Home/BlogNew Record High Temperatures and a Weird Month
July 2023 was an unusual month, with sudden warmth and a few record or near-record high temperatures.
Since the satellite record began in 1979, July 2023 was:
- warmest July on record (global average)
- warmest absolute temperature (since July is climatologically the warmest month)
- tied with March 2016 for the 2nd warmest monthly anomaly (departure from normal for any month)
- warmest Southern Hemisphere land anomaly
- warmest July for tropical land (by a wide margin, +1.03 deg. C vs. +0.44 deg. C in 2017)
These results suggest something peculiar is going on. It’s too early for the developing El Nino in the Pacific to have much effect on the tropospheric temperature record. The Hunga Tonga sub-surface ocean volcano eruption and its “unprecedented” production of extra stratospheric water vapor could be to blame. There might be other record high temperatures regionally in the satellite data, but I don’t have time right now to investigate that.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming…
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July 2023 was +0.64 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is well above the June 2023 anomaly of +0.38 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 19 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.06 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.12 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.50 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.28 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.22 | +0.74 | +0.02 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.27 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.25 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.17 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.60 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.46 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.56 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.32 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.50 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.24 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.04 | +0.16 | +0.93 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.14 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.08 | +0.17 | 0.00 | -0.11 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.12 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.16 | -0.13 | -1.44 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.25 | -0.03 | -0.38 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.39 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.06 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.87 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.43 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for July, 2023 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy of the unusual July conditions, should be available within the next several days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt†
Hey RLH – looks like you lost your bet. And BADLY!!
It has taken 3 years for that figure to occur. Do you think the rest of the year will see the same rise?
Still lower than some months in 2016.
This may be an ideal time to recall that one month is weather, not climate.
My only point was that you lost the bet.
Not with you.
Again … not my point.
Still lower than some months in 2016.
Do you think the rest of the year will see the same (or more) rise?
Every month warmer than this month? Of course not.
But don’t forget you’ve been pushing how weak this El Nino is, so it shouldn’t go close to 2015/16, right?
Anyway, the ENSO season runs from July to June, so the 2023-24 season is currently leading 2015-16 +0.64 to +0.02.
There goes your drinking tab for tonight.
Sure. Now say something climate related.
Sure, my arboreal friend. Find yourself a tree and climate.
Now say something climate related.
Sure, after you take the lead. Heads up – ENSO is not climate.
It’ll take a few days for Roy to update his UAH data. I’ll post the results then.
What results? To come up with results you first need to pose the question.
Doc- you are my go-to-guy for making sense of all of this. While I have an MS in Engineering and still am a Certified Energy Manager this stuff sure is complex. I await your next book. I just finished Dr Curry’s book which conveniently arrived in time for me to read in our 29June-4 July power outage caused by an 85mph derecho wind storm in Indiana where I live (we have lots of tall trees by powerlines here). Lastly the year 1988 is when AlGore made his big Senate Hearing with Hanson and the shut-off HVAC in the hearing room. That year I was transferred from KI Sawyer AFB near your old stomping grounds to “southerly” Chanute AFB, IL in February. In summer1988 midwest had a drought and I saw all the dead corn mid July in a sporadic belt from Illinois to Kansas City. That got my attention and I started eagerly reading all that I could. Keep up the good work
At least describe the bet for the rest of us?
Not Hunga Tonga
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
Dr Spencer … radiosonde data shows no detectable increase in stratospheric water vapour concentrations.
And what would cause those concentrations to suddenly increase 18 months after the eruption?
Also Dr Spencer, you haven’t updated your graph in the intro.
done.
Also, the trend hasn’t yet gone up to 0.14C per decade.
It is sitting at 0.1347, so I assume you double-rounded.
I get 0.1351 (lines-t function in Excel).
Yes, I get the same using R. It’s possible that Antonin is starting from January 1979, rather than December 1978.
I’m just reading the gradient from the trend line and multiplying by 120 (months to decades). Should there be a difference? (honest question, not a slur)
It appears the old data has changed since last month. I re-downloaded and get the same value now.
Could someone suggest what statistical reason there might be for those changes?
Some satellite adjustments are re-calculated as new data come in. This can cause ~0.01 deg C changes sometimes compared to previous calculations.
Well, surprise, surprise.
This dramatic increase is due to the HTE. It now appears as is the effect has peaked, but the new El Niño is becoming more and more a factor.
Opinion transforms into fact before our very eyes.
Still waiting for your expert explanation of the mechanism behind your “HTE” …
Clint will again weasel his way out of his need to explain by asserting that we “wouldn’t understand” his superior thinking processes which no other scientist has yet been able to duplicate.
I would like to hear the contrarian explanation of how 150 MtH2O (which is only a ~0.001% increase in the entire atmosphere despite being a ~13% increase in the stratosphere) can cause the EEI to jump up to +1.97 W/m2 and cause such a dramatic response in the UAH TLT anomalies. And if 150 MtH2O can do that then why should we be so quick to dismiss the 1,100,000 MtCO2 increase as having an effect?
Because CO2 follows temperature on both short and long, time scales. Always has and data still shows this.
Interesting. So the law of conservation of mass works for H2O, but not CO2?
Interesting you would say this because that is precisely how Berry falsified AGW. His Physics Model uses the conservation of mass.
This GRAPH shows the sensitivity to outgoing longwave radiation to changes in the water vapour content of layers in the atmosphere.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/images/sens-wv-on-olr-vs-pressure-layer.jpg
The graph shows at a given increase of water vapor (0.3 kg/m2 or prmm) in the 100 150 mbar pressure layer (about 13.8 to 16.3 km altitude) causes a reduction of OLR of -5.56 W/m2 while the same change of water vapour in the near surface layer (0 to 0.11 km altitude) reduces the OLR by only 0.196 W/m2, assuming constant surface temperatures. In other words, the OLR is 284 times as sensitive to changes in the amount of water vapour in the 100 150 mbar layer as in the 1013 100 mbar near surface layer.
Therefore, the injection of water vapour into the stratosphere has 284 times the warming effect as the same increase of water vapour near the Earth’s surface. The graph was produced from calculations using the HARTCODE line-by-line radiative code.
Oops, the “0.196 W/m2” should be “0.0196 W/m2”.
The facts you presented are also one of the big reasons CO2 doesn’t warm the planet. CO2 DWIR increases evaporation. While this has almost no warming effect at the surface, the enhanced convection decreases high altitude water vapor which has a strong cooling effect.
The combination of this cooling with the CO2 warming effect from the widening of the 20 nm frequency bands cancel out.
The warming causes cooling theory again…
Nate once again shows true science denial. There’s no warming. It’s called evaporative cooling for a reason.
The energy coming from the low atmosphere gets transported high into the atmosphere by known convective processes. That is where the greenhouse effect of water vapor gets reduced by increased condensation and more solar energy gets reflected from the clouds produced
Science deniers like Nate are a hoot.
“Figure 4. Illustration of the breakdown of terms in the Bulk Formula (that determines evaporation rate) and their typical global average necessary to give a net average evaporation rate of a little under 0.3 gm/cm2 per day. A doubling of CO2 would bring about a blockage of 3.7 Wm-2 which is equivalent to variation of average global evaporation of about 4.2 percent if all this energy went into evaporation. In this case we could have a double of CO2 and no global warming at all. ”
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
Theres no warming. Its called evaporative cooling for a reason.”
Sorry Richard, enhanced evaporation only occurs as a result of warming.
This is quite a leap of non-physical ill-logic. But that seems to be your talent.
And as explained previously to you, I did the straightforward experiment with a ceramic IR heater pointed downward onto the surface of water in a bowl.
The water didn’t cool. It warmed. Considerably.
You are welcome to replicate it.
Your theory, silly as it was, is falsified, says Feynman.
Nate shows how little he understands science: “Sorry Richard, enhanced evaporation only occurs as a result of warming.”
No, evaporation occurs when you add energy. Warming is one way to do it but not the only way. Sigh.
“I did the straightforward experiment with a ceramic IR heater pointed downward onto the surface of water in a bowl.”
And I explained your mistake. You are adding energy to the system. It comes from your outlet and through those wires you want to ignore. Adding energy to any system will warm it.
That’s not happening with CO2 emitting DWIR from low in the atmosphere. The CO2 is energized by energy already in the atmosphere. You are moving it from the atmosphere to a water molecule on the surface. If the molecule of water evaporates it takes the energy with it. Nothing was warmed. And if that water vapor molecule now rises with a convection current, the entire system cooled.
“Nate shows how little he understands science:”
Richard you show the weakness of your argument you feel the need to substitute ad-hominems for facts and logic.
“No, evaporation occurs when you add energy. Warming is one way to do it but not the only way. Sigh.”
Let’s go over the science facts.
Lets ignore increased wind-aided evaporation, since wind is unchanged in your theory.
Water has a vapor pressure, which is a strong function of temperature.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/599/Water_saturation_pressure_C.jpg
When water temperature increases, the vapor pressure above the surface increases, and as it tries to equilibrate with the vapor pressure in the bulk atmosphere, the water must evaporate more to maintain the vapor pressure above the surface.
Sorry, Richard. There is no enhanced evaporation without an increase in temperature.
But as we see in the direct experiment, the water does increase in temperature. And then enhanced evaporation occurs.
Your theory doesnt hold water.
“And I explained your mistake. You are adding energy to the system. It comes from your outlet and through those wires you want to ignore. Adding energy to any system will warm it.
Thats not happening with CO2 emitting DWIR from low in the atmosphere. The CO2 is energized by energy already in the atmosphere. You are moving it from the atmosphere to a water molecule on the surface. If the molecule of water evaporates it takes the energy with it. Nothing was warmed. And if that water vapor molecule now rises with a convection current, the entire system cooled.”
False. In my experiment, the flux came from a surface that was emitting according to its temperature, emissivity as required by the SB law.
Just as any surface or substance does. The SB law doesnt care care whether the surface attained its temperature by energy from an outlet or wires or otherwise.
Surfaces are not intelligent, nor is emitted EM flux.
“Nothing was warmed.”
In the experiment the water warmed. Sorry Richard, your theory does not agree with experiment.
It is wrong says Feynman.
Nate,
Your “experiment” demonstrates merely that you have no idea what you are doing.
You have confirmed that water can be heated in sunlight – as I quoted Tyndall earlier, material that blocks radiation is heated as a result. You are a century and a half behind in your understanding.
The Earth has cooled, in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, and no mythical GHE had any effect on the cooling.
You don’t have to accept reality, and can choose to believe any weird things you like.
Good for you!
“heated in sunlight ”
Wrong, as usual. Sunlight has nothing to do with the discussion, now a week old.
It’s a chart by Friends of Fossil Fuels with no source link. I wouldn’t rely on anything they post.
No it’s not Hunga Tonga
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
Dr Spencer,
The eruption of Hunga Tunga, while impressive, is not impacting the climate in any appreciable way. The warming from water vapor is cancelled by increases in aerosols.
It’s a nothing-burger.
A paper on this subject by a group led by Mark Schoeberl is in the works and will be published soon.
P.s.: Mark Schoeberl
Hunga Tonga produced much more stratospheric water vapor than did Pinatubo, but WAY less sulfate aerosols. So, it appears H.T. is a warming (not cooling) volcano… but by just how much remains to be seen.
I agree with you here. I’m wondering if we haven’t underestimated the radiative forcing of the significant increase in stratospheric water vapor. The 12m running average EEI from CERES is now up to an astonishing +1.97 W/m2 as of May 2023.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFTOA42Selection.jsp
Some have said HTE may have a large impact. What was low was SO2 which is a UV blocking chemical. But the normal volcanic process is to blow SO2 into the stratosphere where it blocks incoming UV, cools the surface for a time. SO2 then finds some rare water in the stratosphere and produces sulfuric acid which in turn destroys ozone which not only ends the UV blocking from the SO2 but also ends the UV blocking from Ozone.
Since HTE there have been changes to the ozone layer that is being written off as ”meteorological disturbances”.
Some scientists are suggesting that the SO2 didn’t go up with the HTE because of the explosion being underwater, so it could have gone up as primarily sulfuric acid and the typical SO2 would not be noted. Surges in surface warming have been noted a few years post El Chichon, Pinatubo, and Cordn Caulle. The effects from HTE may be on a different timeline due to its association with water during the surface eruption phase.
It would be interesting to see if there is anything to this.
Some resources:
https://tinyurl.com/4cs5evkm
https://tinyurl.com/3td3kxt6
And sulphate aerosol activity in the destruction of ozone may only be part of the story.
This study indicates that chlorine content, are too low for some explosive volcanoes by a factor of 20 to 40 or more.
and the relatively small VEI 3 Alaskan Augustine volcano result in a large chlorine infusion into the stratosphere. This stratospheric contribution is equivalent to 17 to 36 percent of the 1975 world industrial production of chlorine in fluorocarbons.
And of course chlorine is the most abundant dissolved element in ocean water.
forgot the study link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1685120
“The eruption of Hunga Tunga, while impressive, is not impacting the climate in any appreciable way”.
***
This from ark who is baffled by basic quantum theory and most other basic science. ark is suddenly an expert on Hunga Tonga wv in the stratosphere.
What other recent event could cause such havoc, with a heat dome parked over North America in May?
So tell me Gordo, you’re an expert on Quantum Theory, but don’t understand basic spectrometry? Wow, that’s actually quite impressive. Or is it that you watched “what the bleep do we know” and you now think you’re an expert on “Quantum Physics”? The latter would make more sense.
Exactly
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
“Its too early for the developing El Nino in the Pacific to have much effect on the tropospheric temperature record.”
This is, indeed, a bit of a poser. Any guesses as to what the source of heat, or cause of heat distribution, is?
I’m thinking that it’s related to what’s happening in Antarctica.
The 12m running average Earth Energy Imbalance of +1.97 W/m2 as reported by CERES is almost certainly part of the causal chain. The question is…why is the EEI so high?
Anyway, yeah the 4m lagged ONI is only -0.1 so there should have still been a suppressive, albeit small, effect on the troposphere temperature. And yet here we are at +0.64 C.
I’m calling it. Those subzero predictions on the UAH 1981-2010 baseline we’ve seen in the blogosphere over the last couple of years were hot garbage.
Predictions which were likely based on a “GSM” which ain’t going to happen.
bdgwx, Antonin, please stop trolling.
The 13 mo. red curve has not been updated.
Good spot. It should be at 0.25
It looks like it has been fixed. Thanks Dr. Spencer!
Fixed.
Most likely a combination of the low Antarctic sea ice and a summer El Nino. Both of these are rare in the historic satellite data.
The increase in the anomaly is 0.68 C since January. Another example of the large changes in global temperature that occur naturally. Could this be a precursor to the AMO cycle phase change?
I also noted the sub-equatorial heat that has been fueling the El Nino formation appears to be cooling. Another strange event to add to the list. I didn’t expect to see this for another 6 months at least.
Arctic sea ice is continuing a slow recovery even as the global temperature increases.
A lot of interesting changes are afoot.
How could it be due to the El Nino when you swear blind by your 5-month lag?
It seems like your lag is to be called on when needed and discarded when expedient.
That’s why I specifically referred to a SUMMER El Nino. I do get a laugh when climate cultists prove yet again they are clueless.
There have been 8 other summer El Nino’s not including 2023 since 1979. That’s hardly what I’d describe as “rare”.
How many of them were Spring onset? I think 3 and none of those after a triple dip La Nina. We are in new territory.
So your lag doesn’t apply in summer … is that what you are saying?
If so, how so?
Different air currents (jet streams, etc) in the NH summer which is where much of the warming from EL Nino seems to occur.
I’m just throwing out a possibility here. I think the Antarctic is a bigger factor and maybe H-T may be as well.
I’ve been waiting to see a good tracking of the upper atmosphere water vapor from the volcano and haven’t seen any. Where did it all go?
I wondered about the sea-ice myself. But the Antarctic is in darkness at the moment, so surely a lowered albedo would mean that it is LOSING heat by radiation, rather than gaining heat by irradiation. Lowered sea-ice should cause the sea to warm when the Sun comes up again. Is there something wrong with this reasoning?
” surely a lowered albedo would mean that it is LOSING heat by radiation, rather than gaining heat by irradiation. ”
Good thought. But albedo change for visble wavelengths is not necessarily a change for IR wavelengths.
Both ice and seawater are nearly black in the IR, ie they high emissivity.
Interesting detail. Remind me not to bother taking an IR-adapted camera to the Antarctic if I ever make it there.
It’s not trivially obvious to me, then, how the ice-albedo feedback works. But it seems like we should not see sudden warming due to lower Winter ice cover, no?
ice albedo: with less ice and more open ocean, there is more heat gain by solar irradiation.
Yes, but my point was that in Winter the Sun is not up over Antarctica. Hence no solar irradiation.
True. So something else at work down there.
The areas where the sea ice has not formed is close to 60 degrees. There is sunlight even in the winter.
“Another example of the large changes in global temperature that occur naturally.”
This is the equal biggest 6 month change. The previous one was in April 1998.
It’s unusual for a big rise to happen in July, as the effects of El Ninos are felt in Spring. The biggest January – July rise previously was last year, with a rise of 0.33C, half the change this year.
I think both the last two years may be related to the sea ice change going on in Antarctica. Since it is winter in the SH this is the time where the sea ice should have the strongest effect. More heat is being released by the oceans and since SH sea ice is normally affected by solar energy even in winter, we could also be seeing a lower albedo.
Given that Antarctic sea ice is about 1.5million square kilometres below average and the surface area of the Earth is about 750million square kilometres I don’t see how such a small change in the amount of the planet that’s covered in ice can have such a big effect on global temperatures.
You do realize the 5m lagged ONI is -0.4 right?
Yes, which is why I specifically mentioned a SUMMER El Nino onset. We really don’t have enough data to know if the lag is the same.
Are you thinking the lag is shorter for the summer months?
Yes, I think the energy flow in the NH is stronger in the summer. This could reduce the lag.
Where is the AMO at right now? Can you link a graph?
The official AMO got no update since January because its source, the Kaplan SST series, wasn’t too.
I’ll make a graph 4u out of
https://tinyurl.com/AMO-out-of-ERSST-v5 (grrr, again this ‘d c’)
instead.
cu
This AMO is detrended. I normally use only the undetrended variant.
1. Jan 1856 – Jul 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uRD2yHc0o1jFN1d2gShrbbHKI0KvrPCp/view
2. Jan 2010 – Jul 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jXQoD-CH43MyMiKxAWfmZdMOhWGRVZ2s/view
Thank you Bindidon.
That’s pretty warm. Beat the previous July record (from 1998) by 0.26C.
Top ten July anomalies are
Year Anomaly
1 2023 0.64
2 1998 0.38
3 2022 0.36
4 2020 0.31
5 2016 0.26
6 2019 0.25
7 2021 0.21
8 2010 0.20
9 2017 0.17
10 2018 0.17
Still, the pause won’t change much. Starts in October 2014, so stays the same length.
Yep, +.28*C warmer than the previous 12 year ‘pause’ a decade ago.
Of the top 10 warmest July’s, 9 were since 2010. In fact all 8 July’s from 2016 – 2023 are in the top 10
We should look at both the ENSO and the AMO.
And both are in the positive phase now.
This is the reason for the warmth.
They are both factors, but something is to blame. Nature sure is interesting.
AMO has been high for decades..
Look at the detrended AMO:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uRD2yHc0o1jFN1d2gShrbbHKI0KvrPCp/view
and you see that despite detrended, AMO increases.
In fact, this ‘should not happen’ in a detrended time series, right :–)
Decadal averages:
1980s: -0.281
1990s: -0.137 (up 0.144)
2000s: -0.033 (up 0.104)
2010s: +0.122 (up 0.155)
2020s: +0.229 (up 0.107 – 36% of decade)
The four Julys of the 2020s are ranked 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th out of 45, the last three despite the three-year La Nina.
It couldn’t be that 99% of scientists are correct, and human driven greenhouse gas emissions are causing this? Surely, not?
So the UK met office is wrong with ascribing this recent weather (in the UK and in Europe) as being down to the placement of the jet stream and not CO2?
Wavering/more variable jet streams couldn’t have anything to do with the troposphere and surface oceans containing more energy (heat) than at any time previously on record (thermometers or ice cores)?
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00792-8
Dastardly scientists up to their own tricks again greedily hoarding the $100,000s of dollars they steal for their research and jobs, trying to stop the poor, impoverished fossil fuel companies making miserly 10s to 100s of billions of dollars in profits. Oh the injustice! How will they be able to continue to pay off people like Mr. Spencer?
Yes, when the Met Office says it’s CO2, people like Daveo will accept that happily. But when they say it’s something else, people like Daveo cannot grasp that – it does not compute.
You really do have comprehension issues, don’t you.
Apparently you believe decadal averages are about “recent weather”.
Are you suggesting that there has been a sudden and substantial increase in GHGs that would explain this large anomaly?
This might be another of Salby’s step changes. It is still too early to tell. Many here believe the ENSO’s cause the step-change. I think the peculiarity might be causing the step change and shows up initially as an ENSO.
Everybody thinks ENSO is a significant contributing factor to the step-change. It’s not unlike sin(x) being the cause of the step-change in y=x+sin(x). That’s what happens when you superimpose an oscillatory factor onto a more linear factor. The oscillatory factor is what makes the composite value rise in a stair-step manner.
I looked at that. That equation does not fit what we see.
It is not meant to fit what you see. It is meant to help you understand what happens at a fundamental level when you superimpose an oscillatory term onto a more linear term. Do you understand why sin(x) doesn’t stop y from increasing long term despite stopping it short term?
I do understand what the graph of y=x + sin x looks like. That doesn’t describe temperature.
Also, if you think it does, you must show how. That is what Berry did with his Physics model.
“I do understand what the graph of y=x + sin x looks like. That doesnt describe temperature”
Not sure in what way you think it is different? Obviously the real data is not as regular as sinx, but other than that…
Stephen, here is surface T data. Also shown with smoothing.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/offset:0.25/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60
Some steps apparent.
And here with a linear trend removed.
w.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/offset:0.25/detrend:1.0/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60/detrend:1.0
Only somewhat random oscillations remain. Not exactly a sine wave, but you get the idea…
whoops.
And here with a linear trend removed.
woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/offset:0.25/detrend:1.0/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60/detrend:1.0
Arrgh!
try that again.
Here with linear trend removed
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/offset:0.25/detrend:1.0/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60/detrend:1.0
No, I do get the gist, and it doesn’t.
And your specific objection is…?
bdgwx says:
Everybody thinks ENSO is a significant contributing factor to the step-change. Its not unlike sin(x) being the cause of the step-change in y=x+sin(x). Thats what happens when you superimpose an oscillatory factor onto a more linear factor. The oscillatory factor is what makes the composite value rise in a stair-step manner.
—————————–
Thats true in the simplest case but it has been observed there are greater oscillations at play here as well. The PDO is an oscillation that demonstrates by observation a dominance of El Nino’s or La Nina’s depending upon the phase of the observation.
Additionally these ocean oscillations appear to be within a larger oscillation observed in ice core data of an approximate mean 700-900 year cycle with an amplitude of a mean of 2-3 deg C.
This is the problem with theories around natural systems of all sorts. there are too many variables so the vast majority of theories not built on solid demonstrable science end up failing.
The only correct way to describe current CO2 theory is that yes there is energy being absorbed in the atmosphere that if it caused an increase in radiation at the surface the surface would warm by 1C. Seems most knowledgeable scientists support that statement (without commenting on the likelihood of ‘if’ actually happening). But then enters the concept of feedback and most scientists around the topic work or have a hobby of trying to understand what the feedback will be.
I am good with that.
but as they say the devil is in the details.
Well, China is largest emitter of CO2.
We should have zero confident in whatever is reported from China.
The same could said about American MSM, but you can imagine something worse than American corporate news {it’s hard but try}.
May was apparent the highest Global CO2 level:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
But instead July being predicatively lower, maybe it jumped the shark. They will get around to reporting it.
But maybe it’s not CO2, maybe China has decided to broaden into emitting most amount methane or something.
China has a lower average temperature of about 8 C, and it reasonable to want to have a higher average temperature.
Alarming rise in atmospheric methane over the last two decades, links to tropical wetlands growing:
https://theconversation.com/rising-methane-could-be-a-sign-that-earths-climate-is-part-way-through-a-termination-level-transition-211211
Just one factor of many as we continue to ignore the very in-plain-view science and changing climates globally.
Thanks for the update.
Sunspots have been high for the start of the current cycle. Higher than the start of cycle #24, less than cycle #22 & #23.
The 13 month average has leveled off from 1998 to now. Not like 1980 to 1998 even though far more CO2 has been pumped into the air.
Looking forward to more reports sir.
Be safe. Several power companies have documented their wind and solar farms are less predictable than their gas/oil/coal or nuclear fuel powered stations. Brown outs are not predicted, but neither were last years outages in North Carolina.
The 13-month average is not climate.
15 years after July 1998 (ie. 25 years ago): -0.03
10 years since: +0.20
Only UAH has 1998 roughly the same as 2016 and 2020 . GISS, Had5 and RSS all seem to think that 1998 was unimportant.
Reminder – CLIMATE, not single years.
AQ,
Indeed. Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations.
Has no effect on anything at all, except the fevered imaginations of GHE cultists.
And don’t forget that the anomaly value is just a placeholder based on a baseline that Dr. Spencer keeps moving up (he has done this multiple times) to make the anomaly look smaller.
” … to make the anomaly look smaller. ”
Nonsense.
The first reference period was 1979-1998.
Later on, it was changed to the WMO standard (1991-2020).
Recently, UAH adopted WMO’s newest recommendation: 1991-2020
Like did Japan’s Met Agency for its surface data:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/download.html
and many others.
So what? Anomalies are a standard practice in climate science (and many other disciplines of science). And the baseline doesn’t matter nor the fact that it moves every 10 years. That’s also a common practice. It doesn’t effect the quality of the dataset or how it is analyzed.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
“These results suggest something peculiar is going on.”
It’s called anthropogenic driven climate change, which of course you know, but are paid off to create misinformation on. Carry on spreading your fossil fuel propaganda though. God forbid this or anything else will ever stop you – there is literally nothing that could.
I wish I was getting paid. Alas, no. And I wasn’t aware that slowly increasing CO2 causes a 1-month jump in temperatures. Can you point me to a publication explaining how that happens?
Did this temperature increase and correlation with CO2 increase just start occurring in July 2023? Or do you not know how to read your own graph that you conveniently continue to increase your benchmark temperature you use for temperature anomalies? (yes we all know how many times you’ve changed you baseline to make the anomalies look less).
I mean your own decadal averages have already been posted today:
Decadal averages:
1980s: -0.281
1990s: -0.137 (up 0.144)
2000s: -0.033 (up 0.104)
2010s: +0.122 (up 0.155)
2020s: +0.229 (up 0.107 36% of decade)
As per the source of your income: There is plenty of evidence of where you get your money.
1. How much did you get for your “White paper” for the fossil fuel think-tank Texas Public Policy Institute?
2. How much were the payments from Peabody Energy whose bankruptcy filings show you as a creditor? Well how much aside from the $4000 pay off to testify in Minnesota State?
3. How much did you end up getting from the direction made by the Heartland Institutes Joe Bast in the email leak? find independent funding for Roy Spencer, David Schnare, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, David Legates, etc.
4. What about your fees for appearances in Climate Hustle?
You might be “still waiting for that Big Check from Big Oil”, but you’ve certainly had your fair share of bank transfer and lofty PR they present you with.
Daveo, its quite interesting that youre stalking Dr. Spencer, on his blog, from the safety of anonymity. Youre quite the brave one, huh?
I bet you dont have a clue about any of the relevant science. Do you also have all the mental problems Greta has?
Speaking of mental health problems, there is an epidemic of a sociopathic denialism of what all data (even Dr. Spencer’s manipulated data sets) leads to within an age group of 60+ white males with money. Those are serious mental health issues plaguing our society.
daveo, I don’t agree with Dr. Spencer on a lot of things and I think UAH may be contaminated with cooling biases. But I am going to defend Roy against claims of data manipulation. I’ve seen no evidence that UAH has manipulated their dataset.
daveo…beggar off you alarmist azzhole. Learn some science and get off your alarmist religion.
Roy’s integrity is umimpeachable. He’s one of the few who can claim that.
Oh i actually came here to learn science. Wing place I guess eh…🤣
For those who are looking at this rationally, the huge spike suggests there are things other than just greenhouse gases that effect weather and climate. This is how agenda driven people often get caught up in their own talking points. Just to refresh, the mantra is that a steady rise in CO2 is causing a steady rise in temperature over a normally very stable atmosphere that doesn’t change very much without human influence.
There have been absolutely no warnings of tipping points creating positive feedback loops have there? Amplified polar warming leading to more rapid permafrost thawing than previously predicted (previously Earth’s largest carbon store/sink), melting sea ice (Antarctic sea ice extent now 7sigma below the mean) reducing albedo and melting glacial ice raising sea levels.
Only old frauds with vested interests continue to debate climate change. The rest of the scientific world has moved on to WTF is going to happen as a result of anthropogenic driven warming that is not just certain to happen – it is happening, right before your very eyes – well if they weren’t buried in the sand with the rest of your head.
So Daveo – you think this is a tipping point? It would be nice if you’d make a coherent point…
Most of us remember the climate alarmists telling us in 2012 after a precipitous unexpected drop in Arctic sea ice that there would be no Arctic ice by 2014. They were wrong.
You might yet be right. This could be the first sign of a tipping point. I really doubt it, and until there have been at least three months of unusual weather I’m not even going to entertain the thought that it’s to do with human emitted CO2.
I think it just shows that there is natural variability in the system we don’t understand. And I think it’s to do with HT because we are still getting very orange sunsets at 32S that are clearly caused by aerosol at high altitude based on how late after sunset they are. Apparently that happened after El Chichon too, but I was on the equator then.
Any chance this could have put carbonate into the stratosphere with all that water?
“I’m not even going to entertain the thought”. And there it is – zero interest in it even being a possibility. So, you might start entertaining it when? When we’ve reached +3C? +5C? Might be just a little late by then my friend.
” over a normally very stable atmosphere that doesnt change very much without human influence.”
Not really. Climate science is clear that there is natural variation, such as ENSO.
daveo…even the IPCC cannot prove anthropogenic warming never mind climat change. Here’s the proof relied upon by the IPCC…
1)19th century scientists like Tyndall and Arrhenius said it is so.
2)Humans began emitting more CO2 in the 17th century (Industrial Era) and the planet started warming circa 1850, therefore it is CO2 causing the warming.
The twits failed to grasp that the Little Ice Age ended circa 1850, meaning the planet needed to re-warm bu 1C to 2C.
There is not a shred of scientific evidence in IPCC reviewed papers that proves a trace gas like CO2 can warm anything. There is plenty of evidence to prove that a trace gas is limited in its contribution to warming in a mixed gas by its mass percent. That means CO2 is limited to a warming of 0.06% per degree warming of all the gases.
Science lesson? Why not? Have you ever heard of spectrometry? Well even if you haven’t, your eyes see it in action every day. Different matter absorbs different wavelengths of light, which controls the colour of everything you can see (because our eyes are evolved to view the peak radiation emitted from the sun), but also interactions between energy and matter you cannot see – say longer wavelength, lower intensity radiation emitted from the much cooler earth. Now we actually have copious amounts of data that show greenhouse gases (which if we did not have at pre-industrial levels would have likely meant no terrestrial life because it would be too cold) interact with this longer wavelength energy emitted from the Earth. I reckon even Doc Spencer might agree with that (unless he denies spectrometry too). If we increase these gases – say from burning fossil fuels – then more of that energy released from the Earth is trapped rather than radiating into space.
It’s actually really basic science that I’ve taught to children in grade 4 before – and they understood. Amazing how a bunch of old fogies with vested interests just cannot quite grasp the concept.
It is impossible to tell if you know the real facts or not. Once again, you are so caught up in political talking points that you are not making sense. You are confusing reflected visible light with thermal radiation. You seemed confused about the role of water vapor compared to CO2. You are not correctly describing the greenhouse effect. Do you know any real science, or just what the news media report?
Hmm… I see the grade 4 version was too difficult. Tough crowd.
Herein lies your problem Daveo.
You are teaching spectrometry in terms of kindergarten science.
CO2 has an infrared spectrum where it absorbs certain frequencies of radiation.
The characteristics ones in the IR band are both weak and very narrow compared to the whole range of IR. I have never looked at the microwave spectrum but expect it to be similar.
An analogy would be CO2 is like blocking one hole in a sieve when there are a million holes letting water through.
The height of the water in the sieve would barely be affected.
However if other factors change like increasing water vapour in the atmosphere equivalent to blocking tens of thousands of holes or increasing the energy input(adjusting the tap, faucet to Americans)would make a far bigger change.
“The characteristics ones in the IR band are both weak and very narrow compared to the whole range of IR. ”
Very narrow?
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/images/outgoing-radiation-thumb.png
“There is not a shred of scientific evidence in IPCC reviewed papers that proves a trace gas like CO2 can warm anything. There is plenty of evidence to prove that a trace gas is limited in its contribution to warming in a mixed gas by its mass percent. That means CO2 is limited to a warming of 0.06% per degree warming of all the gases.”
The one guy whose ‘integrity is umimpeachable’ says you are wrong.
Someone tell this robot to go back to the lab to get its brain fixed.
Been cool in the UK for six weeks now.never been above 16c in Northumberland, just managed 14c this morning. 3.45pm now a heady 15c not bad for the 4th of August, also above average rain fall, of course with your kind of reasoning, you can never be wrong.its weather nothing more,regardless of cause.
And yet the globe, as a whole, is record warm.
Dr. Spencer, Your data for the Lower Stratosphere shows no unusual excursion for the past several months thru June. Wouldn’t there be some “signal” of the HH-TH eruption in those data?
It’s a good question. I’ve been monitoring the water vapor in the stratosphere over the last 1.5 years since HH-TH. The water vapor has consolidated in the upper half of the stratosphere at 10 mb and above so the radiative forcing is originating from really high up in atmosphere. I’m not entirely sure what effect we should be expecting from RF that high up.
Jump down to the water vapor plots at the bottom at the following link.
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/qbo.html
Nothing significant happened in Dec 2021 /sarc
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/mls_h2o_qbo_profile_Equator.png
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/mls_h2o_qbo_lat_45S-45N_10hPa.png
Hunga Tonga Hunga Haapai?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami
RLH, If the recent warming were due to the effects of the HT eruption, where is the “significant” evidence of that impact in recent months? I suggest that the recent warmth is more likely to be the result of the massive spate of forest fires in Canada and elsewhere, which have pumped prodigious amounts of carbon black aerosol into the atmosphere. Not to forget, there’s a war going on in Ukraine, which has also lofted lots of smoke skyward.
I think the sudden reduction in marine sulfur emissions is a candidate as well.
“Carbon black aerosols” cause cooling, not warming.
“The full magnitude of the impact of smoke from seasonal fires in Central Africaand in particular, the potential climate warming from the absorp_tion by the black carbon component of the aerosolis underestimated by some climate models over the South-East Atlantic
…
Black carbon’s ability to absorb sunlight means it can play a pivotal role in heating the atmosphere, and play a significant role in the effects of climate change at regional and continental scales…”
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-climatic-impacts-black-carbon-aerosols.html
—
” BC solar absorp_tion became a central issue in climate change research when a synthesis of satellite, in situ, and ground observations concluded (2) that the global solar absorp_tion (i.e., direct radiative forcing, DRF) by atmospheric BC is as much as 0.9 W⋅m−2, second only to the CO2 DRF.”
https://www.pn*as.org/doi/full/10.1073/pn*as.1603570113
(remove “*”)
Oh, that’s a hoot Swanson!
