic field and claiming it goes into an orbit. If it was that easy, there would be no need for cyclotrons.

            However there is an equation of interest…

            1/2mv^2 = eV

            Bob has mistaken the RHS to mean eV is a measure of KE on the LHS. However, this equation represents a form of conservation of energy. Normally it would be written as…

            KE1 + PE1 = KE2 + PE2

            If starting at rest, and ending at rest, however, either KE or PE will be zero therefore the equation could be written as above. All the equation is stating is the obvious that the sum of KE and PE of the electron must equal zero.

            Electron volts must be potential energy if the electron is stopped.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bob…the more you post, the more of an ijit you become. Any body orbiting another body has an angular frequency. The word angular comes from the number of degrees, or radians, covered per unit time.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            Only uneducated ijits believe electrons orbit the nucleus.

            Even Bohr worked to improve his early model.

            For all orbitals except the 1s orbital, the current model describes these orbitals as having nodes, where the probability of finding the electron is zero.

            So in the p orbitals which have a node, how does an orbiting electron get from one side to the other without going through a node, where it is impossible for the electron to be?

            Here let me google that for you

            “Do electrons orbit the nucleus of atoms”

            answer

            “Electrons do not orbit a nucleus in the manner of a planet orbiting the Sun, but instead exist as standing waves. Thus the lowest possible energy an electron can take is similar to the fundamental frequency of a wave on a string. Higher energy states are similar to harmonics of that fundamental frequency.”

  116. Gordon Robertson says:

    ark…from earlier…”Just to be clear, I described the vibrational motion of polyatomic molecules by making the analogy to a coupled oscillator in which a particular motion is called a normal (or fundamental) mode of oscillation. Each normal mode has a characteristic frequency of oscillation”.

    ***

    You seem to think I am yanking chains whereas I am trying to clarify matters by simplifying them to the their basic elements. Coupled oscillators won’t get you there because they are purely theoretical since no one can measure the vibrations in molecules.

    I can see coupled oscillator theory being used to derive the natural resonant frequency of a piece of pure quartz but it is not useful in describing why molecular bonds vibrate.

    Your argument is against my claim that all EM emission and absor.p.tion is related to electron orbitals and that references to degrees of freedom only serve to obfuscate the matter.

    The problem as I see it is that molecular theory is presented from the assumption that a molecule is an independent entity. Molecules are referenced as absorbing and emitting EM without a clear understanding of what is involved at the atomic level or even what a molecule is.

    I just read an article in which they claimed a molecule is the basic unit of matter and that is incredibly wrong. A molecule cannot be a single atom and the atom is the basic unit of matter. In the other words, the word molecule is used incorrectly in modern science. A molecule by definition is two or more electrons acting as a unit.

    To understand the behavior of molecules it is imperative that the basic unit of the molecule be examined and that is the atom. Then we must look at the constituent parts of the atom and see how they are affected by EM and how they create it.

    Thus far, we have not reached that level because we are mired in molecular theory, which is at too high a level to discuss this subject accurately.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      Did you even attempt to watch and understand any of the videos on Spectroscopy I linked for you?

      YOU: ” Molecules are referenced as absorbing and emitting EM without a clear understanding of what is involved at the atomic level or even what a molecule is.”

      There is a clear understanding of what is involved. It is highly researched. Works to identify unknown compounds. It is NOT guesswork but established science.

      https://tinyurl.com/22hkuh55

      I do not understand you stubborn insistence that the scientists are clueless. You said once that you had an open mind. The evidence is very strong against you.

      Dipoles are charges exist and remain. They are what interact with the lower energy EMR. Why you can’t understand this and insist upon electronic transitions for lower energy EMR makes no sense after some time. There is zero evidence to support your claims. You can’t come up with any math that would show which electronic transitions of electrons could generate the 15 micron photon. What orbital (or in your world) orbit is an electron transitioning from to another to generate this 15 micron photon.

      http://www.kentchemistry.com/links/AtomicStructure/waveenergy.htm

      Use these equations and show which transitions are involved.

      • Swenson says:

        Norman,

        Richard Feynman said that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.

        Einstein said a thousand experiments could not prove him right, but a single experiment could prove him wrong.

        You are free to believe whomever you like. You may even choose to believe in a GHE which cannot even be described.

        Many others do.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…you linked me to an article on the Schrodinger equation, which is about electron orbitals not molecules. Linus Pauling had to modify Shroddy’s equation to get them to work with molecules. Still, the basis of Shroddy’s wave equations are electron orbitals. To be more specific, the equations are about a balance of potential and kinetic energies of electrons in their orbitals.