Carbon in the sky is absorbing solar, so in your mind that means carbon is heating the planet.
I hope you’re trying for humor rather than science.
Yes, grammie clone, Black Carbon is a good absorber for solar insolation. That then heats the atmosphere, which reduces the cooling of the oceans and land surface by inhibiting vertical convection. That process could explain the recent warming of the oceans and the record high air temperatures in areas such as the SW US.
Of course, grammie clone is wedded to his claims that the HT-HH water vapor high in the atmosphere is the cause, with no evidence other than the fact that there is an increase in H2O at very high altitudes. That fact, by itself, proves nothing. Show us the evidence of warming at ground level or in the satellite record, airhead.
Child Swanson, you’ve got your “black carbon” both heating the ocean and cooling the ocean!
Get back to us when you can make sense.
grammie clone babbles again, still unable to provide any shred of evidence that the HT-HH water vapor has warmed the lower atmosphere above the normal range until the last data point in the UAH LT data.
Great plots! Thanks for the link.
bdgwx
I watched UAH’s 2.5 degree grid for the Lower Stratosphere (LS).
In the past year and till February this year, there have been various unusually warm or cold regions in the LS.
It’s hard to blame Hunga Tonga for such stark month-to-month variations.
Now, the LS grid is quiet again since a few months.
I was think we should be seeing a global response if we see anything at all since the water vapor dispersed homogenously within on a few months of the eruption.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Worse summer I remember in the UK and I was born in 1964. I think there is weather manipulation going on using Harp etc.
Next thing you’ll be blaming the Ashes on your own weather.
What has sport to do with climate?
Perhaps you could point me to Dr Spencer’s site rules which demand comments must relate to climate.
Retard.
Sorry to hear that.
Spare me the faux sorrow, retard.
Only joking, You can’t help yourself, can you?
Anybody who believes in something they cannot even describe (the GHE), and pretends they are not promoting religious or cultist dogma, is hardly a mental giant.
If you believe you can demonstrate that you are not, in fact, mentally retarded, go your hardest.
More laughter is unlikely to have any adverse effects on my quiet enjoyment of life.
Because of course you present as someone who enjoys life.
There are no rules hat would apply to you.
Yes, fellow Englander here (born in 1959). By far the worst July I can remember. We have a pool, and I always have to top it up every three weeks in summer. I haven’t had to top it up at all this summer…and today it overflowed.
Englishman in Switzerland here. We had some hot days in Spring but it’s basically been pouring down all Summer. Not so much air as a lake with slots in it. We even had a little fresh snow above 2,000m last week, the first time I’ve seen it in several years. I’m rather glad, as it happens, when one compares it to what’s been happening South of the border.
I blame the cricket team, me.
The reaction to Mt. Pinatubo was fast (1-3 months) and lasted for a while (about 3 years). Anyone wanting to “blame” the currect heat wave on a volcano erupting 18 months ago, will need to do some extensive theorizing.
Clint figures that all he needs is a name and his theory is complete.
(I think you’ll find the onset of cooling in the land-based record began more like 13 months after the eruption.)
Antonin, please stop trolling.
You won’t think that a month out of 522 really changes things very much, will you?
We all agree the world is warming. Having the warmest month toward the end is to be expected.
Do you have any hypothesis as to what caused this very warm anomaly?
As Spencer mentioned, the Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE) is a big player. Add in the ocean oscillations and you have the answer.
Which ocean oscillations?
The only one I regularly follow is ENSO. I saw AMO mentioned above.
ENSO and HTE correlate quite well with UAH values. Ill try to say more by this weekend.
So HTE is the cause? When was HTE?
End of 2021..
Why did it wait til mid 2023 to have this dramatic effect?
And all the reports that suggest it could cause warming rely on the GHE of water vapor.
That contradicts your beliefs.
Not only does the HTE rely on the GHE of water vapor, but it relies on it being so potent that a mere 150 Mt is the cause. I find it odd that people are so willing to accept that 150 Mt of H2O can have an effect this significant 18 months later but scoff at the idea that 38,000 Mt of CO2 injected over the same time period does anything.
Nate and bdgwx, the HTE is NOT caused by the “GHE of water vapor”.
Yep bdgwx is back into the strawman business.
In case anybody never noticed temperatures are lower the more humidity that is in the air. . . .except at night where its warmer.
Bottom line is water vapor only serves to make climate temperatures more moderate.
We have the UN claiming that ozone recovery is helping avoid .5C warming by 2066.
Nate is shooting holes in UNs claim in defense of his own mob’s territory.
And were we have bdgwx using smoke and mirrors to help Nate.
“Nate is shooting holes in UNs claim in defense of his own mobs territory.”
Nah. Just playing whack-a-mole with your claims again, which were based on you neither reading carefully nor comprehending what your source said.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519259
So you claim Nate.
And demonstrate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519656
You seem to talking about the confusing message of the UN on the topic of global warming.
If you want to straighten it out you need to explain how the UN’s action in curing some warming of .3 to .5C by healing the ozone layer has been accounted for by the IPCC.
” curing some warming of .3 to .5C by healing the ozone layer ”
There really seems to be no point to informing you of your misunderstandings, is there?
So now what you are saying in so many words that the UN headlining ”Ozone layer recovery is on track, helping avoid global warming by 0.5C” is confusing but its completely unadulterated bullshit?
rats. isn’t just confusing. . .
didn’t come through.
If one read only the short headline, and not the article they could be confused, yes.
That must’ve been your case.
If reading a headline gives you all you need to know, then there is no point in having articles, is there.
Headlines are short, and must summarize a complex topic. In newspapers, headlines are often written by editors, not the authors of the article, and it is not uncommon to find mismatches, particularly with complex science.
Here’s one found in a minute of looking.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/science/lk-99-superconductor-ambient.html
Title: “LK-99 Is the Superconductor of the Summer”
But read the article and you will find out that it may not be a superconductor at all.
You want to turn it into a massive conspiracy, and feed your grievances? Feel free. It’s what you do.
But I have no interest.
Your loyalty to the yellow journalism model is revealing Nate.
Auditors doing the annual financial reports of a corporation ensures any headlines in the report are consistent with the facts. Not only that but we also attempt to collect every brochure, every press release, and every other publication of the company and check them as well.
And we do this for the protection of the stockholders and the reputation of the company. It used to be that newspapers did the same thing.
But in this age a lot of companies have found out that profits are in the 15 second or less soundbite and eagerly embrace BS to keep the Goose laying Golden Eggs.
If you want your government to be that way vote accordingly.
Red herring. Auditors are neither journalists nor scientists.
Nate says:
”Red herring. Auditors are neither journalists nor scientists.”
thats right Auditors are professionals held by law to standards.
But it doesn’t stop there. If you or I lie to the government thats considered a felony. But when the government lies to us, well thats just politics. – Roman Balmakov, The Epoch Times
Held to standards?
Are auditors works published so anyone can read them and judge their accuracy?
That is the case for journalists and scientists. And that means they can be held to high standards.
The exception is scientists working for corporations…
You read the “The Epoch Times”?? Talk about yellow journalism!
Have you read it Nate. If so, Which article did you see as ”yellow journalism”?
Did you disagree with the quote because it was yellow journalism?
Nate says:
”Are auditors works published so anyone can read them and judge their accuracy?
That is the case for journalists and scientists. And that means they can be held to high standards.
The exception is scientists working for corporations”
————————–
Can be held to high standards when its to the benefit of the employer. . . right? there are no exceptions.
the only standards that exist for scientists is their own personal ethics and the demands of their employer. They have no clients to which they owe any legal duty to. So beware what you buy from them as you have no basis for relying on what they provide.
If you want to hire an engineer, or a doctor, or a financial advisor, or an accountant etc. you can and will have a broad basis of standards for which you can seek recourse for work that doesn’t meet those standards.
But the quote from Roman pretty much says it all about government and public institutions.
“Are auditors works published so anyone can read them and judge their accuracy?”
Apparently not.
That is the case for journalists and scientists. And that means they can be held to high standards.
Nate if you have any stock investments at all you receive notices of the availability of documents that auditors have audited that auditors have legal responsibility to meet standards.
When I speak of standards I am speaking of standards that are legally enforceable as any other standard is only adhered to by persons of high moral character.
And we can see all their data and how the got it?
Look basically you like the system that you use, that auditors have, and you think it basically works, even though there is sometimes still occasional fraud-Madoff etc.
I have experience with the system that science uses, and I think it basically works, and has obviously produced good science for decades, even though there is sometimes still occasional fraud.
I’m not going to bash your system, since I don’t have experience with it. but you seem ever ready to bash mine, though you don’t have experience with it.
You are incorrect about where my experience is. I have twice the experience at the intersection of science and policy than I had as an auditor.
And I don’t have a problem with how science works. The problem only assets itself when policy gets involved.
An excellent example of that is here in the first 7 1/2 minutes of this video.
Senator John Kennedy asks Secretary Mayorkas why a policy of a first safe third country hasn’t been adopted for folks claiming refugee status or political asylum where all but children are rejected if they didn’t seek asylum in the previous country.
Secretary Mayorkas claimed it would shut down the entire US asylum system.
Of course thats false. I wouldn’t shut down the asylum system it would just massively reduce the size of it and the cost to Americans because of all the lawyers and department personnel that would no longer be needed.
And that only came out after Mayorkas trying to claim that the US doesn’t have unilateral control over its own border policies.
So as usual we are looking at the reason being bureaucratic empire building and buying votes using tax payer monies.
“And I dont have a problem with how science works.”
You did earlier.
“the only standards that exist for scientists is their own personal ethics and the demands of their employer. They have no clients to which they owe any legal duty to. So beware what you buy from them as you have no basis for relying on what they provide.”
As ever you need to walk it back.
And you seem to have missed this point, when scientists publish, anyone can read and critique their work, not just their employers, also the scientific community, and their competitors. That is a powerful force.
Nate says:
” ”the only standards that exist for scientists is their own personal ethics and the demands of their employer. They have no clients to which they owe any legal duty to. So beware what you buy from them as you have no basis for relying on what they provide.”
As ever you need to walk it back.”
———————————-
I said I had no problem with what scientists do Nate. Here I am just pointing out you shouldn’t believe them until they provide proof.
I am not walking back anything.
The system by which science operates is fine. But if you want to believe them without proof. . .its advisable to not do that as thats not their job. Their job is to prove stuff not tell people what to do. We just got a huge lesson in that from Dr. Fauci.
Nate says:
”And you seem to have missed this point, when scientists publish, anyone can read and critique their work, not just their employers, also the scientific community, and their competitors. That is a powerful force.”
————————
Right and sometimes it takes a century or more to actually do anything. Sometimes longer. Which is fine. Science goes through that process in its own time. Having a large choir of sycophants is perfectly normal. . . but they aren’t part of the process of science. At football games yeah they are the 12th player. Sometimes though folks get in a rut and thats all they do. . . entertain themselves. Kind of goes hand in hand with the hedonism that is getting so popular.
It is a powerful force. And for a discovery to become a science fact it needs to be replicated by others.
You can see this at work with the room temperature ‘superconductor’ LK99, discovered recently.
Many attempts to replicate the claims, in a few weeks, have failed to do so. It appears to not be a superconductor.
thats right Nate. So far we don’t have an experimental design yet even to replicate the greenhouse effect. So it isn’t science by your definition and I agree.
You think Earth science isn’t science? How bout Astronomy?
We are unable to create stars or galaxies or another Earth and do experiments on them, but we are able to observed phenomena and test theories.
But nice at dismissing whole fields of science.
Nate Earth Sciences is a great scientific discipline.
But like all sciences some of the science is far better than the others and thats especially true when politics raises its ugly head.
So pack up your strawman and go home. You have nothing to offer here.
You always end up having to walk back your anti-science rants. Because they are plainly ignorant.
When science is made to order it does deserve a rant. But your attempt to turn that into an attack on science in general is reprehensible.
What I am attacking is the lack of quality controls of science used in some processes. If nobody attacks that one has no defense against totalitarianism.
Ask the folks who protested Stalin’s Lysenkoism and Lamarckism science theories. The Nazis and the science of Eugenics.
When you start trying to control people’s lives with half-baked science theories the line has been crossed. To avoid it you need to attack the institutions, their lack of independence, and their self interest and find ways to ensure higher quality science.
The institution of the Civil Service has been eroded for 5 decades in favor of non-independent science. Universities are NOT democratic institutions Nate. They are government funded but they are independent entities operating outside the democratic process with their own interests.
They are part and parcel to the Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower in his speech where the MIC was coined, he also warned: ”Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
“But your attempt to turn that into an attack on science in general is reprehensible.”
So again, you try to walk back your erroneous complaints about the lack of quality control in science. “the only standards that exist for scientists is their own personal ethics and the demands of their employer.”
And now try to target only climate science.
“When you start trying to control peoples lives with half-baked science theories the line has been crossed. ”
Your complaints about science are not based in any actual facts about the science, but instead on your political concerns.
Thus your assertions about the poor quality of climate science can be understood for what it is:
Propaganda to advance your political agenda, and nothing more.
Nate says:
” ”But your attempt to turn that into an attack on science in general is reprehensible.”
So again, you try to walk back your erroneous complaints about the lack of quality control in science. ”the only standards that exist for scientists is their own personal ethics and the demands of their employer.”
And now try to target only climate science.”
———————————
Yes that is an attack on science but its not an attack on ALL science or the majority of science. It merely states the fact that quality in science isn’t nearly as high as it easily could be. that takes nothing away from well designed studies done by well qualified scientists that strongly hold an ethic to get it done right.
And no I don’t only target climate science. I target all political science including the political science in climate science.
Nate says:
”When you start trying to control peoples lives with half-baked science theories the line has been crossed. ”
Your complaints about science are not based in any actual facts about the science, but instead on your political concerns.
Thus your assertions about the poor quality of climate science can be understood for what it is:
Propaganda to advance your political agenda, and nothing more.
———————
thats absolutely correct. I am for people living without interference in their lives by the authoritarianism of a political/technological/institutional elite. And science is NOT polluted by my actions as I don’t produce any phony science.
I believe the technological elite should have a vote like everybody else. . . like me. . . and to express their opinions outside of work. . . like I do. But it should be kept out of their work. That’s a world and a philosophy I have lived within.
You are one choosing the totalitarian role of the technological elite over the supposedly dumb masses. Typically that ends badly for you. Kind of akin to alcoholism, tends to cause you to die early. . .like the Great American diet does.
You also need to understand that I don’t have a dog in the fight for anything but the best science.
I have spent a third of my life advocating for the use of science in policy making. The problem is the science community isn’t up to providing that science consistently.
They have a beautiful policy of academic freedom which encourages scientists to pursue what interests them.
But you also have personal interests in the way people build careers in science. Ladder climbers. That and institutional interests (ladder monitors if you will) in the maximum possible funding.
This structure is completely inadequate to provide the needs of policy. Its not the case it couldn’t be adapted the way the accounting trade was over a century ago was transitioned to a professional model. Same for medical doctors and other critical needs for expert advice and/or treatments.
Seems to me if one is going to treat the World it would be advisable to establish a professional approach to it so as it doesn’t get hijacked by special interests.
“thats absolutely correct. I am for people living without interference in their lives by the authoritarianism of a political/technological/institutional elite. And science is NOT polluted by my actions as I dont produce any phony science.
I believe the technological elite should have a vote like everybody else. . . like me. . . and to express their opinions outside of work. . . like I do. But it should be kept out of their work. Thats a world and a philosophy I have lived within.
You are one choosing the totalitarian role of the technological elite over the supposedly dumb masses. Typically that ends badly for you. Kind of akin to alcoholism, tends to cause you to die early. . .like the Great American diet does.”
Thus, we all understand now that your posts on science are simply propaganda, and can be safely ignored.
Good to know.
Nate I don’t advocate an opinion on science.
An auditor doesn’t need to be a scientist to know the difference between science and the opinion of a scientist.
To tell the difference all you have to do is ask for the evidence.
“Nate I dont advocate an opinion on science.”
Pffft!
“To tell the difference all you have to do is ask for the evidence.”
It has been quite consistently true that evidence shown to you is rejected, rarely with any sound scientific rationale. Mostly with hand-waving, made up ‘science’, philosophical mumbo-jumbo, or conspiratorial thinking. Depending on the weather.
Its all on display in this lengthy discussion in which you tried all the methods, but failed to reject the straightforward direct evidence for back-radiation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1516801
When you’ve got a political agenda to advance, contradictory evidence is just a low speed bump for you.
Nate says:
”To tell the difference all you have to do is ask for the evidence.”
It has been quite consistently true that evidence shown to you is rejected, rarely with any sound scientific rationale. Mostly with hand-waving, made up science, philosophical mumbo-jumbo, or conspiratorial thinking. Depending on the weather.
———————————
All you are doing is handwaving Nate there is no explicit evidence of anything you are claiming there being offered. No auditor would ever accept what you are saying there as evidence.
Nate says:
Its all on display in this lengthy discussion in which you tried all the methods, but failed to reject the straightforward direct evidence for back-radiation.
——————–
Well I do know that theoretically there is backradiation or something that meets all its ‘established’ criteria which is comprised of the temperature of an object.
But I have pointed out there is no evidence that cold object radiation is received by warm objects. I pointed out that Einstein proved that light bent around the sun instead of hitting it and us not seeing it. Your claims of backradiation being recieved by warm objects is built on your ignorance of the means of detection. At one point IR detectors had to be cooled to below the temperature of cold objects to detect them. Why would that be the case? Have you given it any thought as to what kind of technology in a detector would be in capable of measuring backradiation? And are you not visionary enough as to how that shortcoming could be dealt with by using detector within detectors (essentially mirrors) when combined with digital technology. Have you never reviewed the technology within the IR detectors you have. I have.
Now I am no record saying that there is no evidence one way or the other of the actual physics of a photon other than a mathematical meme for light quanta. I stand with Einstein on the issue that:
”All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question “What are light quanta?” Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
You are just another Tom, Dick, or Harry Nate.
“But I have pointed out there is no evidence that cold object radiation is received by warm objects. ”
That you are aware of, which tells us nothing.
This is a good example of you rejecting evidence based on made-up physics.
The real physics is Kirchhoff’s Law, which says a high emissivity object will abs.orb the radiation that is input to it.
Look it up and learn.
And its a law only because it has been confirmed by experiment many times.
Nate, I have also pointed out this argument is a bunny trail that amounts to nothing.
Photons are caught between 2 classical theories of wave energy and particle energy and are neither or both at the same time. Backradiation supports the idea they are particle energy as the same not saying they are. That leads inappropriately to support propaganda that this stuff from a cold object warms a warm object in violation of 2LOT. Yeah I realize you play a lot of games to try to argue that 2LOT isn’t violated because the ‘net’ goes the other way but you find it good propaganda to argue that it warms something when in fact that thing is constantly cooling.
Then you argue cooling the place that emissions goes to space that causes a forcing without explaining how that works when in fact something warmer is going to slow cooling more and something cooler isn’t going to do as much. All the arguments are incomplete and contradictory. Yeah I recognize some possibilities but possibilities often don’t amount to realities.
Auditors run into this situation constantly. Gee Mr. Auditor I have a deal in place. . . and the auditor replies lets see the evidence. Then when and if he gets the evidence he tests the evidence. Maybe you believe for political considerations science shouldn’t work that way and all you need is a theory, a proposed deal.
“Photons …” as I already made clear, are your distraction and a different topic.
Sorry you lost that argument. And it is pointless to rehash it with you.
The physical evidence for back radiation is absolutely clear in the example of the IR thermometer.
Yet even in this very clear cut case, you reject the evidence.
Thus we can deduce that when you ask for evidence, which is often, you have no intention of ever accepting it.
It is a ploy, a tactic, fraud, to avoid losing a debate on the facts.
Nate says:
”The physical evidence for back radiation is absolutely clear in the example of the IR thermometer.”
Nate if you want to make that argument fine. But to do it with physics you have demonstrate the exact construction and physics of the IR detector and not just wave you hand that the IR detector is proof. Thats just demonstrating how ignorant you are of what comprises science.
“the exact construction and physics of the IR detector”
which is quite beside the point that back radiation and its properties must be present to be detected.
The IR thermometer is also called a pyrometer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrometer
“A modern pyrometer has an optical system and a detector. The optical system focuses the thermal radiation onto the detector. The output signal of the detector is related to the thermal radiation j of the target object through the StefanBoltzmann law, the constant of proportionality σ, called the StefanBoltzmann
j^4=epsilon*sigma T^4”
It is undeniable that the detected radiation needs to come from the source, even when colder than the detector.
The device is based on the thermopile. Which has a passive near blackbody surface which emits and abs.orbs radiation.
“Thermopiles are used to provide an output in response to temperature as part of a temperature measuring device, such as the infrared thermometers”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermopile
Nate says:
”It is undeniable that the detected radiation needs to come from the source, even when colder than the detector.
The device is based on the thermopile. Which has a passive near blackbody surface which emits and abs.orbs radiation.”
Thermopiles are used to provide an output in response to temperature as part of a temperature measuring device, such as the infrared thermometers
———————————
LMAO! A thermopile detects its own temperature Nate. If it warms it computes the signal that would cause it to warm. If it cools it computes the signal that would cause it to cool.
All it needs to know is the ”net” emissions. You are just confused because you think that cold object is warming the warmer object.
“All it needs to know is the net emissions.”
Yes, which through arithmetic depends on the back radiation from the cold object.
You have lost on that one.
“You are just confused because you think that cold object is warming the warmer object.”
Nope. Never said that. It is a zombie strawman that never dies.
“Detects its own tmperature Nate. If it warms it computes the signal that would cause it to warm.”
Not quite. It detects the T difference between its front and back surfaces, thus determining heat flux.
Nate says:
Yes, which through arithmetic depends on the back radiation from the cold object.
You have lost on that one.
————————-
Nope you don’t even have to think photons. You know emission rate when the lens is closed. . .zero as it is in ambient surroundings. Open the lens and it cools. You don’t need to even think photons. From the information the scanner gives you you don’t even know the emission rate. You need one that also tells you ambient temperature to do your personal calculations. . . .thats not two opposing emitter calculations thats just a change in the temperature of the emitter.
Obviously you haven’t done much of this kind of work so why are you pretending to be an expert?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
You are just confused because you think that cold object is warming the warmer object.
Nope. Never said that. It is a zombie strawman that never dies.
——————-
You have been regaling us for years about the GHE Nate of cold objects warming warmer objects.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
August 14, 2023 at 8:51 AM
Detects its own tmperature Nate. If it warms it computes the signal that would cause it to warm.
Not quite. It detects the T difference between its front and back surfaces, thus determining heat flux.
—————
Oh gee now you agree with me. You disagree and then agree in the same post. Hilarious!
“Nope you dont even have to think photons. ”
And I don’t, you do. An only you.
You are quite confused.
Nate says:
It is undeniable that the detected radiation needs to come from the source, even when colder than the detector.
The device is based on the thermopile. Which has a passive near blackbody surface which emits and abs.orbs radiation.
————————–
Nate argues for the existence and necessity of photons by begging the question.
Sorry Nate we don’t know if photons work as described. We only know that are descriptions are consistent with Stefan’s and Boltzmann’s equation which were developed before they even heard of photons or knew anything about light quanta or that radiation was emitted in packets of energy of a given size. None of that is necessary to measure temperature and use Stefan Boltzmann equations. And thats your only argument for their existence.
“Sorry Nate we dont know if photons work as described. ”
Off topic. So you keep arguing against an argument I havent been making.
What is wrong with you?
Nate walks back the criticism he leveled at
August 13, 2023 at 11:12 AM
Yep, nothing wrong with that post, for which you had no rebuttal. Did you learn about Kirchhoff’s Law?
And it makes no mention of photons, because Kirchhoff’s law, just like the SB law, came well before the photon was discovered.
You’ve lost the argument, and your mind.
Nate said:
”which says a high emissivity object will abs.orb the radiation that is input to it.”
So now you are denying that involves photons?
You have argued that your cheap IR scanner counts the net photons received and emitted when all it actually does is compute the temperature of the sensor when exposed to another object.
And all you are doing here is offering an argument that begs the question.
“You have argued that your cheap IR scanner counts the net photons received and emitted ”
Nope. Net flux.
Either debate honestly or stop.
You are just claiming mathematics is science. Net flux of what? Net flux is all we ever have measured. We observe light then assume what it consists of via net flux. Yes it is a net flux but a net of what? Potential or actual photonic particles?
As a hobby years ago I took up audio, buying high end equipment, building speaker systems, and tuning it all for the best most live-like sound experience. Did it 90% as a hobby but got recruited by acquaintances to do some PA work part time. Soundwaves are interesting in how they can cancel out like the technology in noise cancelling headphones.
Your problem is we aren’t nearly advanced with light energy as we are sound energy in terms of how it works. You simply have adopted an opinion that has political ramifications and had tons of money stolen by lies from the government poured into mitigating it.
Really nothing different than the government lying about how the Covid 19 vaccine prevented transmission of the virus and used that to force people to take the vaccine.
Done playing whack-a-mole with your random BS. You are grasping at straws.
Back radiation exists. The debate is over.. The audience left. Now your opponent is leaving.. Goodbye Bill.
Yes Nate you characterized it exactly!
Its science by political declaration and fiat. Nothing more nothing less.
“science by political declaration and fiat.”
Bill ignores the lengthy debate on the science facts that we had, in which he failed, again and again, to support his opinion.
Thus he dishonestly pretends no debate took place!
Goobye Bill.
Nate mistakes blabber for science. Then he does what he always does. He repeats the blabber he got from his Daddy and by fiat declares the debate over.
Another possibility
https://michaelrlowry.substack.com/p/its-saharan-dust-season-but-wheres
Yeah maybe Nate can bring up the 150 year record embraced by the IPCC on African dust storms they used to build their CO2 hypothesis.
Again Bill has nothing of substance to say, but is a stalking mood.
I will stalk anybody who is for taking freedom away from people without cause. The whole CO2 thing is all about authoritarian rule by fiat. My first comments on CO2 after hearing from experts that CO2 is the culprit because its the only known change that could be causing it has absolutely nothing to do science at all. An argument from ignorance never is.
I was just giving you an opportunity to show how well scientifically supported the idea is that African dust storms haven’t changed over the 150/160 years.
You calling it stalking suggests you don’t know and you don’t want to recognize you don’t know.
“I will stalk anybody who is for taking freedom away from people without cause. The whole CO2 thing is all about authoritarian rule by fiat.”
Shocking. Another cranky political rant.
Explains why you need to reject science in this field.
Don’t you argue that the only science is independent science when you see a study by somebody who has a dog in the fight?
Oh thats right depends upon where the party loyalties lie.
“Dont you argue …”
No.
So you’re good with Exxon funded science?
If so we agree. Science is a process of sufficient documentation so as for the proof of the proposition to be replicated. Thus if the science is complete it doesn’t matter who does it.
Where it gets dicey is when somebody actually threatens to destroy the data rather than hand it over. . . then claiming its missing when ordered to hand it over. then it being a huge embarrassment for the government the whole thing gets whitewashed.
I would like to think that garbage isn’t still in the datasets used by the surface records. But have never seen any assurance it isn’t.
As Reagan said: Trust but Verify.
Corporate science is the lest likely to be vetted by peers and the public.
Tobacco smoke, Leaded gasoline, toxic emissions, certain medications. None of those carried health or environmental hazards according to corporate science.
thats a rather narrow minded view of looking at it.
Obviously in a nation where laissez-faire is an official policy, its going to be corporations making most of the mistakes.
But governments are far from immune being responsible for massive numbers of deaths. https://fee.org/articles/death-by-government/
Democide, genocide, mass murder, wars, abortion and climate action with the objective of depopulation.
And you expect to change that by picking a side?
Corporations operate under a public accountability standard to maintain their sales. To fix bad governments it often takes violence.
there really are no objective sides to the matter, only a choice between how to manage them so that we don’t end up putting all our eggs in a single basket.
“To fix bad governments it often takes violence.”
Nah, we can vote.
But it will only make a difference if you have good election controls.
A key tool of authoritarians is to attack and diminish democratic institutions.
the ability to freely speak ones mind is what prevents democratic institutions from becoming authoritarian.
Free speech FYI is not an attack. . . its called criticism.
Yep it was Hitler’s speech that riled up his brown shirts to do violence and intimidate until finally he was a dictator.
Hitler joined the brown shirts Nate. It was an existing paramilitary organization already with its objectives and they were violently attacking opposition groups like Antifa is doing today. So if you want a parallel example look to the left for the rising problem as folks should have done 100 years ago.
Sure, Jan 6 was Antifa…
Nate says:
”Corporate science is the lest likely to be vetted by peers and the public.”
Thats only true when the public hasn’t shown any interest.
Take accounting for example. They use intercorporate peer review.
Peer review only works when their is a competitive interest. In academic peer review that is hardly always the case. . . .to extent it can be appropriately disregarded as pal review.
that doesn’t occur when strict independence is in place such that one accounting corp doesn’t want to get undercut on pricing by another because of inadequate procedures.
There needs to be a fix for this in science offered for the purpose of public policy. One way of doing it would be putting the civil service in charge of peer review of papers submitted for public policy. Thats being done in some areas of public policy today and it works quite well. The process is transparent, open to public participation, and meetings are held with a combination of civil servants, university scientists of a variety of relevant disciplines, stakeholder representatives, and the public on one side of the table and the study authors and their study on the other side.
these panels keep uncertainty of science to a minimum. Rather than operating on the 50/50 principle that science in a narrow area should trump everything else, this provides an alternative to crowning public universities as the kings of the world.
It recognizes the cost/benefit feature that so often is ignored in politically-driven public policy.
I realize thats anathema to some who want to call ALL THE SHOTS, but its a big win for democracy.
Nate you accused Clint of not having a mechanism for HTE causing the warming.
I provided you a possible mechanism.
I realize that your side has a theory that supposedly negates the effects of ozone in blocking about 23 watts of UV radiation from reaching the surface via the same greenhouse effect you attribute to CO2.
So I gave you a reference to the changing size of the ozone hole here this July that is quite frankly pretty sobering.
Now you want to limit the conversation to the 4 corners of a post where no cause was mentioned? Why would you want to do that?
Nate says:
Sure, Jan 6 was Antifa
———————————
January 6 is a shame both for the action and its reaction.
Jacob Chansley get locked up for 41 months for getting a guided tour of the halls of Congress.
Ashli Babbit an unarmed Air Force veteran was shot and killed by the police without threatening any person.
One other protestor Rosanne Boyland died from being beat by police and/or trampled by the mob.
But all this wasn’t of the nature of a planned and executed Antifa attack where all the participants show up in uniform with weapons. Instead it was a riot without any paramilitary that earmarks hate groups.
Its just hate group propaganda that it was something different. The Nazis were good at that too.
“Peer review only works when their is a competitive interest. In academic peer review that is hardly always the case. . . .to extent it can be appropriately disregarded as pal review.”
It is a myth that Pal Review is common. In fact you are much more likely to be reviewed by a competitor.
Again, you like the system you are used to. You are less familiar with science’s system of checks and balances. I explained how and why, in my experience, it has been a good system, and works.
So what keeps 10% of the science being BS and the IPCC executives picking that 10%?
Having a system of peer review that has standards and always involves competitive interests keeps things not perfect but a lot better than not having it.
It also doesn’t take much shoddy science to have an impact.
Michael Chrichton who began his career as a scientist used experience in that in his novel ”State of Fear”.
You have one crappy study in support of a hot political topic where boatloads of money is available for further research and tons of other studies are funded on the premise the first study is solid. This has a huge effect on future science built on the bad study and represents a huge loss of resources that could have been better used than beating a dead horse.
” and the IPCC executives picking that 10%?”
Nah, the IPCC doesn’t pick and choose it like that.
Endless ignorant rants from an auditor with a political axe to grind.
Who cares?
Nate the IPCC politicians pick and choose what it wants in the summary for policy makers.
There is a lot of good science in the underlying volumes though the pick the shoddy stuff for the summary because it suits their objectives.
“There is a lot of good science in the underlying volumes ”
We are learning that whatever your initial assertions are, they will get walked back, because they are not factual.
Well you are just ignorant of political processes Nate.
The IPCC is a political process. When one talks about the IPCC one must refer to the IPCC conclusions on matters and whether they are actually supported by science or if they are mostly political.
IPCC likes to give the illusion that they are about science and thus the main body of work in their reports includes a lot of good science that is then ignored by the politicians as they cherry pick what they want to include in the summary for policy makers. Further up front what is allowed in the backing material must not contradict what is in the politically written summary (written by the politicians of the UN) if its contradictory it is removed. If it only discusses differences of opinion in quantity its allowed (and the individual nations control that with their non-independent institutions)
So yes the executive summary is a cherry picked version of the main body of work. I have worked in dozens of such processes that vary greatly as to the degree of political influence is allowed. The IPCC is one of the more politically influenced ones.
The science is carried out by scientists. The papers are published and can be critiqued by anyone, Roy, for example. The papers are reviewed and summarized by scientists for the IPCC report.
Its charts, data and analysis are what people here typically quote and use.
Nate there is a ton of critique going on with this stuff.
Fine. The papers don’t all agree with each other either. That is ordinary in science.
Which makes Judith Curry spot on about the uncertainty surrounding the GHE.
“The papers dont all agree with each other either.”
And Judith Curry does not represent all of them. She is one voice among many.
there are dozens of scientists in the same place Dr. Curry is from Roy here to Dr. Lindzen at MIT and Dr. Happer at Princeton.
And thousands of others that you need to ignore?
Why do I need to pay attention to every scientist when the only claim I am making is the science is unsettled and that the claims of the science being settled is a lie?
The repeated problem from you and others here with similar biases, is that you ONLY pay attention to contrarian voices, which represent an extreme minority of outlier opinion in the field.
Thus you will get a very slanted view of things, which pleases you because it confirms your biases.
It is the Fox News effect.
Now all you are doing here is appealing to authority and elitism.
A good 50% of people are skeptical of appealing to authority and your personal appeal for elitist authoritarianism.
It doesn’t matter to you that the vast numbers of clingers to the CAWG BS are paid in someway by the institutional complex that greatly benefits from defrauding the public and does nothing to speak against the frauds or punish the defrauders. And when they get uncovered these institutions quickly white wash it, erase websites, and essentially bury everything in the past that has lost credibility. Now in a sense they should get the stuff off the web but there is zero accountability for it in the first place. You have to be skeptic to get kicked off social media. Its 100% politics as expected.
” vast numbers of clingers to the CAWG BS are paid in someway by the institutional complex that greatly benefits from defrauding the public and does nothing to speak against the frauds or punish the defrauders.”
OK, Bill, take your crank conspiratorial BS elsewhere.
There is no conspiracy Nate.
Its the money. Dr. Lindzen recounted Kerry Emanuel’s plea to him to go along with the consensus in that it ”would be good for science”.
If you don’t think money for science is a motivator you are unbelievably naive or in for the money yourself.
We know that incentive to be the case for the motivation of the entire private sector. . . just that the individual entities of the private sector can’t force the public to buy their wares.
You don’t want to see that occur with politics combining with science. Or education as well or we will be producing a lot of naive children totally unaware of the ways of the world.
As I have repeatedly pointed out professional liability was established for the sole purpose of avoiding smart people from being corrupted by money and power.
Your side in arguing for the restriction of the rich argue that the amount of money they make isn’t necessary to provide the incentive that promotion is sufficient.
But all that is is a view from being a public sector employee and we all know that when a sector expands promotions expand as well.
this doesn’t require conspiracy. It is mind changing all by itself at the individual level where they convince themselves of what is right without any scientific proof.
“Its the money.”
Yep the fossil fuel industry and friends have plenty of it, and plenty of motivation to use it to influence Congress and the public.
Yep you characterized exactly Nate.
The oil companies to do business must pay the current extortion rate to prevent being put out business. You are starting to catch on Nate.
Its like the media companies bending to government censorship requests to retain their Section 230 exemption.
plata o plomo
” to prevent being put out business.”
Indeed profit is the primary driver, which may run counter to the public interest.
Yet they and you falsely project this motivation onto the scientists.
“It is mind changing all by itself at the individual level where they convince themselves of what is right without any scientific proof.”
Sure, scientists don’t need scientific evidence…
You have obviously convinced yourself of this pseudoscientific rationalization.
Nate says:
to prevent being put out business.
Indeed profit is the primary driver, which may run counter to the public interest.
Yet they and you falsely project this motivation onto the scientists.
————————-
The argument is that a promotion isn’t a profit. And of course the Communists argue that promotion is sufficient.
So what has science become here? A front for the Communist Revolution? It doesn’t matter if you pick capitalism or communism. What we have here is a quest for power, fame, and fortune. That is why the accounting profession demands complete independence both in fact and appearance.
The SEC requires publicly traded companies to be audited by independent auditors. But in science we do the opposite and with single funder funding even the peer review from different institutions is tainted.
I am not saying the people are evil they are just people. And with people you get a mixed bag. Both private enterprise and public institutions reward the rainmakers.
Nate says:
August 17, 2023 at 5:55 AM
It is mind changing all by itself at the individual level where they convince themselves of what is right without any scientific proof.
Sure, scientists dont need scientific evidence
You have obviously convinced yourself of this pseudoscientific rationalization.
“But in science we do the opposite and with single funder funding even the peer review from different institutions is tainted.”
No its not.
Nate its tainted not just with the appearance of a conflict of interest and a lack of independence.
Its tainted with an actual lack of independence and conflict of interest.
A lack of independence applies whenever the employee or the employer has a financial interest in the outcome. Not only is there a lack of independence there for the vast majority of institutions doing climate work its the biggest monetary lack of independence in history.
“Nate its tainted”
Unsupported opinion from someone with anti science agenda.
Worthless.
Not anti-science in any way shape or form.
Its anti-corrupt scientist.
“Not anti-science in any way shape or form.
Its anti-corrupt scientist.”
Sure thing Bill. But with this sort of comment, you make clear that there must be loads of corrupt climate scientists.
“vast numbers of clingers to the CAWG BS are paid in someway by the institutional complex that greatly benefits from defrauding the public and does nothing to speak against the frauds or punish the defrauders.”
So what percentage, in your expert opinion, are corrupt?
What percentage, in your expert opinion, have ‘convinced themselves of what is right WITHOUT any scientific proof.’?
Nate says:
”Not anti-science in any way shape or form.
Its anti-corrupt scientist.”
Sure thing Bill. But with this sort of comment, you make clear that there must be loads of corrupt climate scientists.
————————–
I think we probably think in common in many ways. They talk about the uniparty and this is related to that.
I see corruption arising not directly among scientists but instead it arises from large organizations. Institutions and Corporations where they hire rainmakers to grow the institution/corporation, pressure scientists to produce for them.
So actually the number of actually corrupt scientists probably mirrors that of other institutions like Corporate scientists and other groups of people operating without any enforceable standards.
No doubt there were a lot of accountants hawking for clients like carnival barkers before the profession promulgated standards and laws of accountability were put into place.
So I don’t believe scientists as a group is anymore corrupt than any other group of people working in similar circumstances.
“I see corruption arising”
Yes you ‘see’ it.
The rest of us will wait until we actually see it. You know with evidence. Then we will deal with it, as always, on a case by case basis.
In the meantime, science marches on.
And its system of funding, peer review, publication and replication will continue, because no better system has been developed.
Nate says:
Yes you see it.
The rest of us will wait until we actually see it. You know with evidence. Then we will deal with it, as always, on a case by case basis.
———————-
Who are you speaking for Nate (rest of us and we)?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
In the meantime, science marches on.
And its system of funding, peer review, publication and replication will continue, because no better system has been developed.
———————-
Obviously its the system of funding that is always the biggest problem that destroys independence so that will change. We have had a template for that for a long time its only been in the last several decades that model has been eroded due to elitist interests. But that’s how corruption creeps in and we have not been doing a good job of guarding the door.
My perception is the corrupt ”uniparty” is in deep trouble.
Peer review only needs to change for the introduction of science into the policy arena. When the topic is the sex life of an earthworm the current peer review works fine.
The rest is fine.
“Who are you speaking for Nate (rest of us and we)?”
Those of us without an axe to grind.
Those of us without a conspiratorial mindset.
Those of us who work in science, know scientists, have experience in with the system, and quite unlike you, actually know what we are talking about.
Look Bill, you can keep having your personal thoughts and opinions about this outside-your-lane stuff, but without evidence to show, it just sounds like cranky old man talk.
Nate says:
”Those of us without an axe to grind.”
——————-
Well that would be nobody. Human nature is human nature. If you don’t think you have an axe to grind just what do you think you are spending your time in here doing?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Those of us without a conspiratorial mindset.”
——————-
Just another one of your many strawmen Nate. We are talking about self interest. Human nature isn’t a conspiracy. You accept it and deny it at the same time pointing to ‘other’ groups as the conspirators and ignoring your own biases.
xxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Those of us who work in science, know scientists, have experience in with the system, and quite unlike you, actually know what we are talking about.”
————–
Some do some don’t. What we are talking about here is compliance with the scientific method. See below.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Look Bill, you can keep having your personal thoughts and opinions about this outside-your-lane stuff, but without evidence to show, it just sounds like cranky old man talk.”
—————-
You have been unable to describe in physical detail the greenhouse effect. thus you are not in compliance with the scientific method in your way of thinking.
“You have been unable to describe in physical detail the greenhouse effect. ”
Weird.
I don’t know where you have been, but it has been described here many times.
And several times you even claim believe it exists.
You can easily look up descriptions of it, if you cared to.
Either way, this is a YOU problem.
Liar!
Projection.
You miss a lot. And what you don’t miss, you get all confused. And what you do understand you don’t retain.
We discussed Manabe and Wetherald, 1967. Remember?
It has a perfectly good description, which you don’t have the prerequisite skills to understand, and thus reject. But again, that is not my problem.
M&W is a mathematical description. It is not a physical description based upon established physics.
What you need to do is explain M&W in a way that doesn’t rely upon the discredited 3rd grader radiation model.
So now Bill writes in M&W 1967 that the moisture content of the atm. depends upon atmospheric temperature “is not a physical description based upon established physics”.
What Bill now needs to do is explain why not to establish any Bill credibility & thus actually bring some discredit to M&W.
“M&W is a mathematical description. It is not a physical description based upon established physics.”
M&W solves a longstanding atmospheric physics problem, using math and laws of physics.
Bill thinks if you use math then you can’t be doing physics!
Ball4 and Nate I said it must be without relying on the discredited 3rd grader radiation model.
You guys haven’t demonstrated the physical mechanism for CO2 being a significant cause of temperature change.
Ball4 doesn’t think it matters. Nate disavowed the 3rd grader model and still doesn’t say what the model is that M&W based their physics on.
Bill 8:47 pm, in the satellite era precision, calibrated measured data has now demonstrated the physical mechanism for CO2 being a significant cause of planetary temperature change. “Significant” meaning at 95% confidence nature’s actual results for atm. added ppm CO2 are within the confidence intervals & measured along with changes in water vapor, other trace gases, aerosols etc.
Good example here of Bill declaring something that is plainly not true. Then doubling down, and blaming others.
Bill,
“You have been unable to describe in physical detail the greenhouse effect.
Me:
“I dont know where you have been, but it has been described here many times.”
Bill:
“Liar!”
Me: “We discussed Manabe and Wetherald, 1967. Remember?
It has a perfectly good description”
Bill: “M&W is a mathematical description. It is not a physical description based upon established physics.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml
for anyone who wants to verify that it is a physics model of the atmosphere’s GHE.
But on and on Bill goes with endless denial.
Ball4 says:
”meaning at 95% confidence natures actual results for atm. added ppm CO2 are within the confidence intervals & measured along with changes in water vapor, other trace gases, aerosols etc.”
Yep a few years in litigation support for competing models in financial due diligence disputes taught me how that works.
A huge Antarctic anomaly that is even affecting sea ice levels is a big part of it.
It coincides with an NH unusual warming.
My comments are not all getting through this morning. If this doesnt work, Ill try again later.
Several misconceptions about the GHE above. The warming effect is NOT due to water vapor. It is due to the disruptions to upper atmosphere winds. The effect is both oscillatory and temporary. It can be somewhat seen in UAH results as “waves”.
GHE should be HTE.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1518098
Would be great to get some experts to tackle the puzzle: What can cause so much warming so fast? It would seem something with high heat capacity would be to blame. Air, on its own cannot do this. Thermal energy from the sun can. So can thermal exhaust from the mantle of the earth.
This is a great scientific question. Dogmatic ideology that requires the answer to be gaseous carbon molecules needs to be set aside so better possibilities can be considered.
This is a weather effect.
Global air temperature is measured decades of time.
But experts should weigh in on predicting if it continues going up, staying the same and how long.
It seems this weather effect has effected hurricane- will that continue or will hurricane season start kicking in during main part of season in August and Sept?
The most common cause of large month-to-month temperature swings is small changes in the convective overturning of the troposphere, especially associated with changes in ocean surface evaporation and resulting condensational heating of the troposphere. These are mostly ocean-based. July 2023 seems to be more land-based, which might be a radiative effect. I don’t really know, just an educated guess.
Roy is an expert but he has integrity and claims he does not know for sure.
But he guesses it’s land effect.
It’s Summer in northern hemisphere, and it has the most land area.
Ah, what’s happening Australia… above, July +1.43
Hmm, don’t know what to make of that.
Did get flooding?
Google: australia flooding 2023
Apparently, yes.
Beats me.
I think they misreporting the Thermosphere cause I predicted it would be a lot warmer than it was in July.
But it’s likely I am wrong.
I did a back of the envelop calculation that 1 deg. C of extra heat in the atmosphere could be caused by just 12 hours of extra sunlight averaged globally. From that it would seem that 0.2 C could result from 2.4 hours sunlight that was “trapped” by some mechanism during the month, or about 4.6 minutes every day for the month of July. It seems that the normal energy balance of the earth is very stable from month to month.
Daily Sun: 02 Aug 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Solar wind
speed: 390.5 km/sec
density: 14.38 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 160
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 175 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.58×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.2%
The monthly sunspot number for July was 159.1 which
was slightly down from June number of 163.4:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
I got hurricane Dora but it’s going east like last one:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Daily Sun: 03 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 336.8 km/sec
density: 3.14 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 135
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 173 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.58×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.2% Low
48-hr change: -2.0%
The spike of less GCR is interesting.
And waiting for the big spot which was suppose to be
coming.
There is large spot coming from farside, though a larger
spot is also leaving the nearside.
I still think Aug will be weaker. But check what experts saying:
Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
-31 July – 26 August 2023
Solar activity is likely to reach moderate levels
(R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) on 31 Jul – 04 Aug. Activity for the
remainder of the outlook period is likely to be at low levels, with
a chance for M-class X-ray activity (R1). –
Well, Neutron Counts are now at moderate levels for a solar Max.
Daily Sun: 04 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 420.3 km/sec
density: 20.76 protons/cm3
{we are getting hit with solar flare which could soon follow
with couple more. Auroras can be seen well below US/Canada border
and these solar flares could push them further south in next couple
days}
Sunspot number: 122
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 163 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.58×1010 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.8% Low
48-hr change: -1.8%
The spike of less GCR is continuing. Apparently the big spot
came- and it doesn’t seem to me to be impressive. And other old spots are also coming to nearside, soon- but nothing seems showing up that make me doubt the idea that August will be weaker in terms of spot number. But these flares hitting Earth should add energy to the Thermosphere and neutron counts could stay low- and so, in this regard, Aug could likely equal [or exceed] July.
Daily Sun: 05 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 373.6 km/sec
density: 0.11 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 122
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 171 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.58×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.7% Low
48-hr change: -0.5%
It seems this is around lowest it’s been in
Solar 25 Max. This level would have low levels
of GCR if traveling to Mars. Though in past Solar Max
have had much lower neutron counts.
I am guessing we won’t have months of -5.0% or lower
during this solar Max. But if bumps up to 0.0 for days
of time it’s not much of issue- it’s the months of time
which has higher radiation effect upon the crew- which would
effect the crew lifetime of acceptable radiation exposure- it
would shorten an astronaut’s career time.
Regarding I said above, re, auroras:
“CME SPARKS STRONG GEOMAGNETIC STORM: As predicted, a CME struck Earth during the early hours of Aug. 5th. Sensors at the Canberra Magnetic Observatory in Australia measured a jolt of 22 nT to our planet’s magnetic field. The impact sparked a strong G3-class geomagnetic storm with auroras in the USA as far south as Arizona.”
“ANOTHER CME IS COMING: A magnetic filament connecting two sunspots erupted this morning, Aug. 5th (~0500 UT), hurling a CME into space. NOAA models predict a glancing blow on Aug. 8th. The impact could spark G1-class geomagnetic storms with a chance of escalating to G2 or G3 because Earth’s magnetosphere is already energized by last night’s impact. Keep reading. Aurora alerts: SMS Text “
Dora is still going.
In terms global warming cargo cult, I am surprised one in say climate change makes hurricane last longer:
Hurricane Dora Taking Unusually Long Pacific Voyage As ‘Ghost Of Eugene’ Brings Shower Chance To L.A.
https://weather.com/safety/hurricane/news/2023-08-07-hurricane-dora-tropical-storm-eugene-remnant-pacific
Yup, I got some rain and forecast is more rain tomorrow.
I wonder if Dora set a record for longest lasting Cat 4 and it started forest fires in Hawaii.
Daily Sun: 09 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 413.2 km/sec
density: 4.77 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 115
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 159 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.03×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.6% Low +0.1%
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
07 August – 02 September 2023
Solar activity is likely to reached moderate levels on 07 Aug,
primarily due to the remaining flare potential of Region 3386 as it
continues to rotate just beyond the W limb. Mostly low solar
activity is expected for the rest of the outlook period, with a
chance for M-class (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) activity after 17 Aug as
multiple active regions that have produced significant flare
activity are expected to return to the visible disk from the
Sun's farside.–
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
So, August less than July in terms of spot number, though Aug has been more “active” than July- Sun has effecting our thermosphere and reducing amount GRC. Or could say Aug added a bump to June and July
solar activity. My guess is Aug less, and Sept more less.
It seems to me, the Sept has 50% of having a spotless day and Oct a higher chance. And I guess Aug has less than 5% chance.
Daily Sun: 10 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 483.9 km/sec
density: 5.80 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 103
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 153 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.03×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.2% Low
Hurricane Dora is weakening.
Dora is the star of this hurricane season, so far.
Atlantic got nothing forecasted, my side has 30% chance of something
starting:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
It’s looking like a weak hurricane season
Roy (or any other person here who KNOWS the answer to my question),
I count 5 times since 1979 where the monthly average global temperatures peaked at a higher level than O.4 degrees above the baseline. How many of these 5 were NOT accompanied by an El Nino event? Thanks in advance for the answer.
Your question is moot, Russ, b/c in 2021 UAH raised its baseline +.15*C to use 1991 -2020 temps as the baseline. Using the old baseline, which includes the 1979 – 1990 years you allude to, there have been at least 13 years +0.4 above it.
I think you mean 0.6 above the baseline and I count 6 of them. Here they are and the corresponding 4m lagged ONI value.
1998/04: 0.62 : +2.4
2016/02: 0.71 : +2.4
2016/03: 0.64 : +2.6
2016/04: 0.61 : +2.6
2020/02: 0.60 : +0.3
2023/07: 0.64 : -0.1
So to answer your question. The 2020/02 and 2023/07 values were not accompanied by an El Nino event.
Pedantry. The 2020/02 anomaly was actually 0.598 C. So strictly speaking I probably should have excluded that one.
02/2020 was caused by a sudden stratospheric warming event and a weak El Nio. ONI was at 0.5. And the previous year was accompanied by ONI 0.7.
And there was a SSW in March as well.
Hunga Tonga:
https://original.newsbreak.com/@joe-herring-1723008/3107191904075-nasa-unprecedented-underwater-volcanic-eruption-likely-responsible-for-current-heat-waves?_f=app_share&s=a7&share_destination_id=NTk0OTMyNDMtMTY5MDkzMjgxODY5Mw==&pd=041cuRq5&hl=en_US&send_time=1690932818&actBtn=floatShareButton&trans_data=%7B%22platform%22%3A1%2C%22cv%22%3A%2223.29.0%22%2C%22languages%22%3A%22en%22%7D
“Measurements from the Microwave Limb Sounder on NASA’s Aura satellite indicate the excess water vapor is equivalent to around 10% of the amount of water vapor typically residing in the stratosphere, where this ‘excess stratospheric H2O will persist for years, could affect stratospheric chemistry and dynamics, and may lead to surface warming.'”
Your quote is taken from a denier’s blog. Now find me the source of his figure.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Now find me the source of his figure.”
And if he doesn’t? Are you going to throw yourself on the floor in a fit of temper? Maybe threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue?
Not retarded at all, are you?
aquerty…”Your quote is taken from a deniers blog. Now find me the source of his figure”.
***
This is what Roy means by bullying. The Internet is full of heroes who try to get away with attitudes that would get them in serious trouble on the streets.
If you are going to contribute to this blog then parks your attitude, your ad homs, your insults, and your demands. Address the science you Aussie iiit.
ps. your dismissal of the argument was based on the source being an alarmist. He was quoting NASA!!!
No he was NOT quoting NASA in relation to an increase by 10% of stratospheric water vapour – that was my point. It was INVENTED.
.
.
.
“attitude, your ad homs, your insults, and your demands”
There is nothing in that list that doesn’t apply equally to you.
And then you end with a slur against an entire country … THAT is bullying.
From the HTE paper (emphasis mine):
NASAs stamp of approval means little, except to the cult. So Ant now has to deny his cult headquarters!
Now, apparently, NASA is a denier source.
Actually here JPL and NASA are very closely adhering to GHE orthodoxy.
folks are upset though that anybody is admitting to natural causation. Didn’t Al Gore claim the GHE effect never changed until humans started making the masses better off?
Title: “NASA: “Unprecedented” Underwater Volcanic Eruption Likely Responsible for Current Heat Waves”
Text of NASA quote: ” the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat.”
See the difference folks?
As usual, they get confused by the science.
The warming effect is clearly seen, if one opens one’s eyes.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1518502
And effect tells you the cause?
Only if you understand the science.
First you have to stop denying the reality of the effect….
The science is the GHE of water vapor, which YOU claim does not exist.
That’s why this is so much fun!
Wrong Nate, the HTE is NOT caused by your bogus “GHE of water vapor”.
Oh you cite sources that that argue it causes warming by the GHE. However you don’t agree with your sources on the GHE.
That’s why this is so much fun!
Wrong again, tro!! Nate.
The source has it correct that HTE caused the warming. But the source got it wrong that the bogus GHE of water vapor was the cause. Your cult is STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes!
There are REAL mechanisms to explain the HTE.
And your mystery mechanism is described by which official source?
As expected. There is no mystery mechanism offered, that produces significant warming, other than the GHE, as described in all the papers on HT stratospheric water.
the jury is out on whether HTE is causing the unusual disturbances.
However, if we look through the satellite record we see climate responses from all the VEI 4 or greater volcanic explosions that last up to about 9 years mostly involving some degree of cooling for a short spell followed by an accelerated general warming trend.
I am not making much of it but it bears watching as we know our institutions are fully vested and married to not doing that except on behalf of the Montreal Protocol and claiming victory over air conditioner coolants. . . .as we see in the latest UN hype on the topic. . . .that Nate is denying on behalf of global warming.
Its an interesting topic as the huge cluster of major eruptions in the 1990’s had a role in igniting Nate’s pants on fire (along with the climategate mafia) and all of that has been laid at the feet of mankind despite the fact that Dr. Vulcan isn’t yet in custody and maybe mankind isn’t all that responsible as the UN claims.
“on behalf of the Montreal Protocol and claiming victory over air conditioner coolants. . . .as we see in the latest UN hype on the topic. . . .that Nate is denying on behalf of global warming.”
Referring to the post where Bill totally fails to read and comprehend his own source!
And consequently posts misleading nonsense….once again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519259
Naturally rather than rereading his source, he doubles down on his error.
Nate are you the only guy on this board that doesn’t understand that Volcanoes typically cool the globe before warming it?
SO2 cools the globe from its lack of transparency warming the stratosphere and cooling the surface. then as the SO2 breaksdown after finding extremely rare water in the stratosphere, 5ppm(takes a lot of time maybe the few years of cooling) and becomes acidic that destroys ozone and allows high energetic light to reach the surface at alarming rates.
But know the corruption of the institutions Nate proselytizes for focuses purely on the 3rd grader radiation model and the BS about albedo thermodynamic equilibriums to completely reverse the model which at best are partial feedbacks.
Bill, as usual you mix everything in a stew of confusion.
That has nothing to do with the ozone hole cause by CFCs and the UN repairing it, and whether that creates warming or cooling.
Apart from this, all the papers I have seen discussing HTE argue that its principle warming effect would be from the well known GHE of the extra water it put into the stratosphere.
Such as:
“This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL099381
Indeed there are still a lot of scientists that believe in the 3rd grade radiation model instead of the M&W theory. I posted elsewhere that this may take a long time to correct.
Fact is people love to flock to popular theories especially if they haven’t already attached themselves and invested in a different one.
Hmmm,
“No way in their own mind could they possibly be wrong about what they complain about so they just start pretending they were complaining about something else”
Nate is desperately trying to shift the UN’s inconsistencies on me.
Bottom line Nate all I am doing to showing those inconsistencies while occasionally noting that none of this adds up to any evidence.
We have the UN arguing greenhouse effects from multiple sources while at the same time claiming that warming is being curtailed by ocean uptake and that CO2 will warm the planet by 3 degrees or more if we don’t act immediately on the garbage propaganda emanating from the UN.
Maybe we can agree on that.
Bill, All your other grievances lead to rabbit holes of no interest to me.
Well thats no surprise facts have seldom been of interest to you, whether you have facts to support your case or you have facts to dispute others. Its more about being a good party member for you.
Good luck trying to bait others into nasty exchanges.
No baiting Nate. Just stating a fact.
Dr. Spencer, there are other weird phenomena going on at the moment as well, like the extreme marine heatwave in North Atlantic and unforeseen sea ice anomalies around Antarctica. Any possibility that these all are indications of the same thing? What’s your view on this?
It makes more sense to ask why the temperatures were so unusually low recently. 0.64 only seems unusually high because recent temps were unexpectedly low.
MM
The linear regression from 1979 suggests that the current UAH anomaly should be around 0.25C.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2023.6/every/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2023.6/every/trend
0.64C is huge. 0.4C above trend is as big as you would expect from a large El Nino.
Since the current El Nino has barely started the cause must lie elsewhere. It is unlikely to be CO2.
Perhaps this is what a tipping point looks like?
I believe a tipping point is a new set point, not a blip. The coming many months, past the approaching El Nino, will be required to see whether we have reached a “tipping point”. I’d be willing to bet we haven’t.
It’s not just the monthly temperature that is odd.
Atlantic sea surface temperatures are way above normal.
So are the energy imbalance and the Greenland surface melt.
Antarctic ice is way below normal extent.
The jetstream is unusually wavy.
Something is pumping a lot of extra heat into the system this year. I don’t know what, but a lot of scientists like yourself will be scratching their heads.
It will be interesting to watch the rest of 2023. If it is a blip, then we’ll go back to UAH anomalies between 0.25C and 0.5C. If it’s some systemic change then we’re into completely new territory.
Entropic man
I agree to what you wrote – except Greenland’s SMB:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hp59N2gopJ_0DYEcgH-XNWM0LsYO8b6E/view
I would understand you if 2023 would currently look like 2016, 2019 or 2012.
The SMB is way above such values for end of July.
ent…”The jetstream is unusually wavy”.
***
That’s your clue. The jetstream in essentially in the lower stratosphere. Ask yourself what has happened there recently that would mess with the jet stream?
hint: water vapour from Hunga Tonga.
Take out the *** before you use it. Melt extent way above normal through June and July.
https://nsid***c.org/greenland-today/
Gordon Robertson
The jetstream forms when warmer temperate rides up over the colder Arctic air and the incoming airflow is deflected eastwards by the Coriolis effect.
I don’t know a mechanism by which extra water vapour in the stratosphere would affect the jetstream.
In 2008 the biggest event of this century happened.
The Solar wind speed halved almost overnight.
Straight Zonal Flow of the jet streams ended.
Wavey Meridional Flow started.
All extreme weather events of any description are linked to this change in the behavior of our Sun.
Looks like I owe the RNLI 20.
Mark Miller
If you compare UAH anomalies to an ENSO record like the Multivariate ENSO Index
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
you will see that UAH follows ENSO: higher anomalies in El Nino phases, lower ones in La Nina phases.
We just ended a long La Nina phase, and so do UAH anomalies look like.
Thus, no quite so: 0.64 is currently unusually higher.
No, I didn’t mean above by 0.6 degrees, I said and I meant above by 0.4 degrees. And no, I did not mean the number of times the monthly average was above the base line by 0.6 degrees. I said and I meant the number of monthly average PEAKS that were above the base line by 0.4 degrees. And as I said, Roy’s chart shows 5 peaks that met that criteria. Not 6. And finally, the baseline I’m talking about is the one currently shown on Roy’s chart. I appreciate this zero line no longer represents the ‘relative’ average temperature between 1979 and present day, but I never said it did either, and I didn’t (and still don’t) think I even needed to.
Having said all that, I do appreciate your answer, bdgwx. Thank you. But I’ve read on https://www.climate.gov/enso that “A weak El Niothe warm phase of the El Nio-Southern Oscillation climate patterncontinued across the tropical pacific Ocean in July 2023.” Not true?
Russ
Why did you choose +0.4 as treshold anomaly value?
Bindidon,
You asked: “Why did you choose +0.4 as treshold anomaly value?” Good question, but my answer isn’t very esoteric I’m afraid.
I chose 0.4 because it was the lowest number with a horizontal line across the full width of the graph that had a distinctive and meaningful number of anomalously high peaks above it. I could have chosen 0.5 or 0.6 and still had equally distinctive and equally meaningful numbers of anomalously high peaks above them as well.
I was looking for a common cause for the anomalous peaks and knowing that atmospheric CO2 levels didn’t jive, I thought maybe El Nino events might explain them.
What do YOU think?
Russ
Thanks for the convenient reply.
I can only post a few remarks.
1. ENSO is clearly a climate driver: you need to observe not only El Nino peaks but La Nina drops as well.
*
2. Volcanoes also play a major role: The MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index)
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
shows, for example, that 1982/83 was the strongest El Nino since records began in 1871, but was completely obscured in all temperature records by the eruption of El Chichon.
*
3. It is not very good to keep fixated at the lower troposphere; surface records matter too.
Here is a superposition of UAH LT with NOAA’s and the Japanese Met Agency (JMA)’s surface records:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WlRq-I-I_XhKXmSwSuCzVarrNlc-um0H/view
You clearly can see that in the surface records, the El Nino peaks sensibly differ from those in the LT: 1998 for example was way lower.
This means that your 0.4 stat might suffer a lot when you move down to the surface :–)
*
Thus in the sum, only one thing is sure: as you wrote, CO2’s action has nothing to do with small scale events like ENSO peaks (and… drops).
Must be down to the Atlantic seas surface temperature anomaly of circa 1.2 degrees.
The Mediterranean sea also suffered a a large temperature anomaly in July too.
I’ve yet to see a coherent explanation for these sudden rises in sea surface temperatures.
What does this all mean for the Gulf Stream and the Beaufort Gyre is my question.
david…”Ive yet to see a coherent explanation for these sudden rises in sea surface temperatures”.
***
Anthropogenic warming is certainly not a coherent explanation.
How about more satellites and better measuring?
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.14 C/decade”
So back up to 1.4C/century…
1.4C/century is an acceleration.
The surface datasets show 1.2C in 140 years. That is 0.86C/century.
Yeah , thats 14 degrease p-er millennium , you should really worry now
So the the oceans should start boiling in a few thousand years, I suppose.
Some people are so gullible.
No climate scientist is suggesting that the oceans will go close to boiling.
.
.
.
And … “degrease” … oh dear.
AQ,
What scientists are you referring to?
When will the “warming trend” stop, and which peer reviewed papers explain when and why?
You are just making this stuff up as you go along, arent you?
Maybe your “scientists” should have a word with the UN chief, who recently said “July temperatures show Earth is in an ‘era of global boiling’.”
Obviously, you believe “boiling” does not mean “boiling”.
Maybe “warming trend” does not really mean “warming trend”? All a bit confusing.
Note your quote was in the present tense … “is … boiling”.
Do you honestly believe he is claiming the oceans are boiling NOW.
Or do you think perhaps he is using the word colloquially?
Have you never said about the weather “it’s boiling”?
Yes – a poor choice of phraseology, given that there are people like you ready to leap on every word spoken. But unless you can find a climate scientist who actually states that the oceans ARE boiling or WILL boil, it is YOU who is making it up as you go.
AQ,
An era of global boiling is what the man said. I agree, he was obviously mistaken. The globe is not boiling. He is obviously incapable of accepting reality, or just uttering obvious untruths for no particular reason at all. Rather sad that the chief of the UN is unable to articulate his thoughts clearly.
“Climate change is intensifying heatwaves, droughts, flooding, wildfires and famines, he warned, while threatening to submerge low-lying countries and cities as sea levels rise due to melting glaciers and increasingly extreme weather.”
Just more refusal to accept reality, or maybe he was speaking colloquially, and once again did not mean what he was saying, I suppose.
Climate cultists do the same – they claim warming results from slow cooling, that a warming trend will continue indefinitely unless it doesnt, but cannot give any reason at all for either outcome!
Maybe you could quote a “climate scientist” who actually says anything verifiable at all. Only joking – climate science is about as much a science as political science or social science.
Carry on wriggling.
Writing ‘degrease’ instead of ‘degrees’ is typical for German neofascists.
Binny,
And writing “blah blah” instead of something comprehensible is typical for . . . ?
Maybe a case of pot, kettle, black, do you think?
How about bobdroege’s description of the GHE –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Blah blah, or not?
Over to you.
” How about bobdroeges description of the GHE… ”
Flynnson is so dumb and dense that he didn’t even realize that bobdroege was doing nothing but to repeat exactly the nonsense that Flynnson himself had written years ago.
Swenson,
Have you heard of manners?
robert…don’t forget some 20+ years in the interval 1979 – 2023 was flat. There were sudden, unexplained brief period of warming like the sudden 0.2C warming following the decline of the 1998 EN. Also, a residual was experienced following the 2016 EN.
The same happened in 1977 and that led to the discovery of the PDO. Some scientists suggesting discarding the 0.2C warming in 1977 but fortunately real scientists came to the rescue.
When we’ve seen a fast and large uptick like this in the past, there has been a step change up in the temperature record. Wonder if this is another one.
The perfect storm
https://youtu.be/MmnNJalLdhI
Remember folks, we are talking 0.6C, a temperature we would not notice in a living room if we set the thermostat 0.6C higher, yet is claimed to cause catastrophic climate change.
Of interest to me is the response following the spike. In 1998, it was gone in a few months, but in 2016 it lingered for years.
1998 was followed by a strong La Nina, 2016 wasn’t.
Just as 2010-12 was not followed by El Nino (in fact it was La Nina “like” conditions), so temperatures stayed down (relatively speaking).
My gut tells me that this El Nino will be followed by another La Nina, making it similar to the early 70s when 5 years out of 6 were La Nina, with a strong El Nino in between.
But … my gut also tells me that bourbon is good for me.
There was no strong LN till 2008. Meantime, the trend had been flat for 8 years.
Which is what you’d expect in the immediate aftermath of the PDO switching negative – a slowdown followed by a return to the steady rise after a number of years. When the PDO again switches positive we would expect a faster than normal rise for a number of years followed by a return to the steady rate when the earth equilibriates.
AQ,
” . . .followed by a return to the steady rate when the earth equilibriates.”
No equilibrium, I’m afraid. The Earth has cooled – no equilibrium there. The IPCC agree that the atmosphere behaves chaotically- no equilibrium there, either!
What sort of equilibration do you imagine exists, and on what does your assertion rest?
I don’t believe you know what you are talking about, but others may draw their own conclusions, of course.
You should expect nothing re the PDO. It was only discovered in the 1990s and little is known about it. It was discovered when a sudden 0.2C warming occurred on the planet and no one had an answer as to what it was. Some scientists wanted to expunge it from the record.
Tsonis et al did a study into the different ocean oscillations like the PDO and concluded based on evidence that the planet warmed when the oscillations acted in phase and cooled when they were out of phase.
So within a couple of hours the discovery of the PDO has moved from 1977 to the 1990s. Interesting.
Antonin,
Gordon’s using a reconstruction of past climate.
I wonder if Gordon knows where they get the data for that.
Antonin, bob, please stop trolling.
Tony Heller shows how CO2 has gone as far as it can but how more water vapour can increase the temperature, which adds credence to what Doctor Spencer is suggesting with the under sea volcano spewing out unprecedented amounts of water vapour. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-zaQWAaPAg
I am a skeptic without an agenda. In fact, I am skeptical of some skeptics. My interest is in understanding the science, and possibly contributing my perspective. I do not like the politics involve on either side. That is why I can state that I am fascinated by this development. It is puzzling and very interesting. Every news channel has been going on about how hot it is and how many record temperatures there are, which I passed off as just more media hype. It turns out to be real. Is this the fabled tipping point, or just another odd event? Stay tuned!
It is not a tipping point, just a part of variability. But it is variability superimposed on a rising trend. WRT global temperatures, any tipping point would not be that noticeable, nor so absolute, nor so sharply defined temporally. Tipping points are more likely to be noticeable at the regional level, and in the effects rather than the temperatures themselves. Eg. glacial ice melt in Antarctica, or in a shutting down of the gulf stream resulting in a colder western Europe and a warmer everywhere else. The likes of Guy McPherson who claim an abrupt extinction-level tipping point when we finally get an ice-free Arctic have no idea what they are talking about.
AQ,
You wrote –
“But it is variability superimposed on a rising trend.”
The question is – what are causing thermometers to show higher temperatures?
Neither the atmosphere, nor any of its constituents, nor four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, has prevented the Earth from cooling to its present temperature from an originally molten state.