        I have given you scads of information on what to research but you cling to the molecular level which cannot be understood per se. Anyone who talks about EM absorp-tion/emission on the molecular level is indicating a serious misunderstanding of the theory.

        I have even asked you to explain what it is in a molecule that absorbs and emits EM. You replied that dipole charges interact with EM but you fail to grasp that a dipole is an electron bonding orbital that acquires its polarity from electronegativity, another electron property.

        There is nothing in a molecule that can interact with EM other than electrons.

  117. gbaikie says:

    I am still living in the hottest region on Earth.
    Today’s high is predicted to be 101 F {38 C}
    And tomorrow the guess is a high of 95 F, and day after that
    97 F which going have extraordinary cool night of 63 F.
    But predicting more 2 days is somewhat iffy.

    But predicting global climate average temperature centuries
    in the future is pretty easy- it’s not going to change much.

    Or Earth’s entropy is not going to change much.
    And planet Earth has a lot of entropy.
    In terms the entire planet it is a huge molten rock, but we living on a thin skin of this molten ball of rock.
    And in terms of the topic of global climate it’s about this thin skin, and regarding the thin skin, in what is called an Ice Age.

    We guess we have had about 5 ice ages, and we have been is one of the 5. And we aren’t going to leave ice age any time soon.

    To leave the ice age, the earth’s surface {thin skin} has to have a “large” increase in it’s entropy.
    What has a lot entropy on the Earth surface, is the Earth’s ocean-
    the ocean has 1000 times more heat {entropy} than it’s atmosphere.
    And the average temperature of this ocean is about 3.5 C.
    And if it somehow warmed to 7 C, it would roughly double it’s entropy.
    Most of the recent time on Earth [within last billion years] it’s ocean was about 7 C or warmer. And if Earth ocean was 7 C, then we might not be in an ice age.
    It’s arguable: have we left the ice age? And returned to a more “normal” Earth climate?
    But it would not be a strong argument that 7 C ocean is actually the warmest “known” climate state, which is called a greenhouse global climate. But could be a strong argument that we have left or are leaving our ice age.

    Some people people might argue that making a cold ocean slightly less cold, shouldn’t matter, much.
    And I would like to hear some people argue that.

    • gbaikie says:

      Or the issue is what does and non-ice age or non greenhouse global climate, look like?

      What is certain {or not realistically arguable] is Earth would not have any polar sea ice [in summer or during the winter time].

      And in terms of climate crisis, not having polar sea ice during the summer, is one of greatest fears. Which only a worse fear, if also is ice free during the winter.

      I would guess, this has happenned within our Ice Age, and has even happened during the coldest time of our Late Cenozoic Ice Age which has been last couple million years of this 33.9 million year period.

      But this has occurred during “ideal” conditions of what is called, Milankovitch cycles. And we are not anywhere near such “ideal conditions”, now.

      So, I saying despite anything regarding Milankovitch cycles, if ocean was 7 C, we would we not have any polar sea ice, during any season or at any of the different states of Milankovitch cycles.

      What seems an interesting argument could deal with amount of rain and snow Earth would get- particularly the snowing during the winter.
      And this gets into complicated issue of predicting more 2 days in advance of the coming weather. Or this involves predicting weather, months and years into the future.

      • gbaikie says:

        Let’s talk of other end of the world, type things.
        1 km diameter space rock impacting Earth is far more significant
        than an ocean with average temperature of 7 C.
        Though the amount of heat added or the amount of entropy added to Earth surface is utterly insignificant.

        So the dinosaurs killing space rock was much bigger, about 10 km in diameter, but it likewise didn’t add much heat to the Earth surface.
        It might take 1/2 dozen of them to warm the ocean by much- one do the math.

        But 1 km diameter space rock impact Earth would effect humans and or life on Earth.
        And I will mention there is about 1000 of them crossing Earth orbit, but we checked it out, and none of them are going to hit Earth within 100 years [it’s not very predictable beyond 100 years- but of course have run the numbers beyond 100 years {still nothing] but it’s only about accurate as predicting the weather a week in the future.

        So, it’s quite unlikely the rocks 1 km in diameter which have orbits
        crossing Earth [which are nearer Earth] are going to hit Earth any time soon. And comets {though dinosaur killer probably was a comet] are very rare in terms of hitting Earth- but we can only see them we they get closer to Earth {until we make a large telescope- next year which has first light in August}.

        But what happen if [or when] a 1 km diameter space rock hits Earth?
        Well, they done simulation of it’s effect. Goggle: hmm. Wiki:
        “Asteroids with a 1 km (0.62 mi) diameter strike Earth every 500,000 years on average.” And:
        1,000 m (3,300 ft): 47000 Mt 46300 Mt 13.6 km (8.5 mi) {crater if hits land {unlikely}) 440,000 years

        Anyways if lucky it hits land otherwise make big ocean wave {and if not in ocean settlement [you are dead]}.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gb…”And in terms of climate crisis, not having polar sea ice during the summer, is one of greatest fears”.

        ***

        Not likely to happen anytime soon. Just finished reading a book by a guy (Adam Shoaltz…Beyond the Trees) who traveled up the McKenzie River, across Great Bear Lake, up the Coppermine River, then across to Hudson Bay…by canoe. He could not paddle against the current in the major rivers so he poled his way up and walked the banks pulling his canoe by a rope.

        He was doing this throughout the summer and was stalled by ice floes on Great Bear Lake which is just on the Arctic Circle. The myth is growing with warming rhetoric that the Arctic ice is nearly gone. It’s not even completely gone at the latitude of the Arctic Circle in mid-summer.

        Temperatures as low as the Arctic Circle don’t often get above 0C, especially at night.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          BTW…he could not get started till late May because the Mackenzie river was choked with ice floes.

          • gbaikie says:

            Canada is large country which cold and dry with average yearly temperature of about -3 C. It doesn’t get much global warming- but if it got less, it would be drier. And if got wetter it would have ice sheets. Why most of the time, Canada has huge ice sheets, is curious question. I tend to think it has to with weather.
            Though if there was less polar sea ice particularly during the winter, it might be easiest type of answer.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            gb…Great Bear Lake is like a small ocean, it’s that big. Therefore ice will melt to depth typical of the Arctic Ocean. However, GBL is freshwater and will freeze faster and deeper.

            In that part of Canada, rivers and lakes freeze so deep they are used as ‘ice roads’ by major transport. Fully loaded semi’s can drive across lakes. That’s a lot of ice.

          • gbaikie says:

            There is a big difference between a lake and an Ocean.
            Oceans control global temperature, lakes don’t.
            Ocean’s dominate the average surface area, lakes are dominated
            by land area.
            Fresh water lakes have densest liquid water at 4 C, oceans is around -2 C -and ocean are interconnected.

            And no lake should have largest waterfalls in the world within them.
            The oceans are largely warmed by tropical ocean and geothermal heat-
            they some lakes warmed geothermal heat.

  118. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Gordon Robertson wrote: “The eV has nothing to do per se with EM absor.p.tion or emission”

    Nonsense!

    Take the hydrogen atom for example:

    An electron can transition from the ground state to the first excited state by absorbing a photon of 10.2eV Energy (which is the same as 0.12μ Wavelength or 0.25×10^16Hz Frequency); clearly in the UV range.

    This is basic knowledge. If you object to it then, show us your data.

    • Swenson says:

      A,

      I’ll see your nonsense, and call.

      Hydrogen at 1 K is emitting photons. It will absorb photons emitted by a 1.01 K object, and not absorb photons emitted by a 0.99 K object.

      Accept reality. You don’t know what you are talking about. Excitation wavelengths (as in neon lamps, sodium or mercury vapour lamps) have nothing to do with infrared emitted due to temperature.

      I’d ask you to show us your GHE description, but of course you don’t have one.

      Carry on distracting. It won’t work, you know.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson,

        This

        “Hydrogen at 1 K is emitting photons. It will ab sorb photons emitted by a 1.01 K object, and not absorb photons emitted by a 0.99 K object.”

        Is a bunch of horse manure, maybe you should refer to a textbook that deals with how radiation interacts with matter.

        Hydrogen at 1 k is a solid and will act like a blackbody and will absorb radiation from another block of hydrogen solid at either 1.01 K or 0.99 K.

      • bobdroege says:

        Hydrogen as a solid will emit a spectrum, that means more than one specific wavelength, and only the peak of the spectrum is dependent on temperature.

        Hydrogen gas, however is a different beast, and only emits and ab sorbs photons of specific wavelengths.

        Where did you get your physics training?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ark…you need to study some basic quantum theory before you brand an argument as nonsense. You clearly don’t understand the difference between frequency and a voltage, in eV.

      An electron does not absorb a photon because it represents a potential difference of so many eV, the electron responds only to the frequency of an incoming EM quantum. An electron orbiting at so many revs per second will respond only to EM with the same frequency. At each excited orbital state, the angular frequency of the electron increases with its KE. It has to, increasing KE means increasing angular velocity hence increasing angular frequency.