I don’t believe you have any explanation whatsoever.
If the “rising trend” is of recent origin, then it must be due to some cause – also of recent origin, which disqualifies things like CO2, which has been in the atmosphere in far higher concentrations in the past – without stopping the planet cooling.
What do think is causing this increased environmental heat (as reflected by hotter thermometers in some places)?
Various news media are claiming this to be both the warmest July ever and the coldest July we will ever see again. With the coming El Nino they probably will get another round of hysteria. After that, what will they say if we get a cool anomaly? Actually, if we get a cool winter, they will blame that on the jet stream. On the short term, August will be interesting.
Are you on bourbon again? A tipping point as described by Hansen would be catastrophic. It is the beginning of an alleged runaway greenhouse effect as described by Hansen.
Problem is, Hansen got that pseudo-science from Carl Sagan’s description of the Venus atmosphere which he alleged was caused by a runaway greenhouse effect.
Sagan was wrong. The Pioneer probes circa 1978 measured the Venus surface temperature at 550C and that’s way too hot to have been caused by a greenhouse effect.
The idea of a tipping point begins with a runaway positive feedback. There is nothing in the atmosphere can cause a positive feedback because there is nothing to amplify heat.
NOWHERE does Hansen talk of the possibility of the oceans boiling.
He talks of the POSSIBILITY of a rise of 20C MANY CENTURIES DOWN THE TRACK, and only IF WE BURN EVERYTHING and CO2 concentrations to 5000 ppm.
Amplification is only required for positive feedback in a CLOSED system. In an open system all that is required is RETENTION.
AQ,
Retention of what, pray tell?
Not energy, of course, because each night, the Earth’s surface loses all the heat of the day. plus a little bit of its interior heat.
Your understanding of amplification and positive feedback is sorely lacking, by the way.
It doesnt appear that you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about, and using upper case doesn’t help.
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE.
Don’t know about boiling oceans I just know that Hansen invented the climate version of a tipping point. He stole it from Sagan who believed the Venusian atmosphere formed due to some kind of positive feedback that is generally referred to as a runaway greenhouse effect.
So now you don’t know about boiling oceans, despite previously claiming that climate scientists were predicting that the oceans would boil away.
The oceans would evaporate instead of boiling as they would be heated from above, theoretically speaking.
Venus has over 200,000 times the density of CO2 than earth. Surface pressure is 92 atm at 96.5% CO2. Sunlight literally cannot escape. Surface heat leaves by convection.
Tim S
I’ve read that under the major atmospheric constituents on Earth (N2, O2, Ar, CO2), N2 is the lightest, then O2, then Ar, and finally CO2.
{ Note that H2O aka water vapor, though very present in the troposphere, is nowhere in such lists. }
Now if we suppose that originally, Venus had an atmosphere similar to Earth’s, and compare Venus’ and Earth’ masses (4.8673 vs. 5.9722 * 10^24 kg): could it be possible that Venus’ mass was too small for keeping gases link N2, O2 and Ar, which then all escaped over time?
Venus has an escape velocity of 10,360 m/s. Even the lightest gases would have to be extremely hot to have sonic velocity high enough to escape.
Thank you.
IIRC the mass of nitrogen and argon in Venus’ atmosphere is similar to Earth’s. It is a small % of Venus atmosphere because of the enormous amount of CO2.
The CO2 contains all the oxygen released when UV dissociated the water and the hydrogen escaped to space.
Here is a list of molecular weights (gm/mole):
CO2 44
Ar 40
O2 32
N2 28
H2O 18
CH4 16
Dry Air 29 – (weighted average)
H2 2
A tipping point would not, generally speaking, produce a sudden peak in temperature. If there were any simple way to spot it, it would probably show up as an inflection point on a curve – a transition from concave-down to concave-up. The problem with tipping points is recognising them at all until in retrospect. All the term means is a transition of some kind to a self-reinforcing change, for instance the appearance of a positive feedback.
If one showed up this dramatically, it would be very worrying. My guess – and a guess is all I have – is that something has caused short-term redistribution of heat that shows up in surface temperatures, possibly reinforced by the water vapour from Hunga Tonga.
That does not in itself mean the current spike could not CAUSE a tipping point, of course.
There’s a school of thought that our chaotic climate tends to settle at one of four stable strange attractors spaced about 5C apart.
These are Snowball Earth at 4C, icehouse glacial at 9C, icehouse interglacial at 14C and hothouse at 19C.
The climate may be becoming unstable as artificial global warming forces us away from the icehouse interglacial set point towards the hothouse.
EM,
I suggest that if you went to that school, you might ask for a refund. If an attractor is stable, by definition it is not strange.
You wrote “These are Snowball Earth at 4C, icehouse glacial at 9C, icehouse interglacial at 14C and hothouse at 19C.” The products of someone’s fantasy are not physically possible, given a relatively stable external heat source (the Sun), and a continuously declining internal heat source.
Expose a bowl of water to a heat source equivalent to continuous sunlight, and tell me you believe it will reach an unpredictable stable state of 4 C, 9 C, 14 C, or 19 C – due to chaos.
You jest, surely.
” not physically possible”
How bout glacial and interglacial periods? Impossible in your expert opinion?
I’ve mooted a similar idea in the past, that the climate may have metastable states between which it switches – ice-on/ice-off, etc. I don’t have the nous to argue for the idea, of course, being a weak and feeble software engineer rather than a scientific colossus. It would be worrying, if true, as the political goals of 1.5C, 2C and so on might simply not lie near a stable state. We might get 6C or nothing, for instance.
It would be interesting to know if there is a valid school of thought backing the idea.
elliott…”It would be interesting to know if there is a valid school of thought backing the idea”.
***
There was a study by Tsonis et al in which they examined the different ocean oscillations. The conclusion reached was that the climate warms when the oscillations are in phase and cools when out of phase. Based on that study, Tsonis concluded that we are wasting time following the anthropogenic meme and should be checking out variabilities in the oscillations.
Potentially interesting hypothesis, but the conclusion does not follow. An additional forcing could just move all the stable states up a degree or two.
Well it does appear likely that climate does vary a few degrees naturally over a multi-centennial pattern, with sun variability as the most likely suspect, and perhaps by up to one degree on a multi-decadal oceanic oscillation pattern and up to a bit more than half a degree on a sub-decadal ENSO pattern.
And of course it isn’t wise to assume that any of these oscillations depend wholly upon a proportional radiant forcing.
You also have ozone variability as a huge climate influencer.
The UN recently announced that recovery of the ozone layer expected from restrictions on human use of fluorocarbons will cause about a half degree of cooling over the next ~4 decades.
That of course means about a half degree of warming occurred from the huge increase in human use of fluorocarbons from the 1970’s to the peak of ozone depletion in the year 2000.
thats really shocking. There has only been about six tenths of degree warming in the satellite era!
Nah, source?
Nate is lying again!!!
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc
You’ve got to read the whole thing, Bill.
“the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, requires phase down of production and consumption of many hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs DO NOT directly deplete ozone, but are powerful climate climate change gases. The Scientific Assessment Panel said this amendment is estimated to avoid 0.30.5C of warming by 2100.”
From elsewhere:
“Depletion of stratospheric ozone over the past 30 years has caused both a positive radiative forcing at the Earths surface (due to increased UV penetration) and a negative forcing (due to reduced IR emission from the stratosphere to the troposphere). The consensus from current radiative models constrained by observed ozone trends is that the net forcing is negative and of magnitude −0.10 0.05 W m−2.”
Repairing the ozone hole will thus reverse this cooling influence, and produce a slight warming.
So what you are saying Nate isn’t denying what the UN said but that the UN lies to exaggerate what they want to happen in the world?
Surprise surprise!
Once again, another of your posts is proven erroneous…
Its not erroneous Nate.
Just read the UN Environmental Program pronouncement and tell me where any of your caveats are located.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc
I am just noting that one UN program is elbowing their way to credit with another UN program and all you are doing is pulling elbowing opinions from the elbowed program up to refute it.
Each group has it own buttered side of the bread and face no consequences whatsoever in promoting it.
Are you that feeble minded? My quote above is easily found in YOUR source Bill.
Nate your quote from the article only addresses the Kigali Amendment which is only a portion of the full Montreal Protocol so your quote refutes absolutely nothing.
“Nate your quote from the article only addresses the Kigali Amendment which is only a portion of the full Montreal Protocol so your quote refutes absolutely nothing.”
Bill, The quote makes absolutely clear that “HFCs DO NOT directly deplete ozone, but are powerful climate climate change gases.”
It is the GHE of the gases that produce warming according to this article, not the ozone hole itself.
Then: “The Scientific Assessment Panel said this amendment (Kigali) is estimated to avoid 0.30 to .5C of warming by 2100.”
Your claim that “The UN recently announced that recovery of the ozone layer expected from restrictions on human use of fluorocarbons will cause about a half degree of cooling over the next ~ 4 decades.”
is FALSIFIED.
Now, will you, as usual, continue in your denial and blaming of others, or take responsibility for your mistake?
So that doesn’t change anything Nate. Still CO2 only nets out to a net .1 degree warming over the past 100 years.
And thats the only point I made and you agree with it by your claims here.
I don’t agree with much of what the UN comes up with because obviously ozone blocks significant high frequency light and we don’t know what kind of effect that has on mean global temperature because of the chemical effects of UV light. Chemistry and gas laws are why water doesn’t only evaporate at above 100c.
Nate the headline is: ”Ozone layer recovery is on track, helping avoid global warming by 0.5C”
Are you claiming the UN exaggerates so much as to get your panties in a knot and is not to be trusted?
We may well be able to find some common ground on that.
“So that doesnt change anything Nate. Still CO2 only nets out to a net .1 degree warming over the past 100 years.”
So you were wrong and won’t own up to it.. But it doesn’t matter. Because of something else entirely that you want to argue.
Sounds familiar….
The title of the press release was somewhat confusing.
So you didn’t read the article?
Nate says:
”The title of the press release was somewhat confusing.”
You may have found it so. Which seems evident with your posts complaining about what I said.
The only point I was making is the consequence of cooling resulting from UN action on anthropogenic emissions (fluorocarbons). The consequence of course is that there would need to be anthropogenic emissions of fluorocarbons that created warming that is now going to cool.
It doesn’t really matter if the UN is trying to take credit for something that never occurred. . . .that just seems to be their MO to justify their existence and reflects directly upon their credibility.
I can state that for certain as one might have an excuse if the headline were coming from the media. But there is no excuse having it come from the UN.
So even with no excuse it clearly demonstrates the uncertainty which the UN readily embraces in promoting itself. But hey whats new. Teddy Roosevelt understood that nature of non-independent institutions way over a hundred years ago and Eisenhower skewered it upon leaving office. . . yet you not only forgive it. . .you try to blame it on the messenger. . .and unless somebody calls you on it you promote it yourself despite you being abundantly aware you have no evidence of its truth one way or the other.
“The only point I was making is the consequence of cooling resulting from UN action on anthropogenic emissions (fluorocarbons). ”
“No way in their own mind could they possibly be wrong about what the complain about so they just start pretending they were complaining about something else”
Nate says:
”The only point I was making is the consequence of cooling resulting from UN action on anthropogenic emissions (fluorocarbons). ”
”No way in their own mind could they possibly be wrong about what the complain about so they just start pretending they were complaining about something else”
———————
You are losing your mind Nate. The first quote was on the UN announcement. The second quote was on Swanson switching from ”energy” to ”thermal energy” and thinking that saved his bacon after effectively claiming ice cubes having no energy when in fact they have both energy and thermal energy and when you add ice cubes to coffee. . . .it would be a violation of the conservation of energy for any of that energy to disappear from act of throwing into a cup of coffee. Just goes to show how up you and Swanson are on physics.
This
The only point I was making is the consequence of cooling resulting from UN action on anthropogenic emissions (fluorocarbons).”
is you doing what you accuse Swanson of doing.
Getting called out on an error. Not admitting error. Then pretending you were actually arguing something else.
Obviously you are unable to recognize this regular pattern of behavior in yourself.
Nate says:
”Getting called out on an error. Not admitting error. Then pretending you were actually arguing something else.”
I can only respond to that charge if you tell me where I was being a hypocrite.
Near as I can tell you are talking about me reporting the UN claimed that fixing the anthropogenically caused issue with the ozone would save a half degree warming over the next several decades.
All I did was point out that if the ozone was caused anthropogenically that it must have happened mostly during the recent climate warming that the IPCC wants to blame on CO2 at a rate over 100%.
A clear indication that the ozone committee at the UN isn’t talking to the CO2 committee at the UN revealing their politics.
when its ”settled science” this isn’t supposed to happen.
Initial Bill getting it wrong:
“The UN recently announced that recovery of the ozone layer expected from restrictions on human use of fluorocarbons will cause about a half degree of cooling over the next ~4 decades.”
Then doubling down Bill:
“you need to explain how the UNs action in curing some warming of .3 to .5C by healing the ozone layer”
Finally revisionist Bill:
“The only point I was making is the consequence of cooling resulting from UN action on anthropogenic emissions (fluorocarbons)”
And this:
“All I did was point out that if the ozone was caused anthropogenically that it must have happened mostly during the recent climate warming that the IPCC wants to blame on CO2 at a rate over 100%.”
is also wrong.
Because as the article clearly stated, it is the removal of certain GHG that is supposed to avoid FUTURE warming:
“the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, requires phase down of production and consumption of many hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs DO NOT directly deplete ozone, but are powerful climate climate change gases. The Scientific Assessment Panel said this amendment is estimated to avoid 0.30-.5C of warming by 2100.”
And here:
https://www.state.gov/u-s-ratification-of-the-kigali-amendment/
“The Kigali Amendment calls for a gradual reduction in the consumption and production of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are potent greenhouse gases. Its global implementation should avoid as much as half a degree Celsius of warming by the end of the century.”
“GHG that is supposed to avoid FUTURE warming:”
Correction:
And prevented ADDITIONAL warming up to now and going forward from CFC gases that are ALREADY being reduced.
Nate says:
”you need to explain how the UNs action in curing some warming of .3 to .5C by healing the ozone layer”
Finally revisionist Bill:
”The only point I was making is the consequence of cooling resulting from UN action on anthropogenic emissions (fluorocarbons)”
——————————
Its all consistent. You just missed the 2+2 logical consequence that the UN did not state.
If the UN is going to offset climate change warming by .5C by curing an anthropogenically caused depletion of ozone. Then it must be the case that before that humans caused .5C warming by depleting ozone in the first place.
Its just kind of coincidental that there has only been about .6C warming since 1980. . . .and the effect was not detected until 1985 increasing until 2000.
Of course the guy at the UN writing the article had that fact fly right over his head. And it also apparently flew through your head ear to ear nonstop as well.
Certainly if they had actually put in the article that the half degree of cooling that would result from the fix was a half degree of warming from destroying ozone it might have been more apparent to you and them.
But thats the hilarious part! Keystone Kops all the way!
But I suspect Nate never took a class in logic so he will probably want that deduction peer reviewed. LMAO!
“If the UN is going to offset climate change warming by .5C by curing an anthropogenically caused depletion of ozone.”
“Then it must be the case that before that humans caused .5C warming by depleting ozone in the first place.”
So you give up on revising your previous errors. Now we are back to doubling down on them!
The article (and all other sources) clearly state that it is the GH gasses (CFCs, HFCs) that we emitted that are causing the warming, not the ozone hole!
Show any quote that agrees that it is the ozone hole itself that causes warming.
You are quite determined to get the facts wrong, it seems.
“Its all consistent. You just missed the 2+2 logical consequence that the UN did not state.”
Faulty logic.
They didn’t state it because it came from your imagination. Conveniently so.
Two things are happening.
1. CFC levels rose in the last century, stopped rising in ~ 2000 and are beginning to decrease.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/ocean-carbon-acidification-data-system/oceans/images/nhemispherecfcs3.png
2. Ozone in the stratosphere has been depleting in the last century. The ozone hole was observed in the 1980s. It has recently stopped deepening and is beginning to heal.
It is well known that CFCs are strong GHG.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Recent_growth_trends
They produce ~ 6 % of the current radiative forcing of all GHG.
Ozone is a GHG AND it also blocks UV rays. For global warming these two are CANCELLING effects. Its NET forcing is slightly negative according to the quote I showed you.
So if one were applying logic, they would attribute past GW to #1, and nothing or slight cooling to #2.
For some unknow reason you attribute past GW to #2.
That is not logical.
You are terrible at logic Nate.
If you remove CFC’s put their by humans and it causes .5c cooling influence on the earth’s surface. (thats the UN statement)
therefore:
The act of humans adding CFC must have caused a .5c warming influence on the surface. (my claim which you are denying because yo daddy didn’t say it)
“If you remove CFCs put their by humans and it causes .5c cooling influence on the earths surface. (thats the UN statement)
therefore:
The act of humans adding CFC must have caused a .5c warming influence on the surface. (my claim which you are denying because yo daddy didnt say it)”
Wow, we are back to Revisionist Bill. You now out
“by depleting ozone in the first place.”
Your premise above is wrong.
Correct premise from UN
If you end CFC emissions, there will be, 4 decades from now, 0.5c less warming than would have happened if we continued increasing CFC emissions after 1987.
Your therefore statement is thus not logical.
Auditors would remove that Nate.
Projections are not allowed in general. One cannot take credit for something that never happened. Thats bad enough. However, in the soundbite that fact isn’t even disclosed.
Why not just claim emissions would have quintupled and take credit for the prevention of 2.5 degrees of warming?
Of course after reading the article if one wants to recognize the taking of credit for something that never happened one doesn’t even know what has been actually accomplished.
I see that a lot in policy arenas where regulation failed to fix anything so they make up a number regarding what was prevented to give them something to take credit for and we are left totally not knowing if all the restrictions actually did anything. Its total BS! Its deceptive and the public is being conned.
That’s why auditors don’t allow the accrual of never earned income, nor any claims regarding whether it even exists as a likely possibility. Thats a standard of accounting! Its a standard because its deception is well understood by policy makers and it was made a standard. But when it comes to touting their own horn. . .gee thats different. Right Nate?
In general, projecting what auditors would have done in the place of scientists is pointless.
“taking of credit for something that never happened”
Sure you can quibble, but of all the GH gases, CFCs are the only ones whose emissions have been successfully reduced.
They can rightfully take credit for that.
Nate says:
”Sure you can quibble”
And you have zero basis for handwaving it away, but you do anyway. Are you one of the hogs with your face in the trough?
Standard Bill behavior when he loses another argument on the facts…
You didn’t offer any facts Nate.
You implied that CFCs are an important GHG but they aren’t.
We are left with zero understanding of the .5c cooling the UN claims to have saved. But no problem we have Nate here attempting to handwave it away.
Accountants in auditing financial records don’t allow such nonsense to be published about their results. . . .and you think its OK. Obviously your interest isn’t that of the public so whose interest are you looking out for?
Picked this up from another thread here on Dr. Judith Curry.
Dr. Curry lays the deception at the feet of the UN Environmental Program doing exactly what we are talking about them doing here.
If its too heart wrenching for you watch the whole thing. Check out the short piece starting at the 3 minute mark.
https://youtu.be/vVi01vJ4nxM
“We are left with zero understanding of the .5c cooling”
You claimed to have understood it. But I showed you that your understanding was incorrect.
Beyond that, I have no interest in helping you disentangle from all your confusions.
So whatever additional baiting you try, I’m done discussing it.
Nate says:
” ”We are left with zero understanding of the .5c cooling”
You claimed to have understood it. But I showed you that your understanding was incorrect.
———————————–
No how can one understand it. All I did was repeat their primary statement.
You took issue with their statement but you want to blame me.
I didn’t write it.
Nate says:
”Beyond that, I have no interest in helping you disentangle from all your confusions.
So whatever additional baiting you try, Im done discussing it.”
Yep this would be a good time to resign. You aren’t doing well at all.
since Nate is resigning I will leave it with this. Dr Curry does a good job explaining whats going on in the processes of todays science and at the UN with its the rampant corruption of science. She has experienced it first hand.
https://youtu.be/vVi01vJ4nxM
“These are Snowball Earth at 4C, icehouse glacial at 9C, icehouse interglacial at 14C and hothouse at 19C.”
I would say peak interglacial are at 17 C and in colder parts of interglacial they are about 14 C.
If snowball earth average temperature is 4 C, it’s got a pretty warm tropics.
In terms glacial periods they go up and down quite a bit, 9 C is around the coldest time our last glacial period got.
And it’s coldest known time, Earth has ever been.
It seems most of time of glaciation period is around 11-12 C and peaking in short time to around 15 C.
Still high pressure over Tahiti. Typhoon approaches east coast of China.
Date Tahiti (hPa)
3 Aug 2023 1017.00
https://i.ibb.co/8B3VtHH/5836fc48-9b6b-43d9-9444-6b74b7567fe5.jpg
Robertson’s ignorance & arrogance, once more shown in one little sentence:
” There was no strong LN till 2008. Meantime, the trend had been flat for 8 years. ”
What a ridiculous person.
You just need to look at MEI
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
and you immediately see that immediately after the 1998 El Nino, we had a strong La Nina.
It started in July 1998 with an index of -1.42 and lasted 36 months in sequence till June 2001.
Here is the historical sort for strong La Ninas (starting year, sum of indices below treshold):
1892: -54.67
1908: -52.22
1973: -48.71
2020: -46.80
1954: -40.45
1915: -38.97
1998: -37.66
During the UAH satellite era since December 1978, only the last La Nina (2020-2023, 34 months in sequence) was higher than 1998.
Meiv2 for Jun 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/08/meiv2.jpeg
Care to run your favorite OLS linear trend over all of the data in Meiv2?
Blindsley H00d
Thank you for confirming on this blog your sissyish, disingenuous tendency to insinuate things that are, as always, far remote from the truth.
You are such a poor person, able only to discredit and denigrate everything that you can’t technically, let alone scientifically contradict.
Here is another MEI data presentation
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Av4_ql0pe9ymZcg4KYpg91b47481GmT/view
far more understandable than your persistent, opinionated
– hiding of linking data points together – based on a ridiculous reason
and
– grading of climate time series as if they were some input to an electronic amplifier.
*
Oh I’m sure that your friends in the denial of warming (and in between, even of the GHE, n’est-ce pas) certainly will support you!
*
Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs, Blindsley H00d?
I’m waiting for your superb demonstration.
All I said was ‘Care to run your favorite OLS linear trend over all of the data in Meiv2?” You see it run on other data. Why not Meiv2?
“Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs”
Do you think that VPs excellent treatment on this very topic is wrong? That is what I’ll quote in any discussion on this topic.
P.S. SRM are non-gaussian. CxRMs are near gaussian. Do you dispute that?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/fig-2-low-pass-gaussian-ctrm-compare.png
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/fig-1-gaussian-simple-mean-frequency-plots.png
“Here is another MEI data presentation”
Care to run an OLS over the whole of that data source?
As in your favorite Excel.
https://imgur.com/HH218D9
Blindsley H00d
I repeat for the opinionated sissyish male:
” Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs, Blindsley H00d?
Im waiting for your superb demonstration. ”
And don’t try to divert wrt Vaughan Pratt: the comparison has nothing to do with his excellent work, which bypasses ours by light years.
Why do you think that VP created his CTRM if it was not for more accuracy. He also deprecated SRM for the same reason.
I have been using his calculations since 2014.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
“The common use of jittering, sub-sampled single running means with all the distortions and ‘noise’ leakage that they imply. Any Engineer would be fired if they were to use or rely on such poor instrumentation/data summaries in their day to day work.”
Blinny: Do you dispute the SRMs are less accurate than CTRMs?
VPs own words
“too many people settle for a simple running mean, whose frequency response you would not wish on your worst enemy because of the nasty side lobes”
“July 2023 was an unusual month, with sudden warmth and a few record or near-record high temperatures. ”
Meh.. just a blip, one of the last gasps of a warm world. Enjoy it. Enjoy what’s left of the inter-glacial. Earth is cooler now than the Holocene Optimum, when the Arctic was periodically free of sea ice in the summer, & the tree line extended all the way up to the northern shores of Alaska/Canada. In addition, proxies show a long-term, approx. 3,000 year cooling trend that hasn’t been reversed by recent warming.
Oooh… typical WUWT blah blah.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Oooh typical WUWT blah blah.”
Are you claiming “blah blah” expertise, or are you trying to avoid admitting that you cannot actually describe the GHE?
Describing the GHE should be easy, given your “blah blah” expertise.
Oooh, the Flynnson stalker with his GHE syndrome is here again.
Binny,
You wrote
“Oooh typical WUWT blah blah”
Are you claiming “blah blah” expertise, or are you trying to avoid admitting that you cannot actually describe the GHE?
Describing the GHE should be easy, given your “blah blah” expertise.
Oooh, the Flynnson stalker with his GHE syndrome is here again. And in between is in such a morbid state of mind, that he now constantly repeats his all time redundant replies.
Binny,
You wrote
“Oooh typical WUWT blah blah”.
Are you claiming “blah blah” expertise, or are you trying to avoid admitting that you cannot actually describe the GHE?
Describing the GHE should be easy, given your “blah blah” expertise.
Roy, why dont you mention solar activity as a potential cause of the unusually hot weather? This solar cycle has been very unusual and a long way off the predicted activity. Solar activity was and is very high, which is known to effect our magnetic field and the GCR effect on cloud formation.
It is at least a correlation worth looking at – extra-ordinary solar activity and extra-ordinarily hot weather on earth.
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle.html
Despite being stronger than predicted, it is still below average. And it barely effects temperatures anyway. If it had any noticeable effect the 1950s would have been our warmest decade.
AQ,
A couple of points.
You wrote “And it barely effects temperatures anyway.”.
“Barely” is somewhat vague in scientific terms, I think you’d agree.
The other point is that you probably meant “affect”, but that’s only a guess on my part. I only mention your presumed sloppiness, due to your earlier patronizing comment about someone using a play on words.
I trust you can take what you dish out with the same aplomb as I would.
Carry on demonstrating your intelligence level.
It appears I have another stalker. I don’t recall offering assistance to Deniers Without Friends.
AQ,
A couple of points.
You wrote “And it barely effects temperatures anyway.”.
“Barely” is somewhat vague in scientific terms, I think youd agree.
The other point is that you probably meant “affect”, but thats only a guess on my part. I only mention your presumed sloppiness, due to your earlier patronizing comment about someone using a play on words.
I trust you can take what you dish out with the same aplomb as I would.
Carry on demonstrating your intelligence level, in this instance, babbling about Deniers Without Friends, and your recollections of something you didn’t do for people who didn’t exist!
How are you going trying to describe the mythical GHE?
Not too well, I imagine.
Someone here is in desperate need of attention.
AQ,
A couple of points.
You wrote “And it barely affects temperatures anyway.”.
“Barely” is somewhat vague in scientific terms, I think you’d agree.
The other point is that you probably meant “affect”, but thats only a guess on my part. I only mention your presumed sloppiness, due to your earlier patronizing comment about someone using a play on words.
I trust you can take what you dish out with the same aplomb as I would.
Carry on demonstrating your intelligence level, in this instance, babbling about Deniers Without Friends, and your recollections of something you didnt do for people who didnt exist!
How are you going trying to describe the mythical GHE?
Not too well, I imagine.
It is clearly not the only direct factor effecting our climate, but the Grand Solar Minima correlation with the cold periods in the last 1000 years, and the 1000 year warm periods correlating with high solar activity means we need to understand the impact of magnetic fields on our climate, if not individual cycles, higher levels of activity over a period of time.
And a sunspot number of 150 is not low. It is higher than many maximum over the last 200 years.
Fortunately there are many research teams investigating this topic – I track what they are reporting. Ultimately, all of our climate comes from the sun, its only about how it effects our climate.
For over 80 years until 2008 the solar wind was very strong.
This means our molten core is at maximum temperature.
The core is now trying to warm the mantle.
Trouble is ahead.
The crust is going to cool in the 2030s.
Lots of volcanoes and earthquakes are coming.
We are very cold by 2040.
What you try to explain I formally understand. But… where is in your mind any correlation between solar activity and LT temperatures?
Solar
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MKEUFu40Ol3Nk9Mqp1441CDA8696wQ4a/view
UAH 6.0 LT Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y4wuDHZ-tw7zZGQagxuX0b8OkWLneLKP/view
Top 10 in a sort of the UAH anomalies:
2016 2 0.70
2023 7 0.64
2016 3 0.64
1998 4 0.62
2016 4 0.61
2020 2 0.59
1998 5 0.52
1998 2 0.49
2017 10 0.47
2019 9 0.45
They hardly match peaks in solar activity, except if our understanding of it differs a lot.
I’m not seeing anything unusual about SC25 except that it is inconsistent with all those grand solar minimum predictions we’ve seen over the last decade or two.
bdgwx
Correct, but… it was not my point.
I just wanted to highlight the verifiable fact that peaks and drops in temperature records hardly are correlated to solar activity.
It’s NOT the Sun, huh :–)
Binny,
You wrote –
“I just wanted to highlight the verifiable fact that peaks and drops in temperature records hardly are correlated to solar activity.”
I agree. The sun is incapable of stopping the Earth from cooling (obviously).
Rises and falls in the temperature of thermometers are due to rises and falls of the environment surrounding those thermometers.
Nothing to do with any mythical GHE, CO2, H2O, or any other magical thinking.
My post was meant for Guy Warren.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Troposphere and surface temperatures are very different. For example, during hurricanes, satellites detect very strong infrared radiation from the troposphere, and the sea surface drops as much as 2-3 degrees C. The same is true in winter at high latitudes, when water vapor penetrates into the stratosphere. I suppose that in summer in high pressure zones over land satellites receive very strong surface radiation, but is it the temperature of the troposphere?
We can see that in the tropopause, at 100 hPa, there is a constant temperature of -80 C. There are no anomalies in the temperature of the troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2023.png
But there is a large rise in H2O at 10hpa.
Where this idea came from. This is misinformation. 10 hPa is the zone of ozone production by UVC. Even if water vapor were to get there, it doesn’t matter much. What does matter is UV radiation below 242 nm.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
“This is misinformation”
From NASA
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/mls_h2o_qbo_lat_45S-45N_10hPa.png
Ozone is naturally formed and destroyed by the following set of reactions.
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/molsim/teaching/fall2008/ozone/Ozone%20website_files/Page603.htm
These reactions, proposed by Sydney Chapman in 1930, explain the presence of ozone in the stratosphere. Oxygen molecules can be photolyzed by UV radiation, forming oxygen radicals in reaction 1. In reaction 2, these reactive oxygen radicals can combine with an oxygen molecule to form ozone. M in this reaction is any third molecule: M absorbs heat from this reaction. The increasing temperature profile of the stratosphere results from this reaction. In reaction 3, ozone is destroyed by UV radiation, forming an oxygen radical and an oxygen molecule. Ozone can also be destroyed by combining with the radical, as seen in reaction 4.
So H2O is not a greenhouse gas then?
The source of infrared radiation in the stratosphere is only the Chapman reaction, which is a photochemical reaction. Negligible amounts of water can only heat up as particles take up the radiation released during this reaction.
Most of the energy radiating to space is IR. So all IR passes through the stratosphere.
You are not taking into account the low density of the stratosphere. In the stratosphere, gas behaves like in the atmosphere of Mars. Invariably, the lowest temperature is detected by satellites at 100 hPa. The temperature rises from the upper stratosphere due to the breakdown of an O2 particle by a photon with an energy below 242 nm.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_10_nh_f00.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t10_nh_f00.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
So adding extra H2O vapor or liquid/solid will not effect the transfer of IR though the stratosphere in any way?
No, because the stratosphere responds only to high-energy radiation, such as gamma rays, galactic radiation and radiation shorter than 242 nm. Water vapor and CO2 from the troposphere do not raise the temperature in the tropopause.
Ozone absorbs UVB radiation, which breaks down O3 molecules without raising the temperature. This means that ozone has a cooling effect on the troposphere.
Therefore, during times of strong sunshine, ozone can save you from skin cancer.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2021.png
Its also the case that water in the stratosphere can’t warm the surface in accordance with M&W’s mathematical theory of global warming. It is required that effect be in the troposphere and create a hotspot using convection limitation as the means. Since the stratosphere warms as it gets higher only believes in the 3rd grader radiation model still believes that will warm the surface.
Unfortunately largely due to the efforts of certain scientists promoted well beyond their Peter’s Principle level of competence probably about half the public and 3/4ths of the world’s scientists still believe that’s a viable model.
So how can it be that far more scientists are deceived than the public on a matter of science? LOL! Its a 3 letter word.
EGO. It may take a few generations to fix the problem.
“The pressure on the Martian surface reaches only 30 Pa (0.30 hPa) at the top of Olympus Mons, while at the bottom of the Hellas basin it reaches 1155 Pa (11.55 hPa); the average atmospheric pressure on Mars is 600 Pa. On Earth, such pressure prevails at an altitude of 35 km above the sea surface; this represents less than 1% of the pressure at the Earth’s surface (1013 hPa).”
The water vapor in the tropopause assumes the temperature of the tropopause, i.e. -80 C.
https://i.ibb.co/g3G1vnb/0b053cdf-ace6-4ae2-ba3b-6e252c9bffa1.jpg
There is H2O there though.
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/mls_h2o_qbo_lat_45S-45N_10hPa.png
I think that graphic pretty well sums up the effect of Hunga Tonga on the stratosphere.
Some seem to not understand that 10 hPa atmospheric pressure means an altitude around 26 km: that is above the lower stratosphere, and has no longer anything in common with the tropopause (between 70 hPa and 400 hPa).
And some are even so ignorant that they don’t understand what means ‘1 ppm’ in the H2O @ 10 hPa graphic they so proudly show everywhere, as it has to be compared with over 410 ppm CO2 at the same altitude.
By the way, the dark green in the graphic (1 ppm H2O) probably is due to the Hunga Tonga eruption (January 14-15, 2022).
binny is claiming that CO2 is 400 ppmv at an altitude with pressure = 10hPa which is about 29,000 metres or 29 kilometres.
Why not?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1518727
“By the way, the dark green in the graphic (1 ppm H2O) probably is due to the Hunga Tonga eruption (January 14-15, 2022).”
You don’t say. /sarc
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/mls_h2o_qbo_profile_Equator.png
binny is the type who, when witnessing Godiva ride naked through the street of Coventry would note that she was riding a horse.
Blinny: So how do you explain the +1 ppm to -1 ppm caption on the range?
Small but powerful Dora now a major Category 4 hurricane in the eastern Pacific
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/08/02/hurricane-dora-slated-rapidly-intensify-it-churns-eastern-pacific/
“HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – Hurricane Dora has continued to intensify and is now a major Category 4 storm as it churns toward the Central Pacific.
At 5 a.m. Thursday, Dora was located far from Hawaii in the eastern Pacific about 2,430 miles east-southeast of Hilo. It was packing winds near 125 mph and moving west at 18 mph.”
…
“Dora is expected to reach an area of increasing easterly shear by Thursday, and that could start a gradual weakening trend late Thursday into Friday.”
I’m still not expecting a record. But my expectation for 2023 has jumped up to 0.32 +/- 0.06 C. That gives 2023 about a 10% chance of a new record. The YtD average is 0.31 C. The record to beat is 2016 at 0.39 C.
Do you think the record will be set in the southern hemisphere? On the surface or in the troposphere?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2023.png
And here we have something interesting.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_SH_2023.png
I don’t know. I don’t track the values by hemisphere.
Whether this year will beat 2016 will depend on the El Niño. A strong EN will definitely top 2016. But this EN is having a tough time even getting above 1.0C. It’s trapped in the box!
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Yes, it is very interesting what happens to the temperature under the equatorial Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202308.gif
Very interesting, indeed! It explains a lot.
The official ENSO3.4 figure for the week ending Jul 28 is +1.2.
For the umpteenth time, this is not official, and even their own documentation recommends using other sources due to its old methodology.
If you call CDAS ‘unofficial’ also
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
It falls the most in the Pacific West. The Great Barrier Reef may be booming.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_sst-trend-7d_v3.1_seel_current.png
That coincides with the mild temps around the Philippines. Not much “heat trapping” there.
The probability of a very strong El Nino this year doesn’t seem very high to me:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Don’t forget that a few years have passed between the end of the strong La Nina in 2012 and the start of the strong El Nio in 2015:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
I wouldn’t wonder if something similar would happen after the even stronger La Nina we experienced from 2020 till beginning of this year.
How about next year?
“In 2020, regulations introduced by the IMO imposed strict limits on the sulphur content of marine fuels. The new rules lowered the maximum percentage of sulphur from 3.5% to 0.5% for all ships operating worldwide. ”
“Sulphur particles contained in ships exhaust fumes have been counteracting some of the warming coming from greenhouse gases. But lowering the sulphur content of marine fuel has weakened the masking effect, effectively giving a boost to warming.
Some researchers have proposed that the drop in SO2 as a result of the IMOs clean air regulations could be behind a recent spike in global sea surface temperature.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/
If you look at Nullschoolearth you can find a layer that shows Nitrous Oxides. You can follow the main shipping routes by the distinctive NOxx trails across the oceans.
The key bit is how small the percentage of ocean that is actually impacted by the NOxx emissions. Most of the ocean hardly ever if ever actually sees any ships.
I don’t know how well SOxx mix in with the entire atmosphere but if the effect is similar to NOxx then it won’t have much impact on SST.
I’m thinking the only way for SST to have the spikes in temperature being observed is if there is a reduction in cloud cover.
If there is a reduction in cloud cover then the SST spikes could be due to greater than usual sunlight reaching the ocean surface.
I don’t know where to find if there is less cloud than normal in the past couple of months.
There is no way to explain sudden SST spikes with the gradual CO2 emissions.
Ken,
Ocean surface “hotspots” are detected because of SST anomalies. The source of the heat is crustal heat flows. The hotspots wander erratically, and one hypothesis is that they are due to mantle plumes, and there are many papers examining this possibility.
Persistent hotspots are unlikely to result from increased sunlight, as the heat of the day is radiated away at night. Who really knows for sure?
The effect of CO2 is supposedly minor compared with H2O, and of course the atmosphere above the ocean contains about as much H2O as is possible.
If H2O had “greenhouse gas” warming properties, then one might think that the surface of the ocean would be hotter than an arid desert at equivalent latitude. This is demonstrably not the case.
Maybe the GHE is a myth.
“The source of the heat is crustal heat flows”
That seems unlikely. Why would there be an increase in crustal heat flows? Evidence required.
“then one might think that the surface of the ocean would be hotter than an arid desert”
One would think that if one ignored the tremendous heat capacity of the ocean.
Why would one do that if one was intelligent?
NOAA has developed a technique for raising the SST. They liberally switch between measuring water temperature in the water intake manifold of ships and the old bucket method. Whichever one reads highest is recorded by NOAA. Same with land temps. They move the thermometers closer to oceans where it’s warmer and ignore temps on mountains.
There is another effect. It turns out the sulfur also causes more soot. lowering the sulfur makes the combustion process more clean. Diesel trucks running ultra low sulfur fuel have amazingly clean exhaust. Visit a foreign country where they do not hydrotreat the fuel, and you will see the difference in smoke content of the exhaust.
In winter, the stratosphere over Antarctica reaches almost to the surface.
https://i.ibb.co/4PHWj0J/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-08-03-231914.png
A look at Antarctica’s sea ice extent shows that the hard drop is now weakening:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Not the seasonal effect matters, but the difference between 2023 and all years before. Even the drop in 2016 wasn’t that strong.
What did happen there?
Not due to the air temperature (or CO2)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-sopol.jpeg
thats correct! If you look at summer temperatures in the arctic they have cooled. The Arctic has warmed in the winter but no ice is melting in the winter. Conclusion: ice extent varies because of ocean current temperatures and low ice extent cools the oceans and high ice extent warms the oceans.
Could you please play marbles somewhere else?
You’re not interested in discussing anything, just showing the world your poor ‘5 year low pass’ graphics.
That correspond to VPs calculations. Not that you have any problem with him.
Not Vaughan Pratt is a problem here: your persistent stubborn lying is.
I don’t lie. Unlike you who can’t even get simple calculations correct.
Blindsley H00d
Show us on this blog where I couldn’t ‘even get simple calculations correct’.
Show us!
When you suggested that C3TM and C5TM did not have the same corner frequency.
The hard drop, as you put it, was likely in the archipelago, in ocean waters closer to South America than the central continent. There is no signs of warming on the Antarctic continent.
To put things in perspective, here’s a link from Ren, immediately above your post, showing an average temp of -66C at Concordia Station. The date in Polish is 4 Aug 2023. The low was -73C and the high -57C.
Concordia station is on the opposite side of the archipelago which extend northward. and is well inland.
https://i.ibb.co/4PHWj0J/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-08-03-231914.png
Concordia location can be seen on this wiki page…2nd photo down…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordia_Station
daveo…”So tell me Gordo, youre an expert on Quantum Theory, but dont understand basic spectrometry? Wow, thats actually quite impressive. Or is it that you watched what the bleep do we know and you now think youre an expert on Quantum Physics? The latter would make more sense”.
***
Is there a point to this mindless rant? You have not indicated what exceptions you have taken to my understanding of spectroscopy but, hey, that’s typical of an alarmist nimrod. Are you not the same g00f who was taking shots at Roy over him allegedly profiting from skepticism?
You represent a lower class of alarmists, one who can only take shots but has zero understanding of basic physics.
Basic quantum physics and spectrometry explain the greenhouse effect (and anthropogenically perturbed greenhouse effect – adding a shiit-tonne more GHGs and absorbing a shiit-tonne more energy) very succinctly. If you have any interest in comprehending science you know that.
reply to Elliot above…testing posting issue…
elliot…re tipping points…
***
It has never been explained by climate alarmist how the positive feedback works without a heat amplifier.
The tipping point occurred when Tipper left Al Gore
yes..Tipper and Al left a tremendous legacy of rooting out demonic phrases in rock songs. That was their specialty, listening to rock, not for the enjoyment, but to seek out inappropriate phrases. They are the types who would toke MJ but never inhale.
Actually, I’m not even a scientist and I can explain it. Water vapour, for instance, is a greenhouse gas. Add a forcing and the atmosphere warms. Warm the atmosphere and the amount of water vapour it carries will increase. Increase the water vapour and you increase the forcing. Increase the forcing and the atmosphere warms more.
Simple.
Can you then explain the effect of latent heat in the upper atmosphere? Is cloud and rain formation adiabatic? If so, what happens to the latent heat?
“Is cloud and rain formation adiabatic? If so, what happens to the latent heat? ”
If enough latent heat is released you get continued convection, which is how thunderstorms form. Ultimately the heat radiates to space as infrared radiation.
EM,
You wrote –
“Ultimately the heat radiates to space as infrared radiation.”
Exactly. All heat from the Earth does. From the interior, generated by man on the surface, absorbed from the Sun – all flees to space.
Hence, the progressive and inexorable cooling of the Earth.
Thus cooling the surface in order to form the vapor.
tim s…”what happens to the latent heat?”
***
According to some theories where deserts abut jungles, the dry heat produced when WV converts back to water droplets moves laterally to produce deserts.
Under adiabatic conditions, the latent heat of condensation results in a rise in temperature. Rain is a heat transfer mechanism.
Where do I start? Not quite at the beginning.
You wrote – “Warm the atmosphere and the amount of water vapour it carries will increase.”
Except when it’s really hot, of course. Like in an arid desert. Well, not only when it’s really hot. Even when it’s moderately hot.
The point is that the amount of water vapour (which some cultist believe is a “greenhouse gas”j has little correlation with temperature. Both the hottest places on Earth, as well as the coldest, are notable for their lack of water vapour in the atmosphere.
Simple? Cultists probably are.
Elliot, thanks for admitting you aren’t a scientist.
A molecule in the atmosphere that receives a forcing, such as from Sun, will increase its energy. That energy could then be transferred to other molecules. At some point, if the forcing continues, the atmosphere might reach a final T. There would be no more increase in T.
Now, it more molecules are added, the same thing happens. Everything reaches the same T, for the same forcing. Adding more molecules does NOT raise the final T.
A simple analogy is adding ice cubes to a cup of hot coffee that is at temperature T. No matter how many ice cubes you add, the coffee’s temperature will not increase. You’ve added energy to the coffee, but the temperature will not increase.
Also, be cautious about using the term “greenhouse gas”. That’s cult-speak. The scientific term is “radiative gas”. Earth is not a greenhouse.
Thanks again for being honest. Honest commenters are rare here.
Speaking of ignorance of science, grammie clone wrote:
No, in your bogus red herring, the energy per unit mass contained in the mixture of coffee and ice will be lower. The net energy will be the sum of the thermal energy in the hot coffee plus that represented by the ice cubes, including latent energy, which is a negative, since there’s a phase change which requires energy to proceed.
grammie clone still hasn’t made it past high school physics.
Energy has been added, but the temperature does not increase. You can use the ice to irradiate the cup, if adding mass confuses you. Still no increase in temperature.
I do not expect children to understand.
Adding radiant heat or reducing radiant heat loss, without changing the mass, is more relevant, and has a completely different result.
If the goal is to obfuscate and mislead people, then by all means add mass.
I don’t believe you and Swanson are purposely trying “to obfuscate and mislead people”, Nate. It’s more related to the fact that you don’t understand ANY of this.
My example to Elliott clearly explained that adding more mass to a system did not result in an energy increase. The mass would have to be at the right temperature to provide an energy increase.
I don’t expect children to understand.
grammie clone can’t understand that “adding ice cubes to a cup of hot coffee” means immersing the ice in the hot coffee. That’s not the same as placing the ice cubes around the outside of the cup. The result is going to be different than simply adding the IR radiation from the ice cubes to the external surface of the cup.
grammie clone’s analogy does not ADD ENERGY to the mass of the cup plus that of the ice.
Swanson, adding energy to a system adds energy to the system.
Science is hard for children, huh?
grammie clone still can’t grasp the basic fact that his scenario doesn’t ADD ENERGY to the coffee cup. Worse, the concept of Entropy escapes him as well. He will never make it thru high school physics.
“A simple analogy is adding ice cubes” and its a bad analogy, because it adds mass which changes the result entirely from the real situation of interest.
Thus it is DESIGNED to obfuscate and mislead people.
Child Swanson, now you’re claiming ice doesn’t have any energy.
It’s obviously time for your nap.
E,
Using your inexhaustible fund of knowledge, you should be able to quickly provide a description of the GHE, rather than trying to convince anybody that a hotter body can increase its temperature by absorbable energy radiated by a colder one.
What is the GHE supposed to do anyway? Make the globe hotter after allowing that same globe to cool for four and a half billion years?
You can’t or won’t say, will you?
Maybe you should just attack me personally, rather than explain why anybody at all should believe you claiming the existence of something that you can’t even describe!
Give it a try.
swannie…”Entropy escapes him as well”.
***
Can you explain entropy for us, Swannie? It’s likely like your definition of the 2nd law where heat can be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot.
grammie clone wrote:
Any mass of material has internal thermal energy as measured by it’s temperature. Add two masses at different temperatures together and the result would that the final temperature will reach some intermediate value based on the heat capacities of the two materials. Phase changes confuse things, such as the fact that energy is released when water vapor condenses or ice freezes. The opposite is true for melting ice, which requires energy addition to the solid.
So, mixing ice and hot coffee (that’s mostly water) results in the ice melting and the coffee cooling. The cooling will proceed until the water cools to the freezing point or all the ice melts. The point is that in this instance, the latent heat in ice is negative, as it cools the resulting mixture, reducing the thermal energy content of the mix.
E,
And adding two gases at different temperature results in the colder getting hotter, and the warmer getting colder.
CO2, H2O, oxygen, nitrogen – all act the same.
How does colder CO2 make a warmer object hotter?
Trick gotcha – it doesn’t. “Back-radiation”, if coming from a colder object, does not increase the temperature of a warmer object.
Now you might see why nobody has managed to describe the GHE so far. Maybe you might care to try, but you will be doomed to failure, like everyone else who thought they could. Look for a description on the internet, if you think it will help.
Very good, Swanson. You must have had your nap and consulted with an adult.
You now admit ice has energy. So when ice is added to the system, energy is added to the system. Energy is added but the temperature does NOT increase.
Who said children can’t learn?
They just have to have the right teachers….
grammie clone still doesn’t get it. Adding ice cubes to a cup of hot water means that you are adding mass to the container. The “cup of water” no longer exists, so you have not “added energy to the coffee”. The resulting amount of water is colder and thus has less energy per unit of mass than that of the initial cup of hot water, as you noted.
From a thermodynamic point of view, the now colder water has less available energy for conversion to another form because of Carnot limits.
E. Swanson says:
”grammie clone still cant grasp the basic fact that his scenario doesnt ADD ENERGY to the coffee cup. Worse, the concept of Entropy escapes him as well. He will never make it thru high school physics.”
Now Swanson claims that less ”available” energy is the equivalent of less energy. Arguing with these guys that flop like fishes in the bottom of the boat really is ridiculous. No way in their own mind could they possibly be wrong about what the complain about so they just start pretending they were complaining about something else and next week Swanson will be wrong again on the same point.
“No way in their own mind could they possibly be wrong about what the complain about so they just start pretending they were complaining about something else ”
Ha! Bill that is precisely YOUR MO.
Swanson, no matter how many times you change your story, you can’t change reality. Adding ice to a cup of coffee adds energy.
But, you’re such a child you will keep trying to pervert reality.
That’s why this is so much fun.
grammie clone repeats his display of ignorance:
He obviously can’t comprehend this:
British thermal unit
After adding the ice, the mixture cools. That’s not “adding energy”, it represents a loss of thermal energy as the negative latent heat of fusion of the ice is released.
grammie clone still hasnt made it past high school physics.
E. Swanson says:
”Adding ice to a cup of coffee adds energy.
He obviously cant comprehend this:
British thermal unit
After adding the ice, the mixture cools. Thats not adding energy, it represents a loss of thermal energy as the negative latent heat of fusion of the ice is released.
grammie clone still hasnt made it past high school physics.”
I guess Swanson believes ”thermal energy” is the one and only form of energy. Talking about failing high school physics!
Swanson, are you going to be here all week just to display your ignorance of thermodynamics?
You’re wasting your time. We already know.
Re: adding ice to water.
The bad analogy fallacy.
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/faulty-analogy.html#:~:text=This%20fallacy%20consists%20in%20assuming,alike%20in%20some%20other%20respect.
Hunter wrote:
So, what other “form of energy” is transferred by placing ice in a cup of hot water?
Yes the ice adds thermal energy to the coffee. . .unless of course the ice is at absolute zero which isn’t possible to achieve.
But we are just having fun with you Swanson as the claim you were disputing was ”energy” not ”thermal energy” after the ice with its existing thermal energy is added the ice may melt depending upon the existing temperature of the coffee and its environment and convert some of that thermal energy into latent heat energy.
As I have pointed out before you are a smart guy but you really lack the discipline to be a good scientist. But discipline is a learned trait so you can remain hopeful.
Hunter wrote:
No, the negative latent energy of the ice is released, causing the resulting mass of water to cool. As the ice melts, it loses the stored latent heat, there’s no conversion of sensible thermal energy into more latent heat.
However, entropy increases.
E. Swanson says:
”No, the negative latent energy of the ice is released, causing the resulting mass of water to cool. As the ice melts, it loses the stored latent heat, theres no conversion of sensible thermal energy into more latent heat.”
I can appreciate it must be a long long time since you actually boned up on latent heat. I am getting on in years too and sometimes find it necessary to refresh my memory.
In this case you are very wrong. Its just the opposite. Latent heat is the energy that holds the molecules apart. Evaporation of water absorbs energy from the surrounding water and uses that energy within the bonds between the molecules doing work, carrying that latent heat up in to the sky where they release that energy and the water condenses or freezes.
Melting ice is a process of absorbing energy without changing temperature. . . .not releasing it. You did get the coffee cooling right but if energy was being released into the coffee it would warm.
Hunter wrote:
So, it appears that Hunter now agrees that grammie clone was wrong when he wrote:
.
The coffee cools because thermal energy is being removed to melt the ice.
Nice try Swanson but no cigar.
Add ice to coffee and you are adding energy but the coffee doesn’t warm is true.
What happens is the ice is added and begins to melt. But the process of melting is increasing the volume of coffee while absorbing energy as both latent heat and sensible heat as the heat of the coffee warms the new coffee that was once ice which had less sensible put still positive heat before it was added.
Result the coffee has more energy than before the ice with its energy was added.
The unmelted ice still isn’t coffee.
and the coffee is cooler.
Hunter, the question involves mixing two different masses. The ice has both sensible heat (a positive) and latent heat from it’s freezing. The two terms have a different sign, thus the initial energy content is less than the sensible term alone. Mixing the ice with hot coffee will lead to melting the ice as energy is transferred from the coffee to the ice. If there’s enough ice, the temperature of the coffee will drop to 0 C and the ice will stop melting.
Sorry, I’m too lazy to bother doing the calculations, but I suspect that the resulting energy per unit mass (that’s both masses) will be the same. Go ahead, do the calculations yourself, instead of more of your usual hand waving.
Swanson before we can discuss this further you need to recognize your mistake.
Ice doesn’t contain ”latent heat from freezing”. All the latent heat from freezing is contained in the medium in which the ice was created as water when it freezes releases latent heat into the environment.
when an ice cube melts (with the ice cube containing no latent heat) the energy in the resultant coffee has both increased from the sensible heat that was in the ice and the coffee is colder because the resultant coffee has converted even more sensible heat to latent heat than the sensible heat it gained from the ice.
OK Hunter, I take your point. Water vapor has latent heat which is released when it condenses, liquid water has latent heat which is released when it freezes.
But, you wrote:
Think of it this way. Add enough ice to the coffee such that the mixture cools to 0 C, then remove the remaining ice. That part of the resulting mixture which is from the melting of the ice is at 0 C, so there’s no effect on the rest of the coffee. However the hot coffee portion of the mix has lost energy to melt the ice, thus there’s no more sensible energy remaining in the mixture. The mixture does still contain the latent heat which might be released by freezing, that hasn’t changed on a per unit mass basis. That says to me that adding ice to the coffee has not increased the energy in the product.
to have no sensible heat in the mixture you would have to cool it to 0k not 0C.
Then you would have neither sensible heat nor latent heat so you are way out of bounds here.
Yes, Hunter, there would still be some sensible heat down to 0 K, but below 0 C, the mixture would no longer be liquid and the heat of fusion would need to be removed for the water to freeze first. You are just playing games, where’s your added energy in my real world example?
Gee Swanson I thought you would have figured that out by now.
The added energy to the cup of coffee is the sensible heat in the ice cubes that were dumped into the coffee and melted, bringing about colder coffee with more total energy.
Increasing the mass in the final mix is not the same as adding energy. From thermodynamics, there will be less energy available for work as the final temperature will be lower.
You will do anything to be right, right Swanson?
You are right Swanson adding mass to the coffee is not ‘identical’ to just adding energy.
But it was implied in the challenge here to add ice cubes to the coffee thus the test demanded that mass be added. You denied that energy was added with the addition of the mass of colder icecubes.
What are you trying to get at here Swanson? That the only way to add energy to coffee is using CO2 death rays?
Your argument here is as silly as the spinner argument that the angular momentum of the moon in a rotation upon an external axis is the angular momentum of a dimensionless mass around the earth.
Hunter, What we have here is a heat transfer problem. Energy is transferred from the hot coffee to the ice. the result is less energy available in the mass of the coffee and more energy added to the ice to melt it. Doing the accounting as simple energy flows, as in the 1st Law, does not capture the fact that the coffee loses energy to the ice.
Of course, Hunter adds with another comment, ignoring the fact that the Moon does not rotate around a fixed external axis, it rotates around an internal axis at a constant rate.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter, What we have here is a heat transfer problem. Energy is transferred from the hot coffee to the ice. the result is less energy available in the mass of the coffee and more energy added to the ice to melt it. Doing the accounting as simple energy flows, as in the 1st Law, does not capture the fact that the coffee loses energy to the ice.”
—————————-
Now you are getting ridiculous. You have coffee (which is extract of coffee and water) and you have ice.
The energy of melting isn’t added to the ice it is added to the melted water. . . .its what makes the difference between ice and water.
So now the added water is coffee as the percent of water in the coffee isn’t specified. Like I said the spinner logic is flawed logic and is incorrect.
E. Swanson says:
”Of course, Hunter adds with another comment, ignoring the fact that the Moon does not rotate around a fixed external axis, it rotates around an internal axis at a constant rate.”
———————
You always find spinners denying rotations around an external axis. But the way you shift back and forth in your arguments just shows how flawed your logic is.
The same thing for the GHE or gee its backradiation. In response to the lack of evidence of backradiation (and 2LOT) it becomes ”its the sun” but then you run afoul of Stefan Boltzmann equilibriums.
Now we have you playing games with what coffee is and the difference between coffee and frozen water without coffee extract in it.
You are just a composite example of how all that stuff is argued in this forum by undisciplined but devious minds.
Melting sea ice decrease albedo. Creates less reflected (lost) energy to space and more absorbed energy by the earth (a heat amplifier). Add more heat, melt more ice. Another quintessential climate change positive feedback loop explained in 3 sentences. Yet Gordo, if you have no interest in learning – you won’t learn.
“This winters record-breaking snowfall has made summertime hiking, backpacking and mountaineering more challenging than usual, if not treacherous, around the Sierra Nevada and other California mountains. Sequoia and Kings Canyons National Parks, located near Mt. Whitney, have also issued warnings to backpackers of dangerous snowy conditions. And in northern California, a popular trail at Lassen National Park that usually opens by July is still closed because of snow.”
But this year is the ‘hottest eva’!
Nah, just a couple of months are, so far.
Snow and heat do not normally go together.
No?
Snow is water evaporated from a warm ocean.
The warmer the ocean the greater the evaporation, so the quantity of water vapour and hence the quantity of precipitation depends on the water temperature.
Whether the precipitation falls as rain or snow depends on the temperature over land, a different problem entirely.
But the heat cannot be present when the heat is present locally.
Can you show that extra transfers of energy occurred that extra water is evaporated and then deposited as snow elsewhere having travelled through 2 latent heat transfers and the troposphere?
Both latent heat transfers would have moved energy from the surface and deposited it to space so cooling the surface in the warm ocean.
…But the snow cannot be present when the heat is present locally….
“The warmer the ocean the greater the evaporation, so the quantity of water vapour and hence the quantity of precipitation depends on the water temperature.”
Not around the Persian Gulf, apparently. Or the Western Sahara Atlantic coast.
Maybe your explanation needs a bit of fleshing out.
It depends on other factors as well. like ocean currents, winds, and the location and direction of mountains. Here on the ‘wet’ coast of Canada, we seldom get snow at lower elevations.
“Both latent heat transfers would have moved energy from the surface and deposited it to space so cooling the surface in the warm ocean. ”
Yes, That’s normal. The latent heat released when the water vapour condenses and freezes ends up convecting upwards in the cloud and radiating from the tropopause.
What I’m addressing is the assumption that you get more snow if the climate cools and less if it warms.
IIRC snowfall onto Greenland has increased because more water vapour is being carried there. The surface mass balance is still negative over the year because melt volume has also increased.
Goodnght.
So you should be able to show where the extra water vapor cooled the surface.
A powerful typhoon in the East China Sea is effectively lowering surface temperatures. I wonder , what is the temperature of the troposphere in a hurricane? Higher or lower?
https://i.ibb.co/4YSKTdY/himawari9-ir-06-W-202308040450.gif
https://i.ibb.co/183c1q0/ct5km-ssta-v3-1-pacific-current.png
So is man-made global warming still grossly, massively exaggerated Dr Roy?
I have read through the comments on these posts throughout the years.
Despite high quality presentation of climate data, this place is full of obfuscation. Solar intensity, volcanoes, particulate emissions, a whole host of marginal theories are poured over endlessly. Some of them do have small impact of temperature variation. Some of them are maybes. Some of them probably don’t or have miniscule impacts.
But none of them – NONE OF THEM – come close to explaining the rapid and catastrophic increase in global temperature that we are experiencing. Only man made CO2 CH4 and N2O emissions since the industrial revolution do.
For human kind, that is the point. One primary cause. That is surmountable, if humanity were to come together.
Instead, a sea of obfuscation from people with huge egos who refuse to face the truth. Why do you reject the obvious? Because it has become associated with being ‘green’, a hippy, a socialist. It goes against the grain of this society.
‘But none of them NONE OF THEM come close to explaining the rapid and catastrophic increase in global temperature that we are experiencing. Only man made CO2 CH4 and N2O emissions since the industrial revolution do.’
Hogwash Jesse. No catastrophe is imminent except in the minds of true believers.
Increased air Temps are caused by warmer oceans.. warmer oceans by either increased insolation or increased geothermal.
A colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer ocean.
Hypothesis: increased uvb insulation at the surface as a result of low ozone levels is responsible for the recent warmer oceans.
The irony here is incredible. So, you “believe” quantum theory and spectrometry when it comes to stratospheric ozone, but you “faff-it-away” when it comes to GHGs and infra-red radiation from the Earth causing the natural greenhouse effect and now the anthropogenically-perturbed greenhouse effect. Or am I getting that wrong and you “believe” science behind the natural greenhouse effect, but just not the anthropogenically perturbed part that has seen a near doubling in CO2 and a near tripling of CH4 since the industrial revolution (even though you “believe” in the science behind the human impacts on the stratospheric ozone).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66387537
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/world/americas/south-america-chile-heat-wave-winter.html
Two more oddities in a year filled with oddities.
Something genuinely unusual is happening to the climate this year.!
“The oceans have hit their hottest ever recorded temperature as they soak up warmth from climate change, with dire implications for our planet’s health”.
***
More proselytizing from the Church of Anthropogenic Climate Change. Not a shred of evidence that climates are changing, just consensus.
EM,
I believe that you will find that “climate” is the statistics of historical weather observations over a nominal period, often 30 years.
Climate is always changing.
Maybe you meant to say that something genuinely unusual (as opposed to doubtfully unusual) is happening to the weather.
The BBC seems rather confused, saying “While air temperatures have seen some dramatic increases in recent years, the oceans take longer to heat up, even though they have absorbed 90% of the Earth’s warming from greenhouse gas emissions.”
I suppose some diehard climate cultists might believe this, but they would be misguided and ignorant, wouldn’t they? Will you commit yourself to supporting that particular BBC utterance, and allow me to ask you a question or two, hoping to demonstrate that it is nonsensical?
This is how stratospheric winds rage in the Southern Hemisphere in winter.
https://i.ibb.co/ZTWxyYp/zu-sh.gif
By combining UAH’s LT 2.5 degree grid cell anomalies with the associated climatology (the 12-month baseline for the current reference period, i.e. 1991-2020), we can obtain the following top 10 of a descending sort of the absolute monthly temperatures:
2023 7 266.058 (K)
1998 7 265.797
2022 7 265.778
2020 7 265.723
2016 7 265.673
2019 7 265.667
1998 8 265.621
2021 7 265.618
2010 7 265.615
2018 7 265.587
*
Data source
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
wherein the files ‘tltmonamg.1978_6.0’ till ‘tltmonamg.2023_6.0’ contain the anomalies and the file ‘tltmonacg_6.0’ the 12-month climatology.
*
Who doubts about the accuracy of the numbers above is kindly invited to ask Roy Spencer what he means about them.
Addendum
I am talking above of course about the Globe’s absolute data.
What do you mean by ‘we can obtain…’. With your convoluted statistical procedures you might be able to claim that but we, including me, don’t agree.
So what you are saying here is essentially “there is no shred of evidence [that I can comprehend because I have not ability to understand even the most basic statistics and science] behind Anthropogenic climate change”. Clear…
Binny,
What does your analysis of historical weather statistics achieve?
A warm glow of self satisfaction, I dare say, but anything of practical value?
#2
Oh again this Flynnson stalker who never has anything valuable to say but always urges in saying something irrelevant
Binny,
What does your analysis of historical weather statistics achieve?
A warm glow of self satisfaction, I dare say, but anything of practical value?
#3
Oh again this Flynnson stalker who never has anything valuable to say but always urges in saying something irrelevant
So the 12 Month running mean
“ANNUAL CYCLE BASED ON 81001-110365 12-MON RUNNING MEAN”
does not have any errors or side lobes as VP claims.
“too many people settle for a simple running mean, whose frequency response you would not wish on your worst enemy because of the nasty side lobes”
Robertson
” With your convoluted statistical procedures you might be able to claim that but we, including me, dont agree. ”
I repeat for one of the dumbest, most arrogant posters:
” Who doubts about the accuracy of the numbers above is kindly invited to ask Roy Spencer what he means about them. ”
But people like you and a few others prefer to insinuate instead of asking the one who knows.
That is simply cowardice.
binny…” Who doubts about the accuracy of the numbers above is kindly invited to ask Roy Spencer what he means about them.
***
I am not questioning Roy, I am questioning your interpretation of Roy’s work.
” I am not questioning Roy, I am questioning your interpretation of Roys work. ”
But you don’t have the balls to ask him whether or not your ‘questioning’ (oho) makes sense.
Do you know why you don’t have them, Robertson?
It’s because you fear his answer.
I believe that Roy reads this blog and he knows all too well my opinion of using running means (of any sort) in calculations. Why do you believe that I have not made my position clear? Why do seem to agree with VP (when it suits you) but do not implement what he says?
VPs own comment on running means is
“too many people settle for a simple running mean, whose frequency response you would not wish on your worst enemy because of the nasty side lobes”
Do you dispute that?
VP continues
“The frequency response starts to look more reasonable as you cascade filters because the side lobes die down.
There are no side lobes with a perfect Gaussian filter, though there are very tiny ones with any finite-impulse-response (FIR) approximation to one. For a low-pass filter you could do a lot worse than a Gaussian filter.”
What does Vaughan Pratt’s perfect comment on simple running means in December 2013
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-420398
have to do with the computation of a 12-month climatology out of a 2.5 degree grid?
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
Why aren’t you still not able to do yourself this job, like did a few commenter on this blog, like e.g. Mark B, MrZ ?
*
Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs, Blindsley H00d?
I’m waiting for your superb demonstration.
And I repeat: don’t try to divert wrt Vaughan Pratt: the comparison has nothing to do with his excellent work, which bypasses ours by light years (and let me add: especially yours).
*
Stop insinuating, Blindsley H00d. Start working instead.
So using running means (of any sort) is OK with you, even after VPs scathing observation on them?
“Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs”
Unlike you, I will bow to the excellent observations of VP as mentioned elsewhere.
Why is it, do you think, that only climate science uses anomalies and running means? Unlike every other sciences who use accurate gaussian (or near gaussian) LP filters instead.
Blindlsey H00d
Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs, Blindsley H00d?
Im waiting for your superb demonstration.
And I repeat: dont try to divert wrt Vaughan Pratt: the comparison has nothing to do with his excellent work, which bypasses ours by light years (and let me add: especially yours).
*
Stop insinuating, Blindsley H00d. Start working instead.
Unlike you, I will bow to the excellent observations of VP as mentioned elsewhere.
Why is it, do you think, that only climate science uses anomalies and running means? Unlike every other sciences who use accurate gaussian (or near gaussian) LP filters instead.
elliott…”Actually, Im not even a scientist and I can explain it. Water vapour, for instance, is a greenhouse gas. Add a forcing and the atmosphere warms. Warm the atmosphere and the amount of water vapour it carries will increase. Increase the water vapour and you increase the forcing. Increase the forcing and the atmosphere warms more”.
***
You are quoting from the Alarmist Handbook from Climate Alarm 101.
What is a greenhouse gas? It is allegedly a gas that can absorb IR and warm, then pass the heat onto adjacent molecules. Nothing wrong with CO2 absorbing IR, Tyndall proved that circa 1850. However, a real greenhouse does not warm by trapping infrared radiation but by trapping molecules of nitrogen and oxygen that have been heated by soil and infrastructure.
It is presumed first of all that such a greenhouse gas, like CO2 or WV is responsible for warming the atmosphere. A transfer of heat via colliding molecules is referred to as diffusion and the amount of heat transferred is directly proportional to the mass percent of the gas in a gas mixture, like the atmosphere.
Converted to temperature and based on the approx. 0.06% of Co2’s mass percent that translates to a 0.06C warming from CO2 for every 1C warming of the rest of the mixture, and that is for a doubling of CO2. The same figure can be worked out using the Ideal Gas Law.
The contribution of water vapour is similarly insignificant. It has more significance in the Tropics where the WV content can be as high as 4%, but overall, in the atmosphere, WV accounts for about 0.3% of atmospheric gases.
When you talk forcing you are talking climate model jargon. Can you explain how this forcing works at the atomic level? Climate alarmists don’t even bother going that low, they draw numbers out of a hat.
binny…”Blindsley H00d…Thank you for confirming on this blog your sissyish, disingenuous tendency to insinuate things…”
***
Teutonic bullying alert.
Gordon,
I support a sissyish, disingenuous commenter like Bindidon displaying a tendency to insinuate that the opinions of other commenters are worthless – without providing any support for his opinion.
Bindidon may not agree with Richard Feynman who said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”, or he may not. Someone may value Bindidon’s opinion, I suppose.
Oh again this Flynnson stalker who never has anything valuable to say but always urges in saying something irrelevant…
Binny,
“Oh again this Flynnson stalker who never has anything valuable to say but always urges in saying something irrelevant”
Well, that’s a good explanation of the GHE, isn’t it? About as good as any other explanation to date.
Carry onl
“Richard Feynman who said It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.”
Swenson’s oft-repeated theory that the Earth should only ever be cooling simply doesnt agree with observations of the Earth having warmed significantly in the last 20,000 years, and more rapidly so in the last 50 y.
Oh well, his cooling theory, though he finds it so compelling, is most definitely wrong says Feynman.
And yet, ignoring Feynman’s wise advice, he keeps on pushing his thoroughly debunked theory!
there is no evidence the earth has warmed more rapidly in the last 50 years.
Its like sealevel is rising more slowly than it rose a few thousand years ago. Modeling links all this stuff together in the last 50 years and actually changes the temperature of the ocean as a consequence. So applied consistently the last 50 years isn’t even close to the historic rate of natural warming.
But no Nate is going to ignore the fact and come up with some anecdotal science from his hero Al Gore who already is totally discredited.
‘there is no evidence..”
When you run out of facts to support your narrative, just deny the data!
The data needs to be consistent. In this case with the sea level data. You can’t be having massive increases over time with sea level data and not have it occurring with temperatures too. Sea level rise was far higher coming out the last glacial.