      Consider the hydrogen atom, not the molecule, H2, but the atom itself. It has one electron. If you could pull that electron away from the proton nucleus till it is far enough away that the +ve proton charge has no effect on it, that is considered infinity in quantum theory and has a potential of 0 eV. As the electron is brought closer to the nucleus and an attraction is felt, the potential increases in a negative direction. In the ground state, the electron is said to have an eV of -13.6 eV.

      If you want to tear the electron from the proton’s influence, you need to supply 13.6 eV of electrostatic energy. As you pointed out, the next excited state is at -10.2 eV. Therefore, in order to raise the electron to the first excited state, you need to supply it with 13.6 – 10.2 = 3.4 eV of energy.

      An inverse analogy to that is Earth gravitational field. When a mass is on the surface it has zero potential energy wrt the surface. As you raise the mass so many metres vertically, the mass acquires a potential energy of mgh, where h is the height raised.

      There is no way to apply a vertical force to an electron in an orbit therefore you must supply the energy in another manner. That manner involves resonance, where the frequency of the EM quantum matches the angular frequency at which the electron is orbiting. If you supply a hydrogen electron with an exact frequency that corresponds to its angular frequency, the electron will rise to an excited orbital a corresponding distance from ground state. Of course, each orbital is quantized therefore no orbital energy levels are allowed in between the quantized levels.

      When an electron absorbs EM of the correct frequency, it’s kinetic energy increases and the electron jumps to an appropriate outer orbital. When an electron drops back to ground state, it must release that KE and it does so by releasing a quantum of EM with a frequency corresponding to the electron’s angular frequency.

      You are correct in claiming that transitions downward from the first excited state corresponds to a UV frequencies emission. However, hydrogen has at least 7 excited states and transitions must be considered from each of those states to another. When transitions occur downward from any of the outer orbitals to the ground state or the 1st excited state, high frequency EM is produced, However transitions between orbital level 7 and level 4 produce IR frequencies in hydrogen.

      I am guessing that transitions in bonding orbitals of molecules will also be lower energy states, since they represent outer orbitals, and produce IR frequencies as well.

      This is far more complex than it appears. Hydrogen with 1 electron has at least 7 excited states and that means atoms with multiple electron orbitals should have corresponding excited states for each orbital level.

      • bobdroege says:

        Gordon,

        “You clearly dont understand the difference between frequency and a voltage, in eV.”

        Don’t be an ass.

        If you don’t know what a unit is, look it up.

        eV is not a unit of voltage, it is defined as the kinetic energy an electron gains accelerating through a potential of 1 volt.

        It is a unit of energy.

        • Arkady Ivanovich says:

          Gordon Robertson is the Emily Litella of science: https://imgur.com/a/gJKsTY5

          • Swenson says:

            A,

            How are you going with your efforts to find a description of the GHE?

            Can you improve on bobdroege’s “seventeen word” description?

            Here it is –

            “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”

            Maybe you prefer Entropic Man’s – “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets.”

            Come on, be a man – stand forth and commit yourself to something!

            Otherwise, you are just another slimy cultist, trying diversion after diversion in your attempts to avoid facing reality. Here’s a hint – describing the non-existent GHE is not going to be easy.

            Give it a try.

          • bobdroege says:

            Here is Gordon and Swenson

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-5FwVv5Udo

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bob…the first think I noticed is your sock-puppet, Ark, chiming in with some whiny comment following yours without trying to reply to my post. Ark is obviously one of those ijits who rushes to Google for answers, or worse still, listens to you.

          Talking about being a complete ass, you might try reading on the definition of voltage and try to understand the relation of voltage to electrons. In all the years I have been studying electronic/electrical theory I have not once encountered a reference to electron acceleration. There’s a good reason for that, it simply does not apply to either field.

          A voltage is related to potential energy, not kinetic energy. When we refer to a voltage in electronics or the electrical field we are talking about a difference in potential electrical energy, ergo voltage or EMF.

          In this case, in the orbitals of electrons, there is no motion between orbitals for an electron. At -13.6 eV it has one KE and at the next hydrogen excited state it’s at -10.2 eV, therefore it has lost potential energy. It has to gain KE if it loses PE therefore it moves from one state at a certain PE instantaneously to a state of lower PE. There is no acceleration involved.

          The question becomes, how does it acquire that KE?

          It’s the same with a mass raised to a height, h, above the surface and released, At the height, h, it has PE = mgh and KE = 0. After release and arriving at the surface it has PE = 0 and KE – 1/2mv^2. It’s called conservation of energy.

          If you take an electron at a surface and accelerate it over a potential of 1 V at another surface, at the other surface the electron must stop and its KE = 0, but it has acquired a potential energy of its charge times 1 volt = 1 eV. The electron can have that energy and not be moving!!! It’s done all the time in batteries that are not connected to a circuit.