Anyway the ice core data show sifts over about 3-400 years of 3 degrees repeatedly showing current change is pretty darned normal as much as Al Gore doesn’t want it to be.
“Swensons oft-repeated theory that the Earth should only ever be cooling simply doesnt agree with observations of the Earth having warmed significantly in the last 20,000 years, and more rapidly so in the last 50 y.”
No theory, Nate. Just the application of known physical laws to the Earth.
The Earth is mostly (>99%) a big glowing hot blob, a long way from the Sun.
If you want to believe it decides to heat up from time to time for no particular reason, be my guest.
Maybe you are confused by the fact that thermometers respond to a hotter environment by showing increased temperatures. I believe people like Dr Spencer are investigating the implications.
You may not accept things like the UHI, or refuse to believe that local observed temperature increases must increase the “global average” temperature, unless compensated by temperature falls elsewhere, but that is up to you.
Good luck with preventing reality.
“No theory, Nate. Just the application of known physical laws to the Earth.”
Selected laws are applied and selected facts are used to make a theory.
In your theory, you don’t include the energy input from the sun and output through the atmosphere, both of which have changed over time.
And this produces only cooling in your theory.
But it doesnt agree with the observed warming.
Your theory is wrong.
Oh well!
Yes I agree he is wrong. But also its wrong to say that CO2 is warming anything also for the exact same logic you are using here.
High convection in the eastern tropical Pacific. Eastern Circulation.
https://i.ibb.co/0X43FX1/2dd95606-4831-445d-b16c-e4236cfa30a5.jpg
Blinny: Are you still suggesting that C3RM and C5RM do not have the same corner LP frequency when using when using VPs calculations?
C3RM: 1.2067, 1.5478. Leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB
C5RM: 1.0832, 1.2343, 1.4352, 1.6757. Leakage 0.0047% or -86.5 dB
Blindsley H00d
” Are you suggesting that… ? ”
” Are you saying that… ? ”
” Blinny now thinks that… . ”
” Blinny now claims that… . ”
*
This is the reason why I call you a sissyish person.
Germans would call you weibisch (wrongly translated into ‘efféminé’ or ‘effeminated’).
It’s an idiom that applies to a certain type of male and female individuals, all of whom share the same urge to constantly insinuate what others neither think nor suggest, let alone would assert.
Sounds a lot better to me than Antonin Qwerty’s “effing girl” because the phenomenon isn’t limited to women at all: for that you are the best proof ‘evah’.
And you’ll never stop being ‘weibisch’, Blindsley H00d. You are simply married to such behavior.
So which do you think is a robust statistic? Mean or median?
So you use sexist terminology just like AQ does.
Are you still suggesting that C3RM and C5RM do not have the same corner LP frequency when using when using VPs calculations?
You said previously that C3RM and C5RM do not have the same corner LP frequency when using when using VPs calculations. Are you still standing by that?
Blindsley H00d
As long as you repeat your sissyish trash, I’ll reply with the same answer.
*
Blindsley H00d
” Are you suggesting that… ? ”
” Are you saying that… ? ”
” Blinny now thinks that… . ”
” Blinny now claims that… . ”
*
This is the reason why I call you a sissyish person.
Germans would call you weibisch (wrongly translated into ‘efféminé’ or ‘effeminated’).
It’s an idiom that applies to a certain type of male and female individuals, all of whom share the same urge to constantly insinuate what others neither think nor suggest, let alone would assert.
Sounds a lot better to me than Antonin Qwerty’s “effing girl” because the phenomenon isn’t limited to women at all: for that you are the best proof ‘evah’.
And you’ll never stop being ‘weibisch’, Blindsley H00d. You are simply married to such behavior.
You said previously that C3RM and C5RM do not have the same corner LP frequency when using when using VPs calculations. Are you still standing by that?
So you use sexist terminology which is meant to provoke just like AQ does.
Depends where they are in the atmosphere. Low down I would expect them to warm it.
High up to cool.
Where does the heat disappear below the surface of the Pacific Ocean? Is it into the troposphere?
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202308.gif
The cold of the poles will appear somewhere.
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent, Standard Deviations: https://imgur.com/a/lBW9N3d
https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/the-mystery-of-the-missing-antarctic-sea-ice/
Arkady Ivanovich
Where do you have that graph from?
What I know from colorado.edu, watching sea ice extent for NOAA
https://tinyurl.com/NOAA-Antarctic-sea-ice-extent
is this:
https://i.postimg.cc/P5ZQZDtY/Antarctic-sea-ice-anoms-daily.png
which matches this quite good:
https://i.postimg.cc/KYCbWC6d/Antatctica-sea-ice-extent-Guardian.png
but not your graph:
https://imgur.com/a/lBW9N3d
I’m of course not talking about the difference between anomalies wrt 1981-2010 and those wrt 1991-2020.
I’m talking about how the 2023 line looks like in your graph compared to the other two.
But why is the air temperature not higher?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-sopol.jpeg
“If those ice shelves were to collapse, as the Conger shelf in east Antarctica did in 2022, the gates would open for continental ice to flow rapidly into the oceans.”
Rubbish.Scaremongering and complete ignorance of physics. Floating ice holds nothing back at at all. It doesnt collapse, and about 90% is below the surface.
From time to time, the shelf fractures, as ice is rigid compared to the water, which is moving up and down with the tides. Vast chunks of ice break off, floating hither and yon, eventually melting. Panic about sea level rise is overdone – the Amazon, for example, constantly discharges vast volumes of water into the ocean without anybody worrying about rising sea levels.
A glacier is just a river of ice, and its outflow is solid, rather than liquid, water.
Good grief.
“It doesnt collapse … ”
“Vast chunks of ice break off, floating hither and yon …”
That is what people mean by the ice shelf ‘collapsing’.
“A glacier is just a river of ice …”
Not exactly.
Precipitation falls in a river basin … and within weeks or months, it flows to the sea.
Precipitation falls in a glacial basin … and within centuries or millennia, it flows to the sea.
The timescales are different.
There is also a difference in scale. Rivers and lakes are about 1% of the fresh water in the world. Ice is about 70% of the fresh water. HUGE amounts of water are held in glaciers, ice sheets, etc. If these melt and/or flow into the seas faster, it is like creating WHOLE NEW RIVERS from water that had been locked away.
Tim,
Yes, climate alarmists misuse words like “collapsing” because they sound more dramatic. Just like calling “slow cooling” heating.
Floating ice does not collapse. It can’t.
A glacier is a river of ice. Frozen water. Banging on about timescales doesnt change the fact that water falls on the solid surface in one form or another, and flows under the influence of gravity to a lower point – fast or slow.
Just like slow cooling is still getting colder, not hotter.
Rather than playing “silly semantic games” a la Willard, maybe you could tell me something I don’t know.
Your last effort to describe the effect of CO2 on thermometers was a bit lacking. “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”
Oh good – saying precisely nothing.
Good for you , Tim.
“Banging on about timescales doesnt change the fact that water falls on the solid surface in one form or another, and flows under the influence of gravity to a lower point fast or slow.”
You miss the point. Rain and rivers are balanced. When more water evaporates and more rain falls, more water flows in the rivers and back to the seas. This will never lead to measurable sea level change.
Snow and glaciers are NOT balanced. Snow that falls might melt and flow back to the ocean that year. Or it might stay frozen for 100,000 years. This can change sea level by 100+ meters as glaciers build up and melt away during ice ages.
Anyone should be able to understand this simple and important difference.
And as for “collapse”, you might check a dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collapse
2: to break down completely : DISINTEGRATE
4: to suddenly lose force, significance, effectiveness, or worth
Either of those apply to the ‘collapse’ of an ice sheet. Governments and stock markets and ice sheets can collapse without literally falling to a lower elevation.
There are two things you apparently didn’t know.
swenson…”From time to time, the shelf fractures, as ice is rigid compared to the water, which is moving up and down with the tides”.
***
Not only that, there are waves in that neck of the woods that are 100 feet high. When the glacier toe hits the ocean it keeps moving over the water and is just hanging there but partially submerged. If that hanging ice is rigid, as you say, meaning inflexible, and it is battered by 100 foot waves, it flexes and breaks eventually.
The sea ice referenced in the article actually protects the ice hanging over the water by buffering the wave action and extracting energy from the waves. When they move off, for whatever reason, the hanging ice is battered by the full force of the ocean.
ark…”Dr Caroline Holmes continues:
Wind patterns, storms, ocean currents and air and ocean temperatures all affect how much of the sea around Antarctica is covered by ice, and they often push and pull in different directions. This means it can be hard to link the behaviour of Antarctic sea ice in any particular year, or over several years, to just one factor”.
***
Caroline is confusing sea ice, which are ice floes, and static ice attached to glaciers on the continent. Ice floes in the Antarctic, as in the Arctic, are free to move, being driven by ocean currents and wind.
Captain Henry Larsen of the RCMP cutter St. Roch, was the first captain/ship to sail the NW Passage in both directions in the early 1940s. On the west to east excursion, it took two years because the ship was hemmed into the Canadian north shore by sea ice (floes). Larsen noted this to be a common occurrence because sea ice moves with wind and currents and is unpredictable. On the return voyage, east to west, they sailed through in 87 days.
It is known in Antarctica that ice shelves, which are the toe-end of glaciers thus attached to land ice, are protected by floating ice. The ice floes act as a buffer to protect the solid ice from the fury of Antarctic ocean waves. The sheer mass of ice floes takes the energy out of the waves when the waves are forced to lift the mass.
When the floe ice moves off, as it seems to be doing now, the exposed land ice is battered by waves up to 100 feet high and they fracture and break off as floating massive ice shelves.
None of this is related to warming/climate change, they are all natural processes. Therefore Caroline is full of it.
“There is a desperate need for more observations in the region, particularly in winter and under the sea ice and ice shelves, . . .”
Gee, desperately crying out for more government funding which will change absolutely nothing!
Who’d have thought?
“I’m talking about how the 2023 line looks like in your graph compared to the other two.”
This graph plots the departure in standard deviations of each data point from the 1991-2020 climatological mean. It shows that July 2023 Antarctic sea-ice extent was >5 standard deviations below the climatological mean.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Last year’s underwater volcano, “Hunga-Tonga” for short, was “unprecedented” in the modern era. The Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE) raised Earth temperatures. The immediate explanation was radiative warming from all the water vapor the eruption put into the stratosphere. But, that was only a guess, and it was wrong. Even some Warmists here know that can’t happen.
So, what caused the warming?
Throwing a rock into a still pond produces a ripple (wave) on the surface of the water. The ripple expands, making a larger and larger circle. The wave continues across the surface of the pond, slowly dissipating. If it hits a structure in the water, the wave will reflect, as we would expect. If the wave encounters another wave, it will add/subtract based on the laws of physics (Superposition).
But waves on the surface of a pond are 2-dimensional. The atmosphere is 3-dimensional. So it is necessary to imagine a wave formed by a perturbation in the upper atmosphere. The wave would be expanding into larger and larger spheres, instead to 2-dimensional circles. As with the wave on a pond, if the wave encountered a solid object, it would be reflected. If it encountered another wave, it would add or subtract, depending on the motions.
Most people are not familiar with the Polar Vortex. It plays a big role in how the HTE can warm the lower atmosphere. For the purposes here, consider the PV as a super-large hurricane, positioned high in the sky. A PV is sucking air off the troposphere and dumping it into the stratosphere. The PV acts as another cooling system for Earth. Closing off the PV effectively traps the warm air, restricting its flow to the stratosphere. Upper level waves can negatively affect PV much like wind sheer can negatively affect a hurricane.
This eruption was extremely interesting in the climate debate. The eruption was most definitely a “forcing”. Its effects lasted for about a year and a half. The effects warmed UAH Global by about 0.20-0.25C, average. The HTE will be an ongoing debate because the GHE cult is jealous that the eruption can do something CO2 cannot. But, the HTE is REAL, regardless of a never-ending debate.
The link provides the monthly UAH Global values since the eruption. Displayed in column form allows the impact of the HTE waves to be seen. The horizontal bar at the bottom is ENSO, with the reddish color coinciding with temps below zero and the bluish color coinciding with the temps above zero. You can see how ENSO adds to the effects of HTE.
https://postimg.cc/8FFtpjZF
Understanding how HTE would affect Earth temperatures allowed for the predictions over the last several months of abnormally high anomalies. Being able to predict correctly is important in validating the science.
Sorry, got the bar colors reversed.
Should be: The horizontal bar at the bottom is ENSO, with the bluish color coinciding with temps below zero and the reddish color coinciding with the temps above zero.
“But waves on the surface of a pond are 2-dimensional”.
***
One of the dumbest comment you have ever made. Why doe it require a 3-D graph to display waves on a surface?
I was going to let this slide till you attacked me below for no good reason. If you insist on being a jacka.s.s. you will get it back in spades.
It’s the outward motion of the ripple that is 2-dimensional, Gordon.
I knew you cult id1ots would not understand.
Is the source for this speculation your imagination? Or is their an actual real legitimate science source with supporting observations?
My “sources” are always REAL science and reality, Nate.
Your cult doesn’t recognize those as “sources”. You rely on nonsense, like passenger jets flying backwards, or people not knowing how to walk.
Yeah, so no sources. Just fiction.
Thats why this is so much fun!
There is a lot of talk about the ripples on ponds and the PV etc then:
“This eruption was extremely interesting in the climate debate. The eruption was most definitely a forcing. Its effects lasted for about a year and a half. ”
All we see is that was ‘interesting’.
So where is your warming mechanism explained?
Nate, the explanation of the HTE was for responsible adults only.
So, grammie clone, when did you become a “responsible adult”?
The ineffective flak from cult children like you serves as my bona fides, Swanson.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519355
This entire post reminds me of certain answers to essay questions on exams by students who never came to class and had no idea how to answer, but filled up the page with a lot of meandering nonsense with a smattering of technical words, in vain the hope that no one would notice that they never answered the question.
But I noticed.
Did you notice you have NOTHING in response?
I did notice that you didn’t answer my question. Where o where in that long meandering essay do you explain the mechanism for HTE warming?
This is quite entertaining.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519707
“Most people are not familiar with the Polar Vortex. It plays a big role in how the HTE can warm the lower atmosphere.”
Intriguing. Please do tell us how?
“For the purposes here, consider the PV as a super-large hurricane, positioned high in the sky. A PV is sucking air off the troposphere and dumping it into the stratosphere. The PV acts as another cooling system for Earth.”
How colorful..do go on.
“Closing off the PV effectively traps the warm air, restricting its flow to the stratosphere. Upper level waves can negatively affect PV much like wind sheer can negatively affect a hurricane.”
Interesting. Its seems we’re getting close to the explanation of how HT gets involved.
And?
“This eruption was extremely interesting in the climate debate.”
Oh wait. What happened? Is that it? Where’s the explanation?
Are responsible adults gonna get that later? In an email?
Very good Nate. You can’t go wrong quoting my exact words. It increases your ability to understand them.
Memorization helps also.
Clint is a frustrated teacher. He thinks we are impressed by his natterings.
Yes Gordon, I understand quite well that you have serious learning disabilities.
It is one of the reasons sports are entertaining.
This is Clint’s ‘and the agony of defeat’ moment.
Since we have the experts here in all things related to science, I have a question. There is lot of discussion about a tipping point. Is a tipping point also a critical point? Be careful, it could be a trick question.
Depends on how critical you feel, I guess.
James Hansen of NASA GISS was the first scientist to use the term tipping point wrt to climate. He referenced the meaning to the Venusian atmosphere where he reasoned that at some tipping point the Venusian atmosphere took off on a runaway greenhouse effect that could not be reversed. He predicted the same for Earth’s atmosphere if we did not drastically cut back on anthropogenic warming.
What else could it mean? If you have an object, even a ship on the ocean, and you push it past a tipping point, it falls over and cannot be righted by normal means. There is no other context in which such a drastic change can be described with reference to catastrophic climate change.
That’s what the debate here is about, between those who support the catastrophic meme and those who think it is nonsense.
Like the term “heat trapping gas”, tipping point, does not seem to have a precise scientific or mathematical meaning. Inflection point does not seem to work either. Merriam-Webster has this: “the critical point in a situation, process, or system beyond which a significant and often unstoppable effect or change takes place”, but that seems much more political than scientific.
Carry on.
Tim S,
Or “forcings”.
First thing that popped up for me – “Climate forcing measures the imbalance in the Earth’s energy budget caused by a perturbation of the climate system, ”
Completely meaningless. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. There is no “climate system”. Presumably, people really mean “the atmosphere”, without which there is no weather, and no climate at all!
All this rubbish about “energy budget” is just ignorant cultists trying to gain attention and funding.
Seems to have worked pretty well so far.
We are not talking about a dictionary definition but the definition related to global warming attached to ‘tipping point’ by James Hansen, the former leader of GISS.
When people use the term tipping point with regard to climate it is a reference to a runaway greenhouse effect, whatever that means.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04310w.html
Under the heading ‘Tipping Point’, Hansen elucidates…
Tipping Point
Earth is heated by sunlight and, in balance, reaches a temperature such that an amount of heat equal to the absorbed solar energy radiates back to space. Climate forcings are imposed, temporary changes to Earths energy balance that alter Earths mean temperature. Forcings include changes in the suns brightness, volcanic eruptions that discharge sunlight-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, and long-lived human-made greenhouse gases that trap heat.
Forcings are amplified or diminished by other changes within the climate system, known as feedbacks. Fast feedbackschanges that occur quickly in response to temperature changeamplify the initial temperature change, begetting additional warming. As the planet warms, fast feedbacks include more water vapor, which traps additional heat, and less snow and sea ice, which exposes dark surfaces that absorb more sunlight. Slower feedbacks also exist. Due to warming, forests and shrubs are moving poleward into tundra regions. Expanding vegetation, darker than tundra, absorbs sunlight and warms the environment. Another slow feedback is increasing wetness (i.e., darkness) of the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets in the warm season. Finally, as tundra melts, methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, is bubbling out. Paleoclimatic records confirm that the long-lived greenhouse gasesmethane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxideall increase with the warming of oceans and land. These positive feedbacks amplify climate change over decades, centuries, and longer
The predominance of positive feedbacks explains why Earths climate has historically undergone large swings: feedbacks work in both directions, amplifying cooling, as well as warming, forcings. In the past, feedbacks have caused Earth to be whipsawed between colder and warmer climates, even in response to weak forcings, such as slight changes in the tilt of Earths axis.
Hansen’s primary focus is on heat trapped by GHGs and fed back to the surface to further warm the surface. This is eesentially perpetual mpotion because it is an amplification of a heat source without a heat amplifier of some kind. In other words, the heat magically amplifies.
Hansen is a physicist and he must have studied some thermodyamics. However, the way the 2nd law is taught these days gives the impression that it is related to a vague notion of entropy. Modern scientists are simply not taught the basic meaning of the 2nd law, as stated by Clausius, that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder object to a hotter object.
Clausius introduced the notion of entropy as a means of measuring transformation from heat to work, or vice-vera. Some scientists today explain entropy is the heat ‘not’ available to do work.
He stated entropy in words as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat over a process at temperature, T. The interpretation of the 2nd law today, based on entropy, is so vague as to be meaningless, so we can forgive Hansen for not understanding the true meaning of the 2nd law, thus inferring that heated GHGs in the atmosphere that are colder than the surface can transfer heat back to the surface.
Hansen shows his ignorance of basic thermodynamics when he states that GHGs trap heat. The inference here is obvious. He is claiming that heat radiated from the surface is trapped by GHGs and somehow slows the dissipation of heat at the surface. Worse still, he infers that heat can be radiated back to the surface to raise surface temperatures beyond the temperature the surface is heated by solar energy.
These alleged properties of heat are an anachronism dating back to the 19th century. In those days it was roundly believed that heat could be transferred through air by heat rays. Bohr proved that theory wrong in 1913 when he revealed the connection between electrons and radiatied/absorbed EM.
Heat does not move between the surface and GHGs as heat via radiation. Therefore surface heat cannot be trapped. The alleged transfer of heat is smoke and mirrors. The surface cools immediately as it emits EM. It needs to be clear that the heat is already dissipated…poof…it is gone. The emitted EM holds no heat as we know heat, it can’t because EM is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and has no capacity to carry heat. EM can travel freely through a vacuum and heat cannot.
Therefore, any heat dissipated at the surface via radiation is gone the instant the EM is radiated. If GHGs absorb any of that radiation, they can only absorb about 7% of the total surface radiation. They can convert that EM to heat but that heat is not trapped, it is crated anew. Re-radiating that heat isotropically reduced its effectiveness even more and any portion radiated toward the surface represents a heat transfer from cold to hot. Therefore no heat is transferred.
Hansen’s use of the phrase ‘positive feedback’ is confusing. He is implying that feedback alone can produce amplification, an idea that would be ridiculed by any engineer who has to apply positive feedbacks in practice. Without some kind of amplification there can be no positive feedback.
He’s the formula for feedback, covering both positive and negative feedback.
G = A/(1 + AB)
G = overall gain
A = amplification factor (requiring an amplifier)
B = feedback factor
Feedback cannot provide amplification without an amplifier. The same applies to negative feedback. You simply cannot design a passive circuit to attenuate a signal using negative feedback without some kind of active device (transistor) in the circuit.
There is obviously a form of feedback used in servo systems but it is not the same kind of feedback we are talking about here which can help produce amplification. Even that type of feedback cannot work without active devices.
Animals are on the run. Plants are migrating too.1 I wrote those words in 2006 to draw attention to the fact that climate change was already under way. People do not notice climate change because it is masked by day-to-day weather fluctuations, and we reside in comfortable homes. Animals and plants, on the other hand, can survive only within certain climatic conditions, which are now
changing. ”
That is quite dumb.
Gordon, since you are describing feedback, please describe the difference between feedback and feedforward systems. Explain how that is different than a cascade control system. Finally, explain how any of that relates to the climate.
“Thats what the debate here is about, between those who support the catastrophic meme and those who think it is nonsense.”
I think Venus would catastrophically, cool, if at Earth distance from the sun.
Also if Earth had 3 atm of nitrogen, it would be a lot colder.
1 atm of nitrogen and oxygen at 15 C, is cold, but 15 C with 3 atm
would be even colder.
And of course the surface would get less sunlight- solar panels would be even less viable. And I don’t think it would improve wind energy, either.
Some time ago I pointed out that the temperature maps show so much dark red with a little temperature increase that they cannot get any redder so they will have to start drawing flames.
So here we go
https://youtu.be/3m8Dsr1xG8I
But the UK met office said that was all about the position of the jet stream. In Southern Europe and in the UK.
I am reaching the conclusion that climate alarm propaganda is a new form of mental illness.
From an article by pharmaceutical expert David Rasnick…
“Research is driven not by a desire to determine objectively whether a hypothesis is valid, but rather by the will to make hypotheses appear true….”
https://www.davidrasnick.com/ewExternalFiles/The%20Tyranny%20of%20Dogma.pdf
Gordon, you’re off topic, again.
Have you contributed significant funding to support this blog, or are you just bumming as usual?
My post is on-topic. Ask Roy how he is treated by his peers, where he is regards as an outlier due to his position on climate science. That’s what my post is about, ijits who hit on scientists like Roy because he has a different view o the science. I am trying to emphasize how this is prevalent on science across the board and not just in climate science.
Of your if you could read and comprehend you might have gotten that.
What does your lengthy off-topic theories on Hunga Tonga have to do with the blog? And why is my business suddenly your business? Beggar off.
Before you bo, what kind of energy is transferred by heat? You don’t have the scientific background to question me if you can’t answer such a simple question. In fact, you lack the intelligence to communicate with your betters, meaning people like me with a superior intelligence to yours.
I ran it by an eight year old recently and she giggled, thinking it a silly question. She knew the energy being transferred is heat but Clintella fails to grasp the obvious.
Sorry Gordon, but you’re off topic.
All your insults and false accusations won’t help you.
Have you contributed significant funding to support this blog, or are you just bumming, as usual?
clint the butt-kisser.
All your insults and false accusations won’t help you, Gordon.
Have you contributed significant funding to support this blog, or are you just bumming, as usual?
Whiny Clint and his ad hom attacks laced with insults. And he claims to have expertise in science.
Have you figured out yet that the Clausius entropy formula says nothing about disorder?
All your insults and false accusations won’t help you, Gordon.
Have you contributed significant funding to support this blog, or are you just mooching, as usual?
I don’t know why Gordon always brings his AIDS obsession to this forum.
All you need to know about Rasnick is that he made money off HIV denialism.
Large increase in solar wind power since early August. The jet stream will accelerate.
https://i.ibb.co/FVk2cQ8/onlinequery.gif
A hurricane in the eastern Pacific is heading east.
https://i.ibb.co/48mCVtp/mimictpw-epac-latest.gif
Sorry, is heading east.
is heading west.
The Polar Vortex took some serious hits from the HTE in early July, causing temperatures to rise. But it has now recovered. I found wind speeds of 300 mph this morning!
Right now, the PV is ferocious, but in the next 4-6 weeks it will be seriously weakened. REAL science is predictable.
What would you know about real science? You think heat is a transfer mechanism for energy but you cannot state which energy is being transferred. An 8 year old girl knows more about this science than you.
Now you are trying to lecture us on the polar vortex but you cannot explain how WV from Hunga Tonga affects it.
You found wind speeds of 300 mph this morning. I suppose you were up there in a balloon.
Saw PV wind speeds as high as 319 mph early this morning. This lady doesn’t want to give up.
Of course this means a lot of warm air is being cooled. I’m guessing the HTE is over. The only other additional forcing besides Sun is the struggling El Niño. It did manage to get above 1C, with a whopping 1.035C.
The second July monthly temperature dataset is out.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2023/08/july-global-surface-templs-up-0093-from.html
Sooner or later this will have to agree (in trend at least) with the satellite data.
Corrected to a common baseline the July TemplS and UAH figures are almost identical.
Moyhu has a comparative graph here.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
Except 2 out of 5 are flat (or nearly so) whereas the others are rising.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/pages/latest/T/mth1.png
Both satellite are flat (or nearly so).
My point is that the UAH July temperature increase is matched by at least one surface dataset. The warming is in the real world and not just an artefact of the UAH data.
Always nice to see confirmation.
Exactly Ent. The HTE was indeed REAL, as recorded by UAH Global.
Unfortunately, it has now dissipated. Not wanting to see any suffering, but it would have been interesting to witness the HTE at its peak combined with a strong El Niño.
I imagine those in the air conditioner industry would have liked to have seen it also….
No surface dataset currently published matches UAH.
July 2023 isn’t available yet for GISS land and the RATPAC-B surface radiosonde data; but we can look at how they agree until June:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OfHL6QmRVxS-W8y2OjREIsx3jfnTz0YV/view
Reminder: here one can see how RATPAC-B at 500 hPa agrees with UAH 6.0 LT land:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LgITui8Sm7EaWzOstUBL1ZyNRaOu5IQI/view
… and how RATPAC-B at 100 hPa agrees with UAH 6.0 LS land:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dx3Hf5LaTy-b2Qw9aboydfwPqCfcdgIs/view
Graphs (2) and (3) should be updated to contain 2023 data, but…
*
I have all C3RM and C5RM data; but who really needs it is kindly invited to download all the sources and generate himself the cascades.
Sources
RATPAC
https://tinyurl.com/RATPAC-B
UAH
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
GISS land V4
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts.txt
And still you persists with running means even though VP denigrates them.
P.S. Comparisons at 500 hPa and 100 hPa are not that useful.
P.P.S. What land mask did you use for UAH?
1. ” And still you persists with running means even though VP denigrates them. ”
I have all C3RM and C5RM data; but who really needs it is kindly invited to download all the sources and generate himself the cascades.
*
2. ” P.S. Comparisons at 500 hPa and 100 hPa are not that useful. ”
They are perfectly useful, Blindsley H00d!
But you manifestly are unable to explain why they aren’t, and hence simply claim what you are unable to prove.
*
3. ” P.P.S. What land mask did you use for UAH? ”
Who tells you I needed one?
You are so incredibly incompetent.
*
Stop, whining all the time, Blindsley H00d! Download the data and start working.
But you manifestly are unable to do the job, and keep endlessly stalking instead.
“I have all C3RM and C5RM data”
So why won’t you use them and display the results to us all. Do you now believe that VP was correct in his choice of CxRM over SRM every day?
“Who tells you I needed one?”
So you are comparing land/ocean figures with land only ones if no land mask is used.
” So why wont you use them and display the results to us all. ”
I’m waiting for you doing the job, so we can all see that you really know how to do it.
Until now… hmmmh.
*
” So you are comparing land/ocean figures with land only ones if no land mask is used. ”
I repeat, Blindsley H00d: You are so incredibly incompetent.
Why would I need land masks when Roy Spencer provides us with lots and lots of land-only data?
You are not only incompetent, Blindsley H00d: you are ignorant as well.
*
Will you now – yes or no – finally show us how good you are, and post graphs in which you display time series for RATPAC-B versus
– surface
– LT land
– LS land
with C3RM 60 and C5RM 60 instead of SRM 60?
Or are you actually unable to do the job?
Then please admit it instead of endlessly distracting, covering up and throwing dust in our eyes.
“I’m waiting for you doing the job”
Tantrum incoming.
“Why would I need land masks when Roy Spencer provides us with lots and lots of land-only data?”
But not under the url you quote as using.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519874
Blindsley H00d
And please stop manipulating the blog with your endless trials to present me as a person doubting about Vaughan Pratt’s technical skill, like in
” Do you now believe that VP was correct in his choice of CxRM over SRM every day? ”
You intentionally manipulate the blog.
By the way (1), I wrote a mail to Vaughan Pratt about Goodman’s appearance at Climate Etc in 2013 and his comments along the thread, and he replied that
– he no longer had any interest in such details, and attended many AGU meetings in which he talked about Global Warming
and
– could not understand why people like you keep so opinionated about cascaded running means, as if they would matter more than the data they run over.
*
By the way (2), I still await your mathematical comparison of CxRMs (with Pratt coefficients, of course) to SRMs.
Did you manage to start this nice little job?
VP has not changed his opinion on SRM being very much inferior to CxRMs.
Utqiagvik, Alaska, 71.3N 156.81W, hit TMAX= 76F and TMIN= 56F yesterday.
Deadhorse, Alaska, 70.2N 148.44W, hit TMAX= 84F.
Because of the permafrost that thawed there yesterday, what happens in Alaska does not stay in Alaska.
Deadhorse’s TMAX at 84F (28.9 C) on Aug 5
Here is the USCRN data for the station there:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/daily01/2023/CRND0103-2023-AK_Deadhorse_3_S.txt
Correct at +- 0.5 C, 28.4; but is that so unusual?
I see in my USCRN log, generated in 2021, TMAX is last column:
AK_Deadhorse_3_S 70.16 9.10 2016 7 13 18.20 21.70 19.91 7.80 28.60
AK_Deadhorse_3_S 70.16 9.10 2016 7 14 20.80 19.00 19.66 14.00 27.60
AK_Deadhorse_3_S 70.16 9.10 2015 6 21 18.50 18.15 17.80 10.30 26.70
” but is that so unusual?”
84F (28.9 C) on Aug 5 is. Peak TMAX at 70.2N in June or July is not unusual. By the end of the first week of August you’ve already lost ~1hr of daylight.
I appreciate the glass half full attitude, but this seems climatologically notable.
That’s 29C, it’s weather…summer weather.
The record for Alaska is 100F in 1915.
It’s summer weather on Mars.
Had to google to check:
“The warmest soil temperature estimated by the Viking Orbiter was 27 C (300 K; 81 F). The Spirit rover recorded a maximum daytime air temperature in the shade of 35 C (308 K; 95 F), “
So, you could walk around on Mars in a T-shirt, provided you could breath.
You need pressure to breathe.
If under enough water {providing the pressure] you don’t need a T-shirt. A fish can breathe if there is oxygen in the water.
But temperature is not a problem, other than there isn’t enough cold air to cool a human.
In vacuum you have cool the human body- and they use evaporative cooling with spacesuits.
So 50 K “air”/vacuum in lunar permanent shaded crater- is not temperature issue, other than boots on cold ground and gloves handling cold stuff.
Question to all:
Would you prefer using robust statistics to measure climate? Yes or No.
Define it.
What are Robust Statistics?
“Robust statistics provide valid results across a broad variety of conditions, including assumption violations, the presence of outliers, and various other problems. The term ‘robust statistic’ applies both to a statistic (i.e., median) and statistical analyses (i.e., hypothesis tests and regression).
Huber (1982) defined these statistics as being ‘distributionally robust and outlier-resistant.’
Conversely, non-robust statistics are sensitive to to less than ideal conditions”
https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/robust-statistics/
Are you so ignorant you didn’t already know this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_measures_of_scale
So you believe it is not currently being used?
Evidence?
Its being done some. But due to the lack of standards in the science community where those harmed have no recourse its not nearly as comprehensive as it should be. Certainly, scientists need to be given the latitude to have ‘free’ opinions on matters. I am in absolute support for that. However, the scientific community has absolutely no way of identifying what opinion is and what fact is other than experimentation.
Statistics is relied upon but all one needs to know about statistics is its half opinion/art and half mathematics. It is really only reliable when dealing with homogeneous widgets.
A typhoon in the western Pacific is blocked below the Japan Islands.
https://i.ibb.co/5FQhfQG/mimictpw-wpac-latest.gif
A hurricane in the eastern Pacific is moving rapidly westward.
https://i.ibb.co/NWSzsj8/goes18-wv-mid-05-E-202308070615.gif
RLH
G!ad to see that you are properly concerned about the statistics used to analyse climate data.
I trust you’ve read the GUM, the ISO guide to handling uncertainty in data.
https://www.iso.org/standard/50461.html
And thanks on their behalf for your 20 donation to the RNLI.
I wondered when you would pick that up!
Statistics are a whole other topic on their own. It is surprising on how little statistics (especially robust statistics) are used in climate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519874
“I wondered when you would pick that up! ”
I thought it polite to let you acknowledge it yourself as I did, twice. But it’s been several days now and you haven’t mentioned it.
Wrong.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1518577
Apologies, I missed it.
I was a biologist. Most of the statistics used in data analysis were invented to process biological data.
Statistics form the basis of most sciences. Most of them don’t use anomalies and SRM as the are considered WAY too inaccurate.
…they are…
Et Man: Do you have any idea of what robust statistics are?
eh just looks like natural variation in the ongoing .13C/deg trend
after all, what happened a few years ago? nothing of note, and yet nearly the same temp
but it’s always fun to see the usual suspects run around in circles screaming their demands to waste tens of trillions of our money trying to cool the planet by preventing emissions of a gas that had no measurable effect on the radiative balance since 2000
volcanic injection of H2O into the stratosphere might have some measurable effect but, always a bit skeptical of lingering effects from what is basically just a big cloud
still, you might convince me of (say) a dust-washing effect if there was a strong regional signal… but the strongest signal was in the Arctic
oh well
*13C/decade
“…a gas that had no measurable effect on the radiative balance since 2000”
Deniers will deny: https://imgur.com/a/YTwELk9
Ark, even you might laugh if you understood where that nonsense came from.
Source: NASA CERES EBAF-TOA All-sky Ed4.2 Net Flux
Exactly Ark. One of the hints is “Net Flux”.
Do you get it?