          There is a serious misunderstanding of basic electronics theory on the Net. If anyone is going to discuss electrons in terms of acceleration, that person must indicate the context, like in a linear accelerator where great distances are required to accelerate an electron. In circuits and atoms, there is no such thing as acceleration. In fact, I seriously doubt there are experiments in which an electron’s energy is measured over 1 eV.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            “Talking about being a complete ass, you might try reading on the definition of voltage and try to understand the relation of voltage to electrons. In all the years I have been studying electronic/electrical theory I have not once encountered a reference to electron acceleration.”

            Yeah right, you don’t know how a cathode ray tube works, commonly referred to as a TV.

            “If you take an electron at a surface and accelerate it over a potential of 1 V at another surface, at the other surface the electron must stop and its KE = 0,”

            But before it hits the other surface, it has gained kinetic energy of exactly one eV.

            “The electron can have that energy and not be moving!!! Its done all the time in batteries that are not connected to a circuit.”

            Really? What kind of energy do batteries store?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            “But before it hits the other surface, it has gained kinetic energy of exactly one eV”.

            ***

            Not the way it work with electrons. It’s like lifting a 10 Kg load up a metre or so. While you’re moving the mass, it has KE and is also gaining PE. When you place it on a pedestal, the mass now has PE and zero KE.

            Same with electrons. In a battery, when you charge it, you raise the energy level of the electrons which is PE, or voltage. You re not interested in their KE or how they got there, just the stored energy they have.

            Which kind of CRT are you referencing a monochrome or colour, perhaps the Trinitron CRT devised by Sony? Of course the electrons burned off the tungsten filament are accelerated toward the anode at about 40,000 volts in a colour tube but no one cares about the acceleration, just the effect of the electrons on the phosphors of the CRT and the effect of the magnetic fields used to deflect the electron beam.

            No one cares about storing the electrons in a CRT but they do in a battery. In a battery, the electrons are produced by chemical reactions in an electrolyte and tend to drift toward electrodes made of material that will store the electrons. When the number of electrons accumulated are sufficient their combine charges produce a potential difference between that electrode and the other electrode.

          • Swenson says:

            Bumbling Bobby,

            You wrote

            “Really? What kind of energy do batteries store?”

            Oooooh! A rather pointless gotcha. Here’s what the US government says “Batteries use chemistry, in the form of chemical potential, to store energy,”

            What kind? You don’t even know what energy is. Richard Feynman said “Nobody knows what energy really is . . . “, but your gotcha is supposed to make people think that you are one exceptionally sharp fellow.

            Have you decided to let everybody know about the “better explanation” of the GHE which you claim to have, but are keeping secret? Or do we have to accept “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”?

            If you want to educate someone as to what sort of energy batteries store, why not just tell them? Why do you bother posing gotchas which just make you look retarded?

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Read Gordon’s reply to my question, it wasn’t meant to be a gotcha.

          • Swenson says:

            Bumbling Bobby,

            You wrote

            “Really? What kind of energy do batteries store?”

            Of course it was meant to be a gotcha! Or are you pretending that you really were asking Gordon to educate you?

            Go on, tell us all that you don’t know what sort of energy batteries store. Or that you do – you are going to look ignorant either way, aren’t you?

            By the way, why are you still keeping your “better explanation” of the GHE secret? Do you really expect people to believe you have one?

            Good luck with that.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            “By the way, why are you still keeping your better explanation of the GHE secret?”

            No, it’s not secret, it’s for sale, 50 bucks.

            Special deal for you, Swenson.

            hundred fifty.

  119. gbaikie says:

    So, what is guess about July?
    I am going to guess +0.30

  120. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”Robertson

    Why cant you stop boring us with your ridiculous pseudo-knowledge you mostly obtain from 70-80 year old books or from contrarian blogs?”

    ***

    Newton’s Principia is at least 350 years old and you are claiming it is invalid. Therefore we must scrap f = ma and Newton’s derivation of the gravitational constant.

    Until someone comes up with a better explanation of entropy and the 2nd law than the author of both, Rudolf Clausius, I’m sticking with the old stuff.

    I don’t accept it all verbatim. I have pointed out how Clausius and other scientists of his generation erred on electromagnetic energy. They thought heat could flow through air as heat rays. Ironically, there are many scientists today who believe the same thing, being led by climate alarmists.

    Surprisingly, many today think Einstein’s kookie relativity theory has replaced Newton’s theories but I am betting on Newton being right and Einstein et al being wrong.