You know, in High School, if you didn’t believe in science we just called it failing.
Do you get it>
Ark, most cultists never mature past high school.
Get it.
Yes, JD*Huffman: fluxes do not add, and there is no lunar spin.
Science at its best…
(I forgot the ban, oh Noes.)
thats correct fluxes don’t add because voltages don’t add. And there is no lunar spin there is only a ”virtual” lunar spin as you can’t double count the ”virtual” spin portion of the angular momentum of a rotation on an external axis as another spin.
… and the Hunter boy still keeps arrogant enough to think he knows it better than thousands of scientists who therefore must have had it all wrong.
*
” … as you cant double count the virtual spin portion of the angular momentum of a rotation on an external axis as another spin. ”
No one thinks that way, Hunter boy. Except… you.
…thousands of climate scientists…
Who appear to be amateurs at most of the real sciences and statistics.
Well my comment on the measured back scatter is supported by this:
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
As I have said many times if anybody thinks that is done badly they should submit the experiment done right that demonstrates the effect they currently hold has a religious belief apparently.
Of course Bindidon won’t do that. His trade secret is to read between the lines of historic scientific text books.
And I am not sure if he still needs a lesson in what angular momentum around an external axis is comprised of as he is constantly trying to steal some of it to claim its angular momentum around an an object that shows no signs of having been perturbed relative to Bindidon’s chosen axis. And his evidence? reading between the lines of quotes of Isaac Newton.
Hunter boy seems to be a bit confused again tonight.
” Well my comment on the measured back scatter is supported by this: … ”
Measured back scatter? We did never discussed that, Hunter boy.
But nonetheless, here’s some alternative reading that might interest you, as it’s based on a far more complex experiment:
Experimental Verification of the Greenhouse Effect
Hermann Harde, Michael Schnell (2022)
http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m.pdf
*
Also, one of the authors of the paper you proposed is well known to me, I discovered the name at the end of my reading:
” We would like to thank Prof. Øyvind Grøn (Institute of Physics, University of Oslo) for careful reading of the manuscript and fruitful comments. ”
He wrote a very interesting paper together with Knut Seip:
A New method for identifying possible causal relationships between CO2, total solar irradiance and global temperature change
Seip, Knut L. ; Grøn, Øyvind (2017)
https://tinyurl.com/Relationships-solar-CO2-temps
*
Not quite surprisingly, I saw in the near another paper:
Solar Cycles in 150 Years of Global Sea Surface Temperature Data
Jiansong Zhou, Ka-Kit Tung (2010)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/23/12/2010jcli3232.1.xml
Enjoy it!
Hunter boy
Now finally we come back to your eternal trial to manipulate the blog:
” And his evidence? reading between the lines of quotes of Isaac Newton. ”
Between the lines, Hunter boy? Really? Were you not one of those who endlessly try since years to misinterpret Newton’s own words?
Which translation of Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV do you want to see in which language? English (Andrew Motte, Ian Bruce), or French, or German, or Russian, or Japanese, or Italian, or … ?
I guess you’ll prefer English, maybe Bruce (2012)
https://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/newton/book3s1.pdf
There you find, on page 23 of 55, of course the same stuff as that published by all others:
” It is apparent by the first law of motion and Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Book I that Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes, Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the sun in 25 1/2 and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes. ”
” Truly because there is the monthly revolution of the moon about its axis : the same face of this will always look at the more distant focus of its orbit, as nearly as possible, and therefore according to the situation of that focus will hence deviate thence from the earth.
This is the libration of the moon in longitude: For the libration in latitude has arisen from the latitude of the moon and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
N. Mercator has explained this theory of the libration of the moon more fully in letters from me, published in his Astronomy at the start of the year 1676. ”
*
Don’t tell me, Hunter boy, that you also belong to those ignoramuses who try to tell us that revolving with respect to the fixed stars does not mean to revolve anyway.
And don’t tell me Newton didn’t think of an internal axis when writing ‘about its axis’.
That would mean that you completely ignore how good he had understood Cassini’s work: that is perfectly visible in Mercator’s book published in 1676.
Of that bullshit I really have enough.
Bindidon says:
”Dont tell me, Hunter boy, that you also belong to those ignoramuses who try to tell us that revolving with respect to the fixed stars does not mean to revolve anyway.
And dont tell me Newton didnt think of an internal axis when writing about its axis.”
I seriously doubt that Newton didn’t get tripped up on the same point you did as his abilities to visualize were historic.
But OTOH he didn’t have Einstein’s relativity concepts to work with either so he had to make a choice. Perhaps his choice was influenced by his visionary discovery that spin is part and parcel to a rotation around an external axis.
But spin can’t be in two different places at one time and in no case, and this only came after Newton’s time, can you have a rotation around an internal axis without forces that will stop any existing additional spin that doesn’t have a force sustaining it.
Back to Einstein. Motion is relative to its connections and the appearance of motion is relative to the observer. Which do you think is more real? Well I guess if you consider yourself the center of the universe you will probably pick something different than I.
as to the experiments, it will take me some time to plow through them as my leisure time is limited. But glancing at the first one I notice its upside down.
Since one of the major objections to the 3rd grader model as per demonstrated by RW Woods was that the heating in the greenhouses was actually achieved equally by both the IR opaque and IR transparent greenhouses via the trapping of convection and not trapping of radiation.
Here by putting the earth plate above the cold plate convection is again trapped at the top of the greenhouse as demonstrated in the Vaughn Pratt experiment (he finally publicly posted his results) and where the heat would be most likely trapped being transported there by convection.
Worse the elevated ‘earth plate’ only warmed .1825 C per doubling. That eerily close to Roy’s results with his cloud analysis and paper he prepared on climate sensitivity recognizing he was measuring it in the atmosphere with water vapor and that result would be doubled or tripled in that case giving something like .37 to .55C sensitivity. . . .a large negative sensitivity. . . .and something we can just disregard with any reasonable stretch of the imagination.
Bindidon says:
” and the Hunter boy still keeps arrogant enough to think he knows it better than thousands of scientists who therefore must have had it all wrong.”
Bindidon if you are going to deem yourself qualified to speak for thousands of scientists you probably should ask them first if what they believe is based upon the convention of use within their field of astronomy vs a dedicated belief in the reality of the situation and that they believe that the perception of motion isn’t at all relative.
lol only posted this like 20 times now
Our new publication Radiative Energy flux variation from 2001 2020″ has brought to light a surprising result for climate science: the warming of the Earth in the last 20 years is mainly due to a higher permeability of clouds for short-wave solar radiation.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/
lol
From the American Institute of Physics:
I’m with them!
Of course you’re “with them”, Ark. You’re a fully-indoctrinated cultist.
But your cult does NOT accept that “topics should be traceable to standard textbooks”. Ice can NOT boil water, passenger jets do NOT fly backward, and atmospheric fluxes do NOT “balance”, all are verified from standard textbooks (First Principles).
What you see there (from the AIP) is blatant censorship and control of the narrative.
It’s a cult.
Peer review isn’t a standard of quality assurance.
Quality Assurance means its tested checked and replicated.
Peter Ridd has stated that 80% of Peer Reviewed Science is junk that is found to be false when subjected to any rigor of quality assurance.
So you’re seriously misguideed if you think peer review is any substitute for humble reasoning.
“So you’re seriously misguideed if you think peer review is any substitute for humble reasoning.”
I did not say that, did I? Besides, how are peer review and “humble reasoning” mutually exclusive?
Notwithstanding your appeal to authority, what I described is my process for separating the wheat from the chaff. You do as you please; it’s a free country.
ark…”Besides, how are peer review and humble reasoning mutually exclusive?”
***
Simple. Journal editors hand a paper to one reviewer and allow the reviewer to be the sole source of peer review. That’s not peer review, which means in essence that all peers should get to review the paper, thousands of them. Rather, the hand-picked reviewer may know nothing about the subject covered by the paper yet he/she gets to be the judge and jury on whether the paper reaches real peer review.
Some arrogant journal editors take it upon themselves to be judge and jury, rejecting a paper based on a personal bias. When Australian researcher, Barry Marshall submitted a paper proving stomach ulcers were caused by the bacteria H. Pylori, the journal editor not only rejected his paper, he claimed it to be one of the ten worst papers he has ever read.
Peer review as it stands now is not only a bad joke, it is seriously biased. Until recently, Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann sat as editors/reviewers on the Journal of Climate. What chance do you think a paper from a skeptic like Roy Spencer or John Christy would have of getting past those two gits?
Heck, even the head of Had-crut, Phil Jones, threatened in the Climategate emails to make sure papers from certain skeptics would not make it to the review stage.
Peer review isnt a standard of quality assurance. Especially when the peer group won’t allow discussions about the topic that are contrary to the accepted view.
ken…”Peter Ridd has stated that 80% of Peer Reviewed Science is junk that is found to be false when subjected to any rigor of quality assurance”.
***
When you add to that the information that most papers published these days have egregious errors that are never challenged, never mind amended, science is in trouble.
“We wish to discuss mainstream science.”
Wish in one hand, pee in the other – see which fills up first.
What a lot of self important wankers!
“Generally, we do not allow the discussion of theories that appear only on personal websites, self-published books, etc.”
They obviously don’t know the difference between a speculation and a theory.
What a lot of ignorant, censorious wankers!
lol
Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 20012020
by Hans-Rolf Dbal 1,* andFritz Vahrenholt 2ORCID
1
Am Langenstck 13, 65343 Eltville, Germany
2
Department of Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Papenkamp 14, 22607 Hamburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2021, 12(10), 1297; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12101297
Received: 1 September 2021 / Revised: 30 September 2021 / Accepted: 1 October 2021 / Published: 5 October 2021
thanks for the laughs, but clearly your replies are not a good use of my time, goodbye forever 🙂
td…”but the strongest signal was in the Arctic”
***
Ironically, the true Arctic is not covered by either sats or thermometers. One wonders how they determine it has warmed most.
The Arctic was coldest during the Little Ice Age. There are eye witness account of the ice extent from explorers between 1600 and 1850, trying to discover the Northwest Passage.
Conditions are pretty much the same during the Arctic winter when even icebreakers cannot get through mid-winter. Recently, A Russian ship built on the west coast of Russia was forced to sail to the east coast via the Suez Canal because the Arctic route was impassable.
–volcanic injection of H2O into the stratosphere might have some measurable effect but, always a bit skeptical of lingering effects from what is basically just a big cloud–
Generally, I agree.
Upper atmosphere is hot but lacks density so has no temperature.
Like space which lacks even more density.
Now, you add more density {temporarily}. It may not have a measurable effect.
But adding CO2 likewise has had “no measurable effect” and I tend to blame our lack of measuring ability rather than think it doesn’t have any effect.
I tend to think doubling CO2 level has some warming effect.
I don’t think we going to double CO2 and I don’t we going to a lot more the injection of H2O into the stratosphere.
It seems adding more CO2 would better- better plant growth.
If had 10 times more this “injection of H2O into the stratosphere”
It’s still doubtful it would have a measurable- but in times past, it seems we probably did have more than 10 times what we had.
Stronger solar winds accelerate the jet stream in the north, which becomes latitudinal.
The analogy happens in the southern Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/jwXfYRV/mimictpw-epac-latest.gif
https://i.ibb.co/cy8Y73Q/mimictpw-spac-latest.gif
Heavy frontal thunderstorms in eastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/XymjVv2/archive-3-image.png
posting problems…testing…
tim s…”Gordon, since you are describing feedback, please describe the difference between feedback and feedforward systems. Explain how that is different than a cascade control system. Finally, explain how any of that relates to the climate”.
***
Good-question, Tim, but first I need to check with the word police (Clint) to see how many words I am allotted.
The first thing you need to understand is that feed-forward and cascade control systems have nothing to do with the positive feedback referenced in climate circles. The term feed-forward is actually ambiguous since it’s more about anticipating an outcome than feeding control information forward, as opposed to back, as in feedback.
A simple example offhand is the control system in modern cars where you need to put the transmission in Park or Neutral in order to start the car. It’s a safety feature that anticipates a hazard should a person start the car in drive or another gear.
However, we need to understand the difference in feedback systems. There are two basic forms of control feedback: servo system feedback and the type that applies to climate systems, a feedback used to control an amplifier’s gain.
Sorry about that, continued in next post in succession. For some reason, the system is rejecting words that normally go through.
A servo needs the sign of a D.C voltage fed back to control a load. In this case the sign of the voltage is the important factor whereas in the other form of feedback it is the phase of an AC signal.
The usage of positive feedback is so ambiguous as applied by climate alarmists that it is not clear which kind of feedback is intended. It must be the amplifier-based feedback since they talk about an amplification, which is not rquired with a servo system feedback.
However, they don’t explain the mechanism by which this heat amplification takes place. Gavin Schmidt tried to explain it in a paper which engineer Jeffrey Glassman tore to shreds. Schmodt, with a degree in math, could not offer a correct equation to describe the feedback he was referencing.
Gordo,
It seems that incorrectly using mathematics is a frequent problem in climate science. Then you have a guy like Ed Berry, who presents a first-order linear differential equation that describes the natural flows of carbon, and they hate him for it. They hate the truth. dL/dt is equal to the inflows minus the outflows. That is an immutable fact. Instead of trying to falsify Berry’s solution, they attack him.
Mathematics shares with language the problem that you can write equations which look sensible, but do not describe reality. Berry’s is one such. It looks good but does not describe reality.
Perhaps the classic example is the Blackett effect published in 1947 which linked rotation, magnetism and gravity based on a small sample of astronomical data.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackett_effect
It turned out to be wrong, though it did inspire the James Blish “Cities in Flight” novels.
Stenphen P Anderson
Ed Berry is giving you a false narrative and is not so wonderful as you believe. He is isolating CO2 levels to just one part of the system and ignoring the big picture. If you take carbon from a source that is not part of the carbon cycle (fossil fuels dug up from the ground and burned) and add it you will increase the overall amount of carbon dioxide in the overall system. You will get more in the atmosphere, more in the ocean and more in the bio-system.
I tried to explain it to you but your brain seems closed tight. When you pull water up from some deep source you add to the overall water in the system. More in the air, oceans, rivers lakes.
That is conservation of mass. If you add material without removing it the amount goes up. His paper is not very good at all as he misses the larger view trying to focus just on atmospheric CO2. Wish that science mind you used to have would come back and you could analyze things logically.
“If you take carbon from a source that is not part of the carbon cycle . . .”
Fossil fuels, by definition, are carbon compounds which contain carbon originally sourced from the atmosphere. They are the remains of once living organisms.
Maybe you are referring to some other sort of “carbon cycle”?
Norman,
You obviously haven’t read Berry’s third paper. Nothing you said could be further from the truth.
Swenson
Fossil fuels were part of an ancient carbon cycle. They were removed from an active part of it until we dug it up and burned it reintroducing it to the carbon cycle.
Most of the ancient carbon cycle is locked up in chalk, limestone, etc.
Stephen P Anderson
Do you have a link to his third paper. I went to his website.
With this information he provides I am not sure why you think what I said is far from the truth. Are you using good logic with this conclusion?
Here:
https://edberry.com/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2-summary/
Look at figure 3 in the link. It shows human contribution quite high and everything increasing with it, exactly as I said. You take a source of Carbon (coal and oil) burn them to produce Carbon Dioxide and you are adding new carbon dioxide to the system that was not there before and all the sinks are increasing because of it. Just as I said. I need more logic than just saying I am far from the truth. His own graph and logic would support my point. I do not know what you point is you just keep saying Ed Berry proves AGW wrong but you really don’t know why it would. Not real logical of you. You lost your science mind lost in fanatic right-wing political belief with a vast majority of it lies and made up garbage. I think it is sad you went down that rabbit hole and reject logic over a twisted right-wing agenda based mostly on endless lies.
For people interested in actual climate: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/14/8/1244
Ken
Thanks, sounds interesting at a first glance. I’ll read it when I have some idle time.
But hmmmh, I see in the abstract:
” The 23 ka Milankovitch cycle has begun to reduce the winter insolation received at the surface of the atmosphere in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere starting in 2020. This results in extreme weather as the winter insolation reaching the surface of the atmosphere in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere decreases while the summer air temperatures increase. It heralds the start of the next glaciation. ”
That, Ken, is a bit brazen when you then read further:
” A brief outline is given of some of the climatic changes and consequences that may be expected in western Canada during the next 11.5 ka. ”
We are currently in the middle of all three (!!!) Milankovitch Cycles. Yeah, there isn’t only one of them.
‘The next 11.5 ka’ doesn’t mean the effects don’t happen for 11.5 ka.
The effects start now as climate slowly gets worse for human flourishing.
CO2 isn’t causing the recent warm weather events.
Good article, Ken.
My quick look leads me to think Harris is has tried to cover all of climate science in one paper and misses the mark at several points. While understanding the cycles of glacial advance and retreat are important, our immediate concerns are what is happening over only a few hundred years.
I think his discussion of the CO2 measurements on “Mount Kea” (which should be Mauna Loa?) a bit strange, since the location was originally selected to minimize local influences.
He screws up some of his references, such as:
Payet and Holmes…[47,48] which should be [52, 50]
and Christy…[49] which should be [51], etc.
Sorry, I think he needs to dig much deeper into the subject.
Thats fair Swanson.
But we have been asking for examples of the pro-CO2 keystone theory to also wade deeper into the subject with zero new results. There still isn’t a published blueprint of how the CO2 theory works. It is claimed to exist in proprietary climate models but we never see the logic or physics behind them.
My first job in the modeling sector were complete math and logic checks of the codes in such models to ensure each operation was correctly done and to itemize all parameters for review by experts.
there is no doubt in my mind such a review would be a game changer that would enliven debate substantially.
Hunter claims that:
There are one dimensional models which were published decades ago. Here’s a link to an older version of NCAR’s Single Column Model (SCM), which includes the source code.
https://www2.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/sccm/sccm.html
“…our immediate concerns are what is happening over only a few hundred years. ”
“But we have been asking for examples of the pro-CO2 keystone theory to also wade deeper into the subject with zero new results.
Well, we have warmed from a period which was called the little ice age.
Little ice Age is claimed it was local effect rather than global, but we warmed from about 13.5 to 15 C.
And is 13.5 C suppose to a “normal” global average surface temperature?
The global warming religion is Earth average temperature is 15 C, has it been revised to 13.5 C.
I think the immediate concern is 15 C average air temperature is a cold air temperature.
And generally wonder what global average temperature is needed to have a lot less desert regions in the world.
If we don’t want less deserts in the world- and reason we have over 1/3 land areas being desert and a shortage of forests, is because we are in an Ice Age.
But if we happy to live in Ice Age, it seems we should have ocean settlements, we don’t need to use so much energy trying to keep warm enough {and other reasons}.
” Ironically, the true Arctic is not covered by either sats or thermometers. One wonders how they determine it has warmed most. ”
Says the ignoramus who has not the least idea of how the (true) Arctic is covered by what.
UAH’s data goes up to 82.5 N; Earth being a sphere (yes, it matters when we need to calculate surfaces), the uncovered surface in the ‘true’ Arctic therefore is no more than 0.43 % of Earth, what hardly could matter compared to the ‘full’ Arctic starting at 60 N (was that not about 15 % ?).
*
And only people like Robertson are gullible followers of komrade EM Smith aka ‘chiefio’, the contrarian anti-authority they permanently appeal to, and really still believe his trash (dated 2009 or so) about only a few stations existing in the Arctic.
From 1979 till these days, about 900 GHCN daily stations (located in Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, UK – yeah, the one in Lerwick – and the US) reported data.
*
Just a little hint: while the average trend for all Arctic stations over their lifetime is 0.24 C / decade, the average trend for 1979-2022 is 0.48 C / decade (for UAH land-only: 0.23 C / decade, yeah: a lot less).
*
Keep wondering, Robertson! It’s one of the few things you do best.
Binny van der Klown, an authority on nothing, fails to grasp there is only one ‘reporting’ station in the Canadian Arctic. All the stations he conjures up are stations on paper that are not used to determine global temps.
Binny excels at publishing stats using obsolete data. He reports a trend of of 0.48C/decade which when added to the average winter temperature gives a scorching minus 64.52 C.
I would pay to see Binny announcing to people in the Arctic in March that it is actually warming, then see him run out of town on a rail.
The Sun is outputting more energy than they thought.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/technology/sun-blasts-out-highest-energy-radiation-ever-recorded-raising-questions-for-solar-physics/ar-AA1eRA6z?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=6eecbb28459c4197936f79fc18f5d2dd&ei=17
” The Sun is outputting more energy than they thought. ”
… but those who know it ‘better’ tell us all the time since years the Sunny Boy would be so quiet that we are already now quickly moving into a Grand Solar Minimum.
You have missed the point, as usual. The Sun has a mammoth range of frequencies at which it is out-putting energy. It may go quieter over part of that bandwidth and be out-putting more in another part.
The figure of 1300 and something w/m^2 at TOA is misleading. It’s an average across the entire bandwidth and tells us nothing about what is going on in any one part of the bandwidth of frequencies.
The 1300+ w/m^2 is interesting but of no practical value just as the global average is meaningless. It’s a ballpark figure that is abused by alarmists to make a point.
“You have missed the point, as usual.”
Yup.
Sun isn’t suppose the emit higher than X-ray and with “higher events”
it was know to do gamma ray: “Gamma rays have the smallest wavelengths and the most energy of any wave in the electromagnetic spectrum.”
So as understand it, X-rays from Sun don’t get thru our atmosphere and aren’t significant amounts in terms of a problem with space travel. Though gamma rays are a bit more of a problem in terms our atmosphere or space travel.
I was reading something which said gamma rays are due to GCR [high speed [near light speed] particle.
In terms of Grand solar min, a main thing about it, is the increase in GCR due to a less active sun.
And we haven’t had Grand solar min in our modern space age, though history is full of them and it appears to some people they are connected with higher volcanic activity on Earth.
Another way to say this, is the present Solar Grand Max is ending, and this Solar Grand Max was protecting us, from more volcanic activity. And also btw, protecting us from having more cloudy
weather {also}.
And also protecting us from having more gamma rays is another “theory”.
Its the van allen belts that prevent xray from reachein gearth surface.
Earth magnetic field is weakening so xray and UV penetration is greater than it has been.
Suns been really active the past couple of months too.
Well, X-ray to see your bones is more intense than any X-rays from Sun. And 100 meters of air will block a lot of x-rays from the sun.
Though the levels of X-rays from sun is not radiation problem on the airless lunar surface- though might be if not wearing a spacesuit- but then, just not wearing a spacesuit is the bigger issue.
The sun has have a lot sunspots in last couple months and a direct hit from solar flare is reduce by the van allen belts- though they also “break” the field lines and there is effect upon Earth surface when they snap. There hasn’t been much direct hits in last couple months, but there was large flare on farside of sun. If it had been on nearside at towards Earth, there would been, excitement.
Robertson
” You have missed the point, as usual. ”
No, Robertson, YOU did – as usual indeed!
I wasn’t talking about your ‘1300+ w/m^2’ fixation.
I talked about all predictions about SC25 becoming even lower than SC24.
Why are so so ignorant, Robertson?
Daily Sun: 08 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 450.9 km/sec
density: 5.52 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 101
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 170 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.19×10^10 W Warm
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×10^10 W Cold (02/2009)
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.6% Low +0.1%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)
–THE CME MIGHT HAVE MISSED: A cannibal CME expected to hit Earth on Aug. 8th might have missed. It was never expected to be a direct hit. NOAA models suggested that only the flank of the CME might graze Earth’s magnetic field, so a miss comes as no surprise. A late arrival is also possible, so we are extending a minor geomagnetic storm watch (G1) into Aug. 9th. Aurora alerts: SMS Text–
–SPACEX TEARS ANOTHER HOLE IN THE IONOSPHERE: Last night, SpaceX launched 15 more Starlink satellites from the Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. En route to orbit, the Falcon 9 rocket tore a hole in the ionosphere. Dennis Mammana photographed the telltale red glow from Borrego Springs, CA:–
Once starship is flying, it should tear a lot more holes. And it will land first batch of crew to lunar polar region- soon.
Meanwhile, an Indian rover is going to nearest, yet to the lunar polar, somewhere around 24th of August 2023.
And Falcon-9 and Vulcan Centaur are going to try to put something on the moon before end of year. And also, Russians are giving it try.
In 2024, it will be more busy with Moon, and will 2025.
binny…re “PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
The daily motions of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its daily motion”.
***
Clint whines about me being off-topic when he spent months talking incessantly about the Moon. On the other hand, I regarded the subject as on-topic in the sense that it exposes the inability of most alarmists to reason scientifically.
The reference above from Binny leads up to his claim about the Moon rotating wrt the stars. However, it says nothing about the Moon rotating about its own local axis, only about ‘its’ axis. The translation is a newer one but nevertheless contradicts what Newton stated about the Moon in terms that are easily translated. I claim ‘its axis’ is a reference to the Earth as its axis and here’s why.
Newton made three observations about the Moon…
1)it moves with a linear motion
2)the linear motion is bent into curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field.
3)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the Earth.
It is impossible for a body to move with a linear motion while keeping the same face pointed at an object and still rotate about a local axis. There is a simple proof. Consider a car moving on a straight highway with mountains to its left. The car is not rotating about a local axis. Now bend the road so it circles the mountains and the same conditions apply. The mountains are always on the left and the car has still not rotated about a local axis.
Newton spent literally no time talking about a rotation about a local axis. PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV is about the only place he mentions the Moon in that capacity in Principia and if the Moon did rotate about a local axis, you can bet Newton would have elaborated on the subject.
A proper translation of Newton would have noted that the Moon rotated wrt to the stars but not about a local axis, rather about the Earth. That motion is better described as re-orientation of the near face, which would satisfy 1), 2) and 3) above.
Gordon, you’re off topic, again.
This Moon issue was settled months ago. And, as usual, you weren’t any help.
Try to keep up. Focus.
“A proper translation of Newton would have noted that the Moon rotated wrt to the stars but not about a local axis, rather about the Earth.”
Now it is the translators who are wrong! More simply it is those who invent an ‘external axis’ who are actually wrong.
Richard…Newton’s work on this subject was cutting edge and no one interviewed him about it while he was alive. All they had to go on to translate his work in Principia, which was written in Old Latin, was the work of people like Cassini, who believed the Moon rotated exactly once per orbit.
Here’s something from Principia for your own logical analysis. Newton claimed…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion
2)Earth’s gravitational field bends the linear motion into a curvilinear motion
3)the Earth keeps the same face pointed to the Earth.
The translators offer one sentence from Newton in Principia that vaguely suggests the Moon ‘revolves’ about it’s axis’. Newton used the statement in reference to planetary motion and there is nothing else in the entire works in which he addresses the rotation of the Moon about a local axis. It hard for me to imagine Newton not elaborating on such an important subject.
In Old Latin, the word for revolve could be translated as a change of orientation of the near face wrt the stars and that would fit Newton’s three points above. However, the translators were likely influenced by a pre-conception that the Moon rotates about a local axis exactly once per orbit.
One of the modern translators has revealed several major errors in translations. Seems reasonable to me they missed this on as well.
“curvilinear motion”
is you own word salad.
…is your own word salad…
I got curvilinear motion from Newton, it came from the translation in Principia. My phrase is curvilinear translation. Rectilinear translation is motion between A and B along straight lines whereas curvilinear translation is motion between A and B on a curved line.
The telling theme from your replies, however, is that you don’t want to engage in a physics discussion. I have no interest in winning an argument or playing a game of gotchas, I respect your analytical mind and thought maybe we could hammer out some truth from Newton’s Principia that the translators missed.
I think it’s a shame that you prefer to hide behind authority figures on this subject yet you have the courage to step up and challenge bad science re climate change/global warming issues.
Climatically ill
https://youtu.be/KoRkMuam-6o
Oh no! We’re all going to die!
Tell me something I don’t know.
When the Sahara had grasslands and forests, it was better Earth, but it wasn’t good time to live.
We are living in the best of times- and that over time period of 5000 years, Earth has gotten more inhabitable deserts, doesn’t subtract much from the current situation of it being the best of times.
The neurotic climate meme.
Most of the water in the atmosphere is now concentrated in the western Pacific. The typhoon sends water vapor into the stratosphere and lowers ocean temperatures.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/08/08/0700Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-186.61,14.83,372/loc=130.987,29.535
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/08/05/0000Z/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-240.33,21.46,1128
The hurricane is skirting Hawaii from the south.
https://i.ibb.co/5cWkDvH/goes18-wv-rgb-05-E-202308080815.gif
https://youtu.be/Z0e0SA8jjus
Residents of Alaska’s capital were undergoing an emergency evacuation as of Monday due to major flooding, which began due to a glacier lake outburst flood.
In this case the Suicide Basin, a side basin on the Mendenhall Glacier suffered a breach and the subsequent flood has washed away, and severely damaged homes all along the Mendenhall River.
According to FEMA, there was a less than 1 percent chance of “extreme” flooding like this occurring in that region of Alaska.
Scientists have predicted since 2021 that melted glaciers will increase the risk of flooding as climate change continues to worsen:
Increasing risk of glacial lake outburst floods from future Third Pole deglaciation
There’s a fairly spectacular gorge in the Alpine Rhein river not too far from where I live, carved out of soft sediments in a matter of days, I believe. It was created when a glacial dam gave way towards the end of the Wrm glaciation, and is up to a couple of hundred metres deep.
It was one of those instances of geological suddenness that would have upset Charles Lyell.
“It was one of those instances of geological suddenness that would have upset Charles Lyell.”
The following would have killed him…
Yes, it’s notable that the impactor theory of the K/T extinction encountered serious resistance from within the geology community precisely because it violated gradualism, the legacy of Lyell. It’s striking (sorry) that geologists seem tacitly to have reasoned that because Lyellian gradualism is true, therefore the Earth must have been immune to impact by an astronomical body.
The parallel with politically-motivated denialism is powerful: Because free-market fundamentalism is true, therefore radiative physics must be wrong.
Why are you spreading this propaganda about glaciers melting in Alaska? There is only about one month of summer in Alaska where ice can melt.
Here, read some science from a scientist who lives in Alaska and is familiar with Alaskan glaciers.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266037018_On_the_recovery_from_the_Little_Ice_Age
Ah yes, Akasofu 2010! Why am I not surprised that this is what passes for “science” to a person like you.
Akasofu’s prediction has failed spectacularly.
Akasofu assumed a linear trend of 0.05C/decade, of unknown cause, which he labels as “LIA recovery,” while disregarding what we know about the physics of the climate system.
His prediction is inaccurate because it’s not based on physics.
Is that the same glacier where they have discovered 1,000 year old tree stumps that prove the full extent of the glacier is less than 1,000 years old? Is that the one that proves it had to be hotter 1,000 years ago, and then there had to be a cooling period? Is that the same one that climate change “believers” don’t like to talk about?
Read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendenhall_Glacier, unless you’re JAQing.
Your link seems to answer the question to some extent, but not the larger question: Why was it so warm before CO2 increased?
“The Mendenhall Glacier has retreated approximately 2.5 miles since its most recent maxima during the Little Ice Age in the mid-1700s.[8]”
“Ancient forest uncovered
In 2012, tree stumps and logs with attached roots and bark appeared under the retreating glacier. They are in their original growth position, preserved under what was believed to be a protective gravel layer. By uncovering them, scientists learn about the ecosystem from before the glacier formed. They can determine trees’ ages when they died by looking at their preserved remains. One of the scientists, Cathy Conner, was reported as finding “The most recent stumps emerging from the Mendenhall are between 1,400 and 1,200 years old. The oldest are around 2,350 years old. Some have dated around 1,870 to 2,000 years old.”[11][16] “
You’re just JAQing off.
Good talking.
The fact is that you opened the question about the glacier. With a hint of sarcasm, I politely posed a series of questions that are difficult to answer for people who claim the earth is warmer than it has ever been and “ONLY” climate change can explain why. The tree stump evidence is pure science, and it came directly from your link that was supposed to act as some kind of accusation. It backfired!
Do you have a better explanation? There is nothing to argue about unless you don’t like the answer. Your rude deflection is all the proof I need that you are just another person using tricks and accusations to push an agenda with no intent to exchange honestly about genuine science.
Good Bye
“…people who claim the earth is warmer than it has ever been…”
No serious person would say that. Haven’t you ever seen these data? https://imgur.com/a/gxMOZq6
Why are you fixated on the “tree stumps” issue? The Mendenhall glacier is located in an oceanic climate environment in southern Alaska, so it isn’t surprising that tree stumps have been found as the glacier retreats: https://imgur.com/a/35hFoFG
What you see as “rude deflection” is simply impatience with your ignorance of widely known facts about this particular glacier.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
I just got back from Milano over the weekend. (I caught the train, before anyone starts – it’s only four hours away from where I live.) The damage to trees in the city is shocking. The gardens abutting the Castello Sforzesco are completely closed while they saw up the fallen trunks and drag them off. This does not impress me in the least, as fallen wood is a vital part of woodland ecosystems, but they are probably afraid that someone will sue them because he got faint at the sight of sap. In a couple of places the trunks have crushed the railings. There are trees of more than a metre in diameter that have been ripped clean out of the ground right next to main roads.
I said I was moderately grateful at the cold, wet Summer in Switzerland, but now I cast moderation to the wind. Italy really got hammered this last few weeks.
Robertson endlessly repeats the same trash about everything.
If it’s not
– his ‘N2/O2 absorb and emit’ syndrome, or
– ‘COVID19 was nothing like a pandemic, just a few old, sick people died here and there’, or
– ‘NOAA uses only 1500 stations’, or
– ‘There is only one station reporting in the Canadian Arctic’, or
– ‘Mayer’s treatise wasn’t about rotation, only about libration’,
etc etc etc, then it is his ‘fixed star’ syndrome.
Here we are again:
” A proper translation of Newton would have noted that the Moon rotated wrt to the stars but not about a local axis, rather about the Earth. ”
*
This is the basic principle of the widespread pseudo-skeptical attitude: to deliberately ignore everything that contradicts one’s narrative, if necessary by distorting the meaning of even an original document, e.g. by deliberately omitting an important point.
*
In ALL translations of Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV out of Newton’s original Latin text, you can read the very same stuff, here that written by Ian Bruce:
https://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/newton/book3s1.pdf
” Spots in the body of the sun return at the same place on the solar disc in around 27 1/2 days, with respect to the earth; and thus with respect to the fixed stars the sun is rotating in around 25 1/2 days. ”
Any person having a sane brain and a sound relation to scientific texts immediately sees that Newton, having written the sentence above, reasonably can’t have claimed that celestial bodies would ‘rotate wrt the fixed stars’, let alone that they would ‘orbit wrt the fixed stars’.
Rather, Newton manifestly understood that the spin and orbit PERIODS of observed celestial bodies must be computed wrt fixed points in space – in order to get observations independent of the rotational and orbital motions of the observers themselves.
And it is on this premise that one should read Newton’s preceding paragraph:
” It is apparent by the first law of motion and Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Book I that Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes, Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the sun in 25 1/2 [days] and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes. ”
It is known today that while Jupiter’s synodic rotation period is 9 h 55 min 33 sec, its sidereal rotation period is 9 h 55 min 30 sec. A small, but existing difference.
*
And even Milky Way stars aren’t as fixed as astronomers need.