    Newton did not have the more modern resources of Einstein but he made up for it by being many times the scientist Einstein is claimed to have been. Newton actually did his own lab work while porducing innovative science whereas Einstein used thought-experiments and got things confused, like time.

  121. Gordon Robertson says:

    I might add that Einstein stole the basics of his stuff like time dilation and e = mc^2 from other scientists like Lorentz. He might at least have checked to see what time is before proceeding since Lorentz obviously had it wrong.

    Einstein did apply the quantum theory devised by Planck to the photo-electric effect but failed to grasp the import of it when applied to electron theory as did Bohr. Had Einstein been the genius he is claimed to be, he would surely have gotten what Bohr saw and everyone else missed, including Bohr’s mentor Rutherford.

  122. Eben says:

    A new column in the Wall Street Journal by Allysia Finley suggests that the lefts obsession with climate change is a genuine mental disorder.

    None of this is surprising when you see elected officials like AOC and others spreading doomsday prophecies about the world ending in ten years due to climate change. Its a hysteria.

    Ms. Tolentino goes on to describe how climate therapists can help patients cope.

    Climate therapists? Thats a real thing now?

    Heres a perfect example of how this happened. Kamala Harris says in an interview that young people are scared about the future because of climate change.
    Who put that fear in them?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Young people should be scared of something going wrong with Biden because Kamala Harris will be President.

  123. Gordon Robertson says:

    ark the snark…”An electron can transition from the ground state to the first excited state by absorbing a photon of 10.2eV Energy (which is the same as 0.12μ Wavelength or 0.2510^16Hz Frequency); clearly in the UV range”.

    ***

    The formula for absorp-tion according to Bohr is E = hf. But E is the difference in energy levels therefore it would be 13.6 eV – 10.2 eV = 3.4 eV. Still, there is no relationship between eV and frequency/wavelength. The V in eV is the volt, a measure of voltage.

    Take the hydrogen atom and calculate the wavelength/frequency of an electron transitioning from the 7th orbital to the 5th orbital. It should be in the IR range. Check out the Paschen series for hydrogen.

    Look up the Rydberg formula, it should be helpful. It was used to calculate wavelengths/frequencies for hydrogen before Bohr came along.

    https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Quantum_Mechanics/Introductory_Quantum_Mechanics_(Fitzpatrick)/08%3A_Central_Potentials/8.04%3A_Rydberg_Formula

    Note that 1/lamba is the wavenumber, you need to invert it to get the wavelength.

    We are dealing here with electrostatic potentials. eV means a volt multiplied by the charge on an electron and has nothing to do with frequency/wavelength. If you had a million electrons it would MeV.

    The absorbed EM gets its frequency from the electron at the source where it was emitted. The amplitude is the difference between the energy levels through which the electron transitioned downward, which could be over several energy orbitals but the frequency is based on the angular velocity of the emitting electron.

    I am no expert on this. A modicum of reading could get you up to speed. Go read so we can have an intelligent conversation. I am interested in this stuff and get no charge out of arguing. I’d prefer discussing and learning. If I’m wrong and you can prove it, I will listen.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      You need to refer to a basic physics textbook dealing with light.

      Because

      “Still, there is no relationship between eV and frequency/wavelength.”

      There is a relationship between eV a measure of energy and frequency/wavelength.

      E=hf

      or

      E=hc/wavelength

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        You are putting the horse before the cart, Bob. You fist need to understand the source of EM which is electrons. Bohr claimed that electrons orbit a nucleus and can become excited to different energy levels in their orbital. When they drop to a lower orbital after being excited they emit a quantum of EM.

        The orbital energy levels, separated by a potential of so many eV, determines the amplitude of the emitted EM, however, the frequency of the EM quantum is determined by the rate at which the electron is orbiting, it’s angular frequency.

        It’s no coincidence that the quantum emitted is is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and it has a frequency. Only the electron can supply both of those fields in an atom plus a frequency. It’s also no coincidence that the amplitude of the EM quantum is the distance between electron potential energy levels in eV and the frequency imparted to the EM is related to the angular velocity/frequency of the electron.

        It’s also no accident that Planck’s constant, h, has units of joules/hertz. It has a frequency component built into it.

        If you look at the derivation of eV, you have the volt = V as a measure of potential energy and the ‘e’ is the charge on an electron. Neither have frequency components.

        • bobdroege says:

          Gordon,

          “the frequency of the EM quantum is determined by the rate at which the electron is orbiting, its angular frequency.”

          This is impossible.

          Say you have one H atom with a electron at the 5th orbital, it can drop to any of 4 lower levels, emitting a photon of differing frequency for each one.

          So experimentally, they are not observed at the same frequency, so your so called angular velocity/frequency.

          Just plain wrong.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Just reading Bohr on this right now. He is focused on the electron as the emitter and absorber of EM but he has not committed as yet to the relationship between electron angular frequency and the frequency of the emitted EM. He does talk a lot about the electron angular frequency and he has given a formula for it.

            You have to understand that in his day this was pure theory and a century later it’s about the same.

            He states at one point…”we are not justified in expecting any simple relation between these frequencies of revolution of the electron and the frequency of the emitted radiation”.

            The fact that he even mentions it, however, suggests it is there.

            I mean, why would there be no relationship? You guys are treating EM as a mysterious phenomenon that has no relationship to orbiting electrons. Yet an electron has an electric and magnetic field and ‘something’ produces a quantum of an energy with an electric and magnetic field and a frequency, during a downward electron transition.

            Although Bohr is trying not to step on the toes of electrodyanmicists of his time he does offer that an orbiting electrons gives off a magnetic field but it is very small compared to the electrostatic force binding the atom, or binding molecules together.

            Personally I think the electrodynamics theory is wrong on this subject. They have concluded that an electron orbiting a nucleus ‘should’ give up energy and fall into the nucleus. We know that does not happen with the Moon or any of the planets because their orbital momentum keeps them in an orbit indefinitely.

            I also think the theory of electron orbitals in general is far-fetched. The idea that some atoms can have several layers of electron orbitals with up to 18 electrons orbiting in some orbitals sound flaky to me.

            Why should they align themselves like that unless some intelligence is involved that we know nothing about? Thus far, all we have is quantum theory which is mainly theoretical bs.

          • bobdroege says:

            Gordon,

            “He does talk a lot about the electron angular frequency and he has given a formula for it.”

            Yes, he did.

            Now go ahead and use his formula to predict the frequency of the emitted photon, and see if it matches experimental evidence.

            I just did that for the the Lyman series drop from n=2 to n=1.

            Why don’t you try it and see if you get a match?

            I just did and found the theory that the electron is orbiting with a specific frequency does not match experimental results.

  124. Tim Wells says:

    Had a month of heavy rain in the Uk and two more weeks coming, its like winter. While our BBC fakes weather reports in continental Europe.

      • RLH says:

        Mike Kendon of the {UK} Met Office said:

        ‘The jet stream has been shifted to the south of the UK for much of the month, simultaneously allowing extreme heat to build in southern Europe for a time, but also allowing a succession of low pressure systems to influence the UK, with long periods of winds and rain that many more typically associate with autumn weather.’

        No comment on how CO2 influences (or not) the jet stream.

        • Ken says:

          Jet stream is wavier because of cold upper atmosphere. Its colder than it has been because of lower solar activity, particularly in the UV and XRay bands. ‘

          The earth magnetic field is weaker too.

          Co2 doesn’t affect Jet Stream; its driven by the sun and moderated by earth magnetic field.

          My guess is the predictions of July being the hottest earth boiling month will get shot to pieces with UAH showing 0.2 anomaly, down 0.18 from June.

          • Bindidon says:

            Ken

            Like many others, you confound temperatures measured in the lower troposphere (at about 4 km on average) with those measured at the surface.

            Here for example the water temperatures measured today at Europe’s coasts: from 10 C (Faroe Islands) to 29 C (Majorca, Cyprus).

            I’m sure I won’t see anything of that difference when I process UAH’s 2.5 degree grid over Europe for July when it becomes available.

          • Bindidon says:

            Ooops?! I forgot to paste the link:

            https://tinyurl.com/Water-temps-Europe-010823

          • RLH says:

            “you confound temperatures measured in the lower troposphere (at about 4 km on average) with those measured at the surface”

            So you are saying that NOAA/STAR uses the wrong methodology (and RSS too).

          • Bindidon says:

            ” So you are saying that NOAA/STAR uses the wrong methodology (and RSS too). ”

            As usual: sissyish insinuations from the pseudo-skeptic 75+ years old college boy Blindsley H00d…

            I never said that anywhere.

            Why aren’t you able to discuss anything without insinuating what others didn’t say, Blindsley H00d?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”Like many others, you confound temperatures measured in the lower troposphere (at about 4 km on average) with those measured at the surface”.

            ***

            Binny is still confused as to how AMSU units work on satellites. He thinks all temperatures are measured at 4 km whereas the sats are flying miles higher. The 4 km mark is only halfway up Mount Everest.

            The significance of 4 km is only its position on a weighting function curve. On channel 5 of the AMSU, that channels bandwidth peaks at 4 km. However, all the way down the legs of the weighting function, which extend vertically below and above the altitude of 4 km, the AMSU units still gather temperature-related data from oxygen molecules.

            The depth they go toward the surface is cut-off by UAH due to microwave interference generated by the surface. However, channel 5 is quite capable of measuring right to the surface, if required.

            Personally, I’d like to see UAH remove the restrictions for a scan of the planet to see what difference is encountered.

          • Bindidon says:

            ” Binny is still confused as to how AMSU units work on satellites.

            He thinks all temperatures are measured at 4 km whereas the sats are flying miles higher.

            The 4 km mark is only halfway up Mount Everest. ”

            Robertson isn’t even able to read just one sentence.

            I’m not confused at all, Robertson.

            Unlike you, I know how to process UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data, and my results match exactly those of Mark B, Mr Z and… the UAH team itself (see Roy Spencer’s post about absolute UAH temperatures).

            All you are able to do is polemic, discrediting, denigrating and lying.

        • Entropic man says:

          Whatever is warming the Arctic is changing the jetstream.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_nzwJg4Ebzo

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ent…where did you dig up that snotty-nosed explanation. One of the worst I have ever encountered.

            The jet stream is a product of cold Arctic air meeting warmer Equatorial-based air. She talks about a Coriolis force and there is no such thing. It’s a Coriolis effect, an illusion that a force is acting. The force is a pseudo-force which means it appears there is a force acting but there is no force.

            It so happens that air near the Equator is rotating faster than air parcels further north and south. There is no particular force on them other than gravitation force and force between air masses moving at different speeds.

            Earth’s rotation carries those colder and warmer air masses along with the rotation, which is a good thing. If it did not, people on the Equator would experience 1000 mph winds while we at the latitude of Vancouver, Canada would experience only about 800 mph winds. Good kite flying weather.

            However, since both the Arctic and Equatorial air masses are turning and mixing, a chaotic system arises culminating in the jet stream and other phenomena.

            There is absolutely nothing we can do to affect Arctic temperatures unless we change our orbit and straighten our axial tilt.

            Don’t they teach these snotty-nosed kids anything these days?

          • Ken says:

            Whatever is warming the arctic is to do with weakening earth magnetic field. That means UV and Xray penetrate deeper into the atmosphere, making lower atmosphere warmer while leaving upper atmosphere colder.

            Its the colder upper atmosphere that causes changes to jet stream. Same density air currents have to be wavier in a smaller upper atmosphere.

            Let us hope the magnetic field doesn’t get so weak that the Revelations depiction of past events where men seek to hide underground doesn’t happen again soon.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ken…whatever it is has been moving around consistently since the UAH records began in 1979. If you look up he contour maps on the UAH site, each months shows hot spots in different locations each month.

            https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

            Thumb through these and you’ll see what I mean. At one point, Roy theorized it is related to ocean activity in the North Atlantic.

          • Entropic man says:

            See what I mean. I put up some fairly straightforward science and you greet it with sarcasm.

            Try a centrifuge sometime. The centrifugal force crushing you is a pseudoscience but it has a real effect on you.

            Similarly Coriolis force is a pseudoforce but it’s realeffect is to deflect air moving across Earth’s surface. To the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the SH.

            Thus air flowing into a low pressure system is deflected to the right and you get an anticlockwise circulation.

            Air rising along the Polar Front draws air in from N and S which is deflected Eastwards and forms the jetstream.

            Basic meteorology.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Entropic man says:

            ”Similarly Coriolis force is a pseudoforce but its realeffect is to deflect air moving across Earths surface. To the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the SH.”

            It is a pseudoforce so calling it a deflection is a bit of misnomer and promotes confusion.

            In the northern hemisphere the air that travels near the surface is moving from north to south in a Hadley circulation from the horse latitudes to the equator.

            The air is also moving east at the same speed as the land and ocean as the earth rotates.

            As it moves south towards the equator the land is moving faster because of the diameter of the earth and the result is the easterly trade winds as the circumference of the latitudes enlarge and thus the eastern speed of the land and ocean increases. Friction with the surface changes the speed of the air in the convection loop as the air moves south.

            The air near the surface in the southern hemisphere does the same thing resulting also in easterly trade winds.

            North of the northern horse latitudes to the polar front at about 60deg north latitude air in the Ferrel Cells close to the water surface run north instead of south. Since the land and ocean is moving slower due to a shrinking circumference of the latitude as you move north that results in westerly winds.

            This is the same effect that artillery men need to account for.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Good explanation, Bill.

      • Nate says:

        Prob has to do with the warmest North Atlantic on record.

        https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/

        Choose area: North Atlantic