At the end of his computation of the lunar spin period, Tobias Mayer took into consideration that the Vernal Point (the First Point of Aries), the star he used as fixed reference for the orientation of his 100 % selenocentric coordinate system, apparently moves around the Earth/Moon system in about 25,800 years, i.e. about 50 arc seconds per year, what creates a lunar spin period difference of round 6.8 seconds: that’s 0.0003 % of the whole period.
For us maybe an absolutely negligible difference, but not for experienced astronomers. No wonder that today, way farer distant pulsars are used as ‘fixed stars’ by those who observe smallest irregularities (so-called forced resp. free physical librations) within the lunar spin.
Bindi, you’re taking that out-of-context, again. Newton was talking about day/night, not “spin”.
You continually avoid the intro: “The daily motions of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its daily motion.”
You’re doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results. Some people call that “insanity”.
Clint R
” Newton was talking about day/night, not ‘spin’. ”
Aha.
” The daily motions of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its daily motion. ”
I didn’t ‘avoid’ this intro, Clint R. I didn’t need it. Only you seem to have missed it.
The intro says that
– all planets (*) have a ‘day’ (i.e. rotate about their polar axis during that day);
– the libration of the Moon (its optical wobbling) is due to its ‘day’ (i.e. the rotation about its polar axis).
You of course understand it differently, that is your right. This is your cult, an extremely small minority which is, on this blog dominated by pseudo-skeptical persons, hugely over-represented.
*
Now back to you: ‘day’ I understand. But… from where did you get that Newton was talking about any ‘night’ ?
‘Insanity’ you said? Hmmmmh.
*
Footnote
(*) With ‘planets’, Newton manifestly means more generally ‘celestial bodies’; otherwise, he never would have mentioned the Moon all the time in this Proposition XVII, would he?
binny…” The daily motions of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its daily motion. ”
***
That’s right, but it’s daily motion according to Newton is curvilinear translation. That explains libration and a rotating Moon could not explain it. Libration is only a few degrees and there is no libration at either end of the major axis. In fact, it occurs only between the point where the semi=major axis meets the orbital path and where the major axis meets it. It’s max at the former and zero at the latter.
Since the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth during these periods it proves the Moon is not rotating about a local axis. Libration is a property only of the Moon’s elliptical, orbital path and has nothing to do with local rotation.
I laid this out in detail using trig and you offered no rebuttal. Libration is purely an artefact of a radial line tracking the Moon from the focal point where the Earth is found and the related view angle. It’s about the tangent line representing the instantaneous lunar motion and the radial line. It’s all explained by the trig relationships and the angles related to an elliptical path.
Meyer apparently couldn’t figure that out because he was hung up on Cassini’s error that the Moon rotates about a local axis.
” Meyer apparently couldnt figure that out because he was hung up on Cassinis error that the Moon rotates about a local axis. ”
Again and again: Robertson’s mix of arrogance and ignorance.
In Prop. XVII of Book III we read (translation by Ian Bruce, 2012):
” Truly because there is the monthly revolution of the moon about its axis : the same face of this will always look at the more distant focus of its orbit, as nearly as possible, and therefore according to the situation of that focus will hence deviate thence from the earth.
This is the libration of the moon in longitude: For the libration in latitude has arisen from the latitude of the moon and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
N. Mercator has explained this theory of the libration of the moon more fully in letters from me, published in his Astronomy at the start of the year 1676. ”
*
Robertson still did not manage to grasp that Newton perfectly had understood what Cassini had done, and explained that to Mercator in 1675; the latter published Newton’s explanation one year later in his treatise (written in Latin, of course):
https://books.google.de/books?id=TqwsGvy3sMEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en&source=gbs_atb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Newton&f=false
Click on the [page 286] link, and… try to understand what Mercator wrote.
*
When will you FINALLY admit that Mayer restarted from scratch the work initiated by Cassini, a work which Newton was aware of, and fully agreed to?
*
Somewhere above, you claimed that Newton only spent a few lines about the lunar spin, and that if he had taken that serious, he would have developed it far deeper.
My answers:
– (1) Newton was, in addition to his Principia, busy during decades with an endless, fruitless competition with several scientists (Halley, Hadley among others) concerning the competition of longitudes at sea;
– (2) he knew that it would be a tremendous work: for the full computation of the lunar spin (period, axis inclination wrt the Ecliptic, selenocentric coordinates), Mayer needed 130 pages, Lagrange and Laplace over 200.
Why are you so reckless and disrespectful against all these people: Cassini, Newton, Mercator, Lagrange, Laplace?
You who are just a tiny little dwarf next to them!
binny…” the libration of the Moon (its optical wobbling) is due to its day (i.e. the rotation about its polar axis)”.
***
Libration is not a wobble, it is entirely a view angle issue. The Moon is not wobbling in its orbit.
The lunar day is a property of the lunar orbit, not a local rotation.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis once per orbit of the Earth, the Moon’s day would be 365.25/4 days long.
Robertson
You still did not understand.
1. When I write ‘optical wobbling’, I mean an optical illusion, and not a physical motion.
2. ” The lunar day is a property of the lunar orbit, not a local rotation. ”
Means an absolute ignorant who did not understand what Newton wrote, but hundreds of physicists, mathematicians and astronomers very well did.
Why are you so dumb and so arrogant, Robertson?
Just goes to show that hundreds of physicists, astronomers, and mathematicians don’t have as many smarts as a street urchin.
Bin, You were doing well until here:
“Tobias Mayer took into consideration that the Vernal Point (the First Point of Aries), the star he used as fixed reference … ”
The Vernal Point is not a star, but is the spot where the ecliptic crosses the celestial equator. This changes not because the star moves or because the Milky Way rotates, but because of precession of earth’s axis.
Correct.
But that doesn’t change anything to what I wrote (it was translated from Mayer’s treatise, who certainly knew what he was talking about.
Do you know that his calculation of the lunar spin period in 1750 gave the same result till 5 digits after the decimal point as the recent LLR-based calculations?
The imaginary spin is exactly the same as the REAL orbital rate, since Moon is NOT actually spinning.
Yep these guys would spend their last dime betting on which shell the pea is under.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Binny van der Klown, an authority on nothing, fails to grasp there is only one ‘reporting’ station in the Canadian Arctic. All the stations he conjures up are stations on paper that are not used to determine global temps.
Binny excels at publishing stats using obsolete data. He reports a trend of of 0.48C/decade which when added to the average winter temperature gives a scorching minus 64.52 C. ”
*
Typical Robertson ranting.
Who is not able to technically contradict inevitably will start to polemically discredit and denigrate.
Rien de nouveau!
*
Let us compare UAH 6.0 LT NoPol (Arctic 60N-82.5N) with all GHCN daily stations available in the same latitude bands.
There were in the sum 1568 having (had) sufficient data, and their common time series starts in July 1873 (with… one poor little station, but this does of course not interest us here).
Of interest is that in 1979, there were 748 of them, and 863 in 2023.
38 Arctic Canada stations provided for data. How can that be!
*
Due to the anomaly based time series, the trends for 1979-2022 are much higher than the trend in absolute temperatures: 0.63 C / decade.
This is, as usual, due to the fact that all months are equally treated departures from the 1991-2020 mean of their respective month in the baseline.
*
Here is a chart for comparison to UAH 6.0 LT in the Arctic:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F8U0VkMnVCCpPxTiRUNpqirDVlaYdqeO/view
based on simple running means (SRM).
For opinionated persons, here is a variant showing the same data, but with a 60/50/39 month cascaded running mean (C3RM), which in fact has an active window corresponding to that of a 149 month simple running mean:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nKAX7Cf-yiYiIWRcwziPHFHp6IVF8eyK/view
It is clearly visible that the C3RMs radically exterminate small differences in the means which in fact are of great interest when we think that the means were constructed out of incredibly different sources.
The SRM similarity between UAH and GHCN daily at some peak and drop places , e.g. in July 2018, is simply amazing.
*
All that wonderful info is ideologically, without any scientific proof, discredited down to wriggles and distortions and gets scraped away by the cascades.
I personally have nothing against them.
I have, on the contrary, a lot against people like Blindsley H00d (aka RLH)
– elevating them up to the only valuable ‘near-Gaussian’ solution,
– claiming that Roy Spencer graphs are ‘not very scientific’, and
– discrediting me because I see no reason to keep fixated on them.
*
Interesting, by the way, is to overlay these two running mean techniques:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YddSAmCjIPzy3A0plDu6VvkFjJTLkSme/view
From this overlay we can see how small the overall, optically perceptible behavior of the SRM is compared to that of the C3RM.
Their trends in C / decade – compared of course within the smaller C3RM’s window (Mar 1983 – Nov 2020) – are quasi-identical, somewhat lower than that for the source (sorry for so many digits):
– source: 0.697 +- 0.053
– SRM: 0.655 +- 0.006
– C3RM: 0.654 +- 0.005
The comparison of linear fits is not very relevant, that’s evident.
But as will be shown in a later comment comparing 13 month SRMs and CxRMs for various sources, their polynomial fits up to higher orders (a comparison way more severe than with linear trends) also don’t differ much.
*
Now, at the end, back to genius Robertson.
He finishes his ranting with a wonderful
” I would pay to see Binny announcing to people in the Arctic in March that it is actually warming, then see him run out of town on a rail. ”
We see that Robertson still did not understand the difference betweeen cold/warm and colder/warmer.
Top five anomalies for UAH Arctic in March:
2016 3 1.25
2017 3 1.08
1996 3 0.76
2022 3 0.74
2019 3 0.74
… and for GHCN daily:
2017 3 2.35
2019 3 2.34
2014 3 2.28
2016 3 2.10
2022 3 1.86
Yes, Robertson! It’s cold in the Arctic in March.
But… less cold than earlier, as it seems.
*
I enjoy right now the Robertson ignoramus telling us that I once more had ‘the temerity to show the good UAH data and the ugly NOAA data in lock-step’…
Ha ha haah.
binny…”There were in the sum 1568 having (had) sufficient data, and their common time series starts in July 1873 …”
***
Read my lips…NOAA uses only 1 of those stations to represent all of northern Canada. NOAA admitted they use less than 1500 stations globally. If they use the 1568 you mention that would leave only 68 or so to cover the rest of the planet solid surface.
This is why I call you a Klown. You are using stations that are ignored by NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut and presenting an analysis that is your own personal analysis. then you claim your analysis is almost identical to that of UAH.
Robertson
You are this blog’s dumbest ignoramus, and above all a brazen, disgusting liar.
I think those epithets more refer to yo than anyone else here.
The whole point of low pass filters is to remove high frequencies (below the passband) which SRMs do not do.
That’s right, but a lot of people estimate trends based on monthly anomalies. Trends thus obtained aren’t physically meaningful.
Consider a function, the domain of which is {1,2,3,4,5,6} and the range is {2,4,6,8,10,12}.
The rise is 12-2 = 10.
Let {6,8} represent the base months Converting the function to monthly anomalies, we get {-4,-4,0,0,4,4}.
The rise is 4 (-4) = 8.
Um, no. Go back and do your math again. -Roy
Trends can be calculated for a given month, but not across all data. If the trends were valid across all data, then the monthly anomaly data would show July ’23 as the largest number in the TLT global data, but it does not. That means the trend across all data is lower than it otherwise would be.
The math:
2-6 = -4
4-8 = -4
6-6 = 0
8-8 = 0
10-6 = 4
12-8 = 4
The numbers are correct and the overall effect of anomalies in this case is to lower the trend.
It’s easy enough to set up a spreadsheet to illustrate the anomaly effect. Column A 1…n integers in sequence. Column B, 1…n “Y” values. Column C (column B – base number) – this should include multiple base numbers for each “month” to make the example more realistic.
Then set up a linear regression based on Column B, then Column C. Play with the base numbers. You will see the slope will be different between Column B and Column C depending on the choice of base numbers.
For example,
month Absolute Anomalized
1 1 -14
2 5 4
3 6 -9
4 5 4
5 15 0
6 1 0
7 7 -8
8 11 10
9 8 -7
10 14 13
11 12 -3
12 17 16
So this is for a 6 fake year, with each year containing 2 fake months. The base months are months 5 and 6.
The results are:
Linear Trend Absolute
1.06293706293706 1.59090909090909
Linear Trend Anomaly
1.35664335664336 -8.31818181818182
The slope (trend) is the leftmost number.
Jim,
The issue is not significant.
Certainly each month has a slightly different trend
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/1/7/1973-2023?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1973&endtrendyear=2023
try different months.
But if you measure the trend for a 12 mo. average,
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/7/1973-2023?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1973&endtrendyear=2023
It gives a negligibly different trend (1.84 C/dec) to the one obtained from using ALL months (1.83 C/dec)
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/all/7/1973-2023?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1973&endtrendyear=2023
Thanks for that. I’ll take a look.
When I tried that with the simple 6 fake year data set above, I got this:
Linear Trend Yr. Avg.
0.457317073170732 3.27134146341463
Not the same as absolute or anomalies.
It’s certainly possible I’m missing something. These examples used the least squares linear estimate formula.
The NOAA website is a black box. I’m not sure exactly what it is doing. Does it use least squares linear regression? Or something else?
Seems to be least squares. I downloaded the 12 m. average data to Excel. Did a Least squares fit. It gives the same trend.
On WoodForTrees, the plot of UAH 6, which uses anomalies, is the same as when the data is averaged over 12 month intervals. IOW, the trend is the same for both cases.
No averaging:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/trend
12 month average:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/compress:12/trend
So, without the absolute temperature data, one can’t draw any conclusion if working only with anomalized data.
The absolute T contain the seasonal variation, which is not part of the trend we are after. We don’t want that to contribute to the trend.
If you make a 12 year set with only the seasonal variation, so 15, 1, 15,1, 15,1 etc. and do LS fit on it, what do you get?
Want it to be 0 trend, but is it?
Oh I didn t know about COMPRESS. That is handy. Different from running 12 mo mean.
Nate – using absolute temp data, the seasonality can be removed by using the mean of the months of a year. Then the trend calculation can be based on that. If the monthly base anomaly were published in the UAH dataset, we could back it out and get the absolute temps to work with.
Do you agree that seasonality is not the trend of interest? We don’t want the annual warming from winter to summer to add to the trend.
In your simulated data, when the seasonality is isolated, it seems to have a trend over the 12 y period, because the first point is 15 and the last is 1.
So if left in the data, it is contributing to the trend.
But I think we don’t want it to.
Nate, I do believe all the data points should contribute to the trend, from all seasons. If the 12 months of each year are averaged together, all the seasons are included, but there are no peaks and valleys from those variations within the year.
Using absolute temperatures, based on the 12 month average, will not necessarily yield a larger trend. The devil is in the details.
Nate – I guess another way to answer you question would be with another question: Do we live in an anomalized temperature environment or the absolute one? I would be more interested in the trend of the real, or absolute, one.
jim2,
The monthly absolute baselines are published.
Jan: 263.18 K
Feb: 263.27 K
Mar: 263.43 K
Apr: 263.84 K
May: 264.45 K
Jun: 265.10 K
Jul: 265.42 K
Aug: 265.23 K
Sep: 264.64 K
Oct: 263.95 K
Nov: 263.41 K
Dec: 263.19 K
The trend using anomalies is +0.135 K/decade. The trend using absolute temperatures is +0.138 K/decade. Part of the difference here is that I started the trend in January 1979 and ended it in July 2023 so there is an ever so slight high bias on the absolute trend due to the seasonal cycle. This is one reason why most of us prefer to compute the trend using anomalies.
jim2 says: . . . If the monthly base anomaly were published in the UAH dataset, we could back it out and get the absolute temps to work with.
UAH publishes a gridded absolute temperature dataset from which a global average can be computed. Alternately, I used this data to compute a monthly global anomaly baseline as per this post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1041352
Among the issues with using absolute temperatures to compute trends is if the trend is not an integer multiple of 12 months, there will be a contribution from the cyclic seasonal variation. This cyclic component is nominally removed when using the anomaly values.
“If the 12 months of each year are averaged together, all the seasons are included, but there are no peaks and valleys from those variations within the year.”
Yes I agree. And averaging 12 mo of anomalies will work equally well, since tha average of the 12 baselines is a constant.
Thanks for those baseline numbers!
Here’s what NOAA says are reasons to use anomalies.
”
Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.”
“Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.”
“For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.”
Nate says:
” In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a regions average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations.”
Indeed!
The mountains have fewer layers of the M&W greenhouse effect over head compared to the valleys. Thus according to your theory less warming.
And my experience tells me that convection will have a negative feedback effect to lower the measured anomaly. . . .for a starter.
Bill, the difference being discussed there is the adiabatic temperature difference between different elevations.
False and off topic.
bdgwx doesn’t your favorite theory say ”the more layers of GHG above the surface the more the greenhouse effect?”
“an active window”
The active window is not of interest as it is the corner frequency that determines the main characteristics of an LP filter (other than the width of the active data trace).
The comparison to an 149 month SRM is therefore of no interest and is designed to confuse.
The main differences between the two traces shown are to do with the leakage and distortion that SRMs add.
Blindsley H00d urges to keep at top of the discussion – to such an extent that he even doesn’t take the time needed to correctly read the comment.
” The comparison to an 149 month SRM is therefore of no interest and is designed to confuse. ”
Where is that ‘149 month SRM’, Blindsley H00d? Where is it?
*
” The main differences between the two traces shown are to do with the leakage and distortion that SRMs add. ”
… says the 75+ years old, sissyish college boy, once more without any technical proof made by procdessing the same data!
Superficial words taken out of blogs and articles, and as usual: discrediting instead of contradicting.
Hello, Robertson LH… you have way more in common with Robertson than has anyone else on this blog.
“149 month simple running mean”
SRM means simple running mean. Id!ot.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1520473
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_average
“A major drawback of the SMA {SRM} is that it lets through a significant amount of the signal shorter than the window length. Worse, it actually inverts it. This can lead to unexpected artifacts, such as peaks in the smoothed result appearing where there were troughs in the data. It also leads to the result being less smooth than expected since some of the higher frequencies are not properly removed.”
Blindsley H00d
1. Don’t try to divert with ‘SRM’ being the same as ‘simple running mean’, I’m aware of that, Blindsley H00d.
2. I ask you again:
Where is my use of any 149 month SRM in any of my graphs, Blindsley H00d? Where is it?
*
Don’t tell me you didn’t even understand what I meant with
” … which in fact has an active window corresponding to that of a 149 month simple running mean: … ”
Here is a comparison of 60 month C3RMs with 149 month SRMs:
https://tinyurl.com/C3RM-60-vs-SRM-149
Do you understand it now? Do you now see that a 60 month cascaded triple running mean based on Pratt’s coefficients has the same active window as a simple 149 month running mean, what means that the CTRM has no data within these 149 months?
That does not seem to bother you much.
The reason probably is that while you daily bore us with your endless 5-year low pass stuff, you in fact never use such filter outputs as input in any software.
I do, Blindsely H00d: for example in my PSMSL evaluations. A 60 month CTRM has no sense to me.
You show things you yourself never use, and permanently, proudly teach us about statistics you yourself also never use.
*
And I further ask you:
Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs, Blindsley H00d?
Im waiting for your superb demonstration.
I think I can wait for quite a long time.
You incorrectly said that I only had raised the inaccuracy of the SRMs.
What difference does a 149 month running mean width have to do with a 60 month C3RM’s corner frequency and hence its corner frequency?
…hence its passband…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1520530
Blindsley H00d
When will you finally understand that the time for your laborious, endlessly repeated hints is definitely over?
Stop talking, start working!
If you are not able to do the work: please admit it simply.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1520585
For people who think we’d have anything similar to Global Cooling in Europe
This is a typical situation we are faced with since years:
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/bf96ab49-65ba-4051-8cfb-ca3512ddd50c/28d0b5d4e428e4caa913a4698eee8802/faeccc4a-25e9-4842-9045-3ed1acccc98f.png?fm=webp
*
Each time we get a low pressure area (LPA) over the Baltic region, mostly boosted by a high pressure area (HPA) over the Acores (not visible on the picture), the same situation holds.
While HPAs turn clockwise, LPas turn counterclockwise.
The result is always the same: the two act like a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking cold air down towards us from the north.
With ‘us’ I mean UK which gets the coldest streams, and then France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany.
And in addition, if there is a HPA east of the LPA, another giant vacuum cleaner sucks air from the South up towards Scandinavia, which then gets gets pretty good warm, warmer than it is here in Germoney…
C’est la vie, nous dira-t-on.
Just like most ENSO patterns then.
Blinny does not understand how Low Pass filters work and what their corner frequency means in terms of their passband.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1520473
He thinks that C3RM and C5RM have different passbands as they have different active data windows. So much for his understanding of how LP filters are calculated and operate.
Blindsley H00d #2
When will you finally understand that the time for your laborious, endlessly repeated hints is definitely over?
Stop talking about you passbands, start working on a real SRM vs. CxRM comparison!
If you are not able to do the work: please admit it simply.
The actual distortion value of an SRM is very dependent on what outliers and frequencies exist in their windows. Thus no simple calculations will suffice. More than 2% is the typically assumed value.
It is well understood (by people who study this) that SRMs are very inferior to gaussian LP filters of the same corner frequency.
VP agrees with the last point.
Do you not know what a passpand is?
Blindsley H00d #3
When will you finally understand that the time for your laborious, endlessly repeated hints is definitely over?
Stop talking about your passbands, start working on a real SRM vs. CxRM comparison, instead of woefully dissimulating your inability to do the work behind blah blah like
” The actual distortion value of an SRM is very dependent on what outliers and frequencies exist in their windows. Thus no simple calculations will suffice. ”
Ha ha ha.
This is simply ridiculous. You have lots of time series on your desktop. Take three of them, and start working on the comparison, instead of throwing sand in our eyes.
Do you not know what a passband is?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1520585
More than 2% is the typically assumed value.
clintella…”Gordon, youre off topic, again.
This Moon issue was settled months ago. And, as usual, you werent any help.
Try to keep up. Focus”.
***
Yes…me and Dremt worked it out and you contributed insults and ad homs. Actually, I felt sorry for you. It was obvious you got the idea about Moon from somewhere but could not understand the physics. I was glad to help out and you got your nose out of joint and attacked me.
We all know by now that you have serious mental issues and we endure you as some kind of lap dog who snivels for attention. You got banned by Roy and managed to buttkiss your way back onto the blog and now you think he favours you somehow.
Poor Clintella, the deluded wannabee.
“This Moon issue was settled months ago”
No it wasn’t.
The Moon issue was settled months ago. Poor Gordon is STILL trying to understand what causes Moon phases. At one time, he thought they were due to Earth’s shadow!
And RLH STILL has no model of “orbital motion without spin”, unless he accepts Norman’s incompetent “moon walk”.
That’s why this is so much fun.
There is no valid model of “orbital motion without spin” because it doesn’t exist in practice.
A ball-on-a-string does not represent gravity in any way.
In addition to RLH’s inability to understand science, now he’s got “model envy”!
A ball-on-a-string does not represent gravity in any way.
RLH,
Would a rubber band/extension spring suit you?
In a gravity free environment, a pendulum bob given an impulse will travel in a circle, being subjected to centripetal force causing it to divert from its Newtonian First Law trajectory.
You could model the motion of a pendulum in a gravitational field with a spring, the bob will oscillate, but finally come to rest when tension on the spring is at a minimum.
Nature is lazy. Also chaotic – a double pendulum demonstrates this. Springs can be substituted for gravity and the behaviour is the same.
So a string, chain, solid rod will suffice, if you are not concerned that the reality is that the moon is moving away from the Earth ever so slowly. Gravity string stretches and gets weaker if it is not sufficiently strong to start with. Newton’s Cannonball explains how strong the string is, and what force is required to break it.
It also explains how the Moon can orbit the Earth keeping one face pointed at the Earth.
Much ado about nothing, but at least it diverts attention away from the indescribable GHE!
“Would a rubber band/extension spring suit you?”
No.
“Springs can be substituted for gravity”
No they can’t.
99.97% agreece
https://youtu.be/vVi01vJ4nxM
IPCC hates US oil companies but loves China coal companies.
China also imports a lot of oil. Importing oil makes more global CO2 emission than compared to a domestic oil production.
If you actually wanted reduce CO2 emission, you should have nuclear power cargo transport.
But rather than reduce CO2, all IPCC has effectively done is help increase CO2 emissions.
All UN has done is cause wars to continue and since China has bought
the corrupt UN whores, the UN [including IPCC] should be shipped to China.
Eben
That was a good video. Thanks for posting. When media has some alarmist Climate Change weather event I look at past weather and see it was just as bad.
Now there is a heat wave in the Southern region of the US and it is Climate Change but an even worse one took place in the 1930’s in a large part of the US and that could not have been from Global Warming. Heat waves are a product of a weather pattern usually a blocked atmosphere that creates a heat dome.
Curry made the mistake because she didn’t understand the physics. At least she admitted her mistake. She needs to understand the physics, so she won’t keep making the same mistakes.
He background is in geography.
“Her background…”
Her background is a lot more valid than yours.
Yeah, I only have a layman’s knowledge of geography.
As I said her background is a lot more valid than yours.
Clint R
You are wrong! She has a BS in meteorology and a PhD in atmospheric Science. Not sure why you posted that incorrect info. Have you found evidence to support your bogus claim that Nitrogen gas reflects IR? No I didn’t think so. Can you get anything right? I doubt it is possible for you.
Norman, your incompetence is amazing.
(Bold is my emphasis.)
Curry graduated cum laude from Northern Illinois University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in geography. She earned her geophysical sciences Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1982.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
She earned her geophysical sciences Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1982.
After making a complete donkey of himself, Norman has “left the building”.
Happens all the time….
Clint lies about (or just forgets) some ones qualifications.
Happens all the time.
RLH, your insults and false accusations are cult tactics. I’m used to them. They only indicate the fact that you have NOTHING.
Clint: You are the one who has NOTHING.
Clint R
There are other sources. Probably best to ask her since things conflict.
https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/403891/Dr.-Judith-Curry
Geophysical Science is not the same as geography. Here is a synopsis of the classes a person would take in this field.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/earth-sciences/study-here/undergraduate-degrees/natural-sciences/geophysical-sciences
She is much smarter than you will ever be Clint R. She also knows real science, something you will never know. You think Nitrogen gas reflects IR but will never ever provide evidence for you phony posting. Sad state with you.
Norman, the only conflict here is you denying reality, as usual.
You claimed: “She has a BS in meteorology and a PhD in atmospheric Science.
Which is clearly wrong. Her BS was in geography.
You won’t admit you were wrong, as Curry has done. You’ll live on in denial, falsely accusing others to cover up for your incompetence. Curry has shown more character than you can ever imagine.
What will you try next?
And yet Clint refuses to admit his misrepresentation.
“He(r) background is in geography.”
Her PhD thesis
“The formation of continental polar air”
Gee that does sound like Atmospheric Science!
Only Blinny would ignore what others have said about running means (including VP) and persist with the belief that they are the ‘best LP filter eva’.
Crazy high North Atlantic SST in July
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/Page%20Uploads/July%2023%20CB/SST%20Article/fig3a_era5_monthly_anomalies_sst_natlantic_july.png
as well as the whole the ocean
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/Page%20Uploads/July%2023%20CB/SST%20Article/fig1a_era5_monthly_anomalies_sst_60S-60N_july.png
You do know that anomalies are not normally considered to be robust statistics, considering that they are likely to be distorted by outliers.
(Temperature) Anomalies are simply the residual after removing the periodic annual and diurnal components by some defined process.
It’s just signal decomposition.
So you support the use of high quality LP filters to remove the yearly and daily orbital components?
Blindsley H00d
” You do know that anomalies are not normally considered to be robust statistics, considering that they are likely to be distorted by outliers. ”
Apart you above, who says that?
Show us a source.
Anomalies are unique to ‘climate science’. Show otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_statistics
“Robust statistics seek to provide methods that emulate popular statistical methods, but are not unduly affected by outliers or other small departures from model assumptions. In statistics, classical estimation methods rely heavily on assumptions that are often not met in practice. In particular, it is often assumed that the data errors are normally distributed, at least approximately, or that the central limit theorem can be relied on to produce normally distributed estimates. Unfortunately, when there are outliers in the data, classical estimators often have very poor performance, when judged using the breakdown point and the influence function”
” You do know that anomalies are not normally considered to be robust statistics, considering that they are likely to be distorted by outliers. ”
Thus, once more, you have to admit to have manipulated us by insinuating that other people might have written the same thing.
In fact, this is nothing else than your personal view.
The text you present deals with outlier removal in general, and has has nothing to do with anomalies.
*
You never heard about the use of anomalies in sciences, did you?
The term ‘anomaly’ (as a departure from a mean) originally stems from the medical context.
I have seen years ago a paper showing that the anomaly concept is used in landscape management as well.
What is correct, however, is that regardless where ‘anomaly’ is used as a shortcut for ‘departure from the mean’, it is from the linguistic point of view an unlucky use.
“Robust statistics seek to provide methods that emulate popular statistical methods, but are not unduly affected by outliers or other small departures from model assumptions.”
Anomaly in a time series as defined in climate science has no relationship to the medical use of the term.
So you do not consider that adding together multiple orbital parameters with other non-orbital factors will not produce outliers and model distortions.
Departure from a mean is a non-robust statistic in itself.
Was the landscape paper from years ago similar to removing a set of orbital factors mixed in with other non-orbital factors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_statistics
And by the way, Blindsley H00d: why should anomalies have anything to do with statistics, robust or not?
Anomalies are a procedure to remove seasonal dependencies such that all seasonal units are treated in exactly the same way.
Nobody prevents you from making your statistics on anomalies as well as on absolute data.
Anomalies (meaning departures from the mean – itself a non-robust statistic) are unique to ‘climate science’. Show otherwise.
Yeah here we go on about climate being different than weather and that while weather can be dramatic, even on a world wide scale, and such dramatic change in global mean temperature over a few weeks, months, years needs to be attributed to mankind emitting CO2 which we know based upon their own theory takes a century to do anything.
This mind numbingly ignorant.
Blindsley H00d
1. You don’t understand anomalies, just because you never processed any absolute data in order to obtain them.
You denigrate them for ideological reasons only.
2. And you don’t understand that peaks and drops in weather or climate time series are by no means automatically ‘outliers’.
Outliers in temperature records in the US I have seen thousands: for example, the abrupt transition from Celsius values to Fahrenheit values in earlier times, when a station was shut down and subsequently rebooted.
NOAA collaborators spent years in reviewing raw data because there is no way for fully automatic error correction in this case.
That is something fundamentally different from a peak in a time series resulting from the average of thousands of stations.
*
Ironically, your trials to let appear everything flatter in your 5-year low pass graphs, optically suggesting less warming with some success, are of no use because the trends of the 5-year low pass series generated out of the sources don’t differ much from those of the sources.
might actually be interesting, slightly, if one could tease out the natural climate change from the anthropogenic climate change.
“You don’t understand anomalies”
I understand them all too well and that they are created by climate scientists alone because very few of them understand robust statistics and how to use them.
“you don’t understand that peaks and drops in weather or climate time series are by no means automatically ‘outliers'”
Mixing together orbital characteristics, which are inherently sinusoidal, with things that are more random like pressure, humidity and wind speed/direction will tend to cause outliers in temperature measurements and weather.
The bottom few meters of the atmosphere, in its chaotic boundary surface layer, will only add to that tendency.
Everybody understands anomalies except Binny, who claims no one else understands them.
” I understand them all too well and that they are created by climate scientists alone because very few of them understand robust statistics and how to use them. ”
Did you read that, Robertson?
It is a 100 % attack on the work of Roy Spencer, who has been decades ago intelligent enough to understand how much anomalies matter for selectively removing annual cycles out of absolute data, what of course never could be achieved by using even cascaded running means.
Binny understands very well what anomalies are, Robertson.
He learned that by looking at how Roy Spencer did, and by subsequent doing, as do real engineers.
Neither Blindsley H00d let alone you did construct any anomaly-based time series out of absolute data.
The best for people like you two is therefore to keep silent, Robertson.
Yeah, but negligibly so.
Define negligible.
There is nothing statistically wrong with subtracting the 30 y climate average.
It simply contributes a small additional error, much smaller than the error already present in the absolute temperature.
If you think it is non-neglible, show us how.
Do you think that a statistic is better using medians rather than means, as the later is well known to be distorted by outliers.
Mixing together pure sinusoidal orbital factors with near random non-orbital ones (given the chaotic near surface layer of the atmosphere) is much more likely to produce outliers.
Means are standard statistics and are quite useful, as are medians. Each have their place.
The statistical properties of a mean and the difference of two means are quite manageable.
If the difference between two means of measurements is a quantity of interest in science, and it is in this case, than there is no reason, statistically, to avoid doing it.
“Mixing together pure sinusoidal orbital factors with near random non-orbital ones (given the chaotic near surface layer of the atmosphere) is much more likely to produce outliers.”
Off topic, and full of unsupported assertions.
Pure sinusoidal orbital factors are definitely subject to the use of high quality LP filters (i.e. they are repetitive/cyclic). Other non-orbital factors are less suspectable to such treatments.
“Means are standard statistics”
But not robust ones. i.e. they are susceptible to distortions from outliers.
There is also no reason to use the difference between 2 medians rather than 2 means and the 2 medians are less susceptible to outliers.
Again Median’s have their place, eg the income distribution has a very long high-income tail.
The highest incomes are ~ 100,000 times as large as the working class income.
So the mean and median can be very different.
That is simply not the case here.
And since we are averaging many independent local weather variations together, you have the central limit theorem at work in the global mean temperature.
Medians are well know not to be distorted by outliers or non standard distributions.
The income distribution with a very long high-income tail is an extreme not relevant to this data.
“Medians are well know not to be distorted by outliers or non standard distributions.”
And in this case, with this data, you havent shown any such distortion is significant.
Nate says:
The highest incomes are ~ 100,000 times as large as the working class income.
So the mean and median can be very different.
—————–
Yep the first thing to do is limit incomes in the entertainment industry to minimum wage because it promotes daydreaming and couch potatoes.
“you haven’t shown any such distortion is significant”
Therefore the results from using a median and a mean will not change the outcome at all (according to you). So there are no reasons not to use them.
If you cannot show evidence of distortion then your complaint is a red herring.
Using a median and a mean will not change the outcome at all (according to you). So there are no reasons not to use them.
Nate: Are you saying that regardless of it a mean or a median is used then the answer will be the same?
I’m saying that this is a non issue.
To be a non-issue they would have to be the same. They are not.
So Nate accuses all those who do use medians in climate measurements as wrong.
“They are not.”
Oh? Show us MONTHLY mean vs median temperatures with this issue. Then show us global monthly mean vs median temperatures with this issue.
Obviously you won’t be able to. Because the central limit theorem applies.
“So Nate accuses all those who do use medians in climate measurements as wrong.”
Imbecile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_statistics
Robust statistics seek to provide methods that emulate popular statistical methods, but are not unduly affected by outliers or other small departures from model assumptions. In statistics, classical estimation methods rely heavily on assumptions that are often not met in practice. In particular, it is often assumed that the data errors are normally distributed, at least approximately, or that the central limit theorem can be relied on to produce normally distributed estimates. Unfortunately, when there are outliers in the data, classical estimators often have very poor performance, when judged using the breakdown point and the influence function
Nate: Why do you assume that medians will hurt your case? Do you not accept that we are arguing about if robust statistics are less likely to be in error than non-robust ones?
“Show us MONTHLY mean vs median temperatures with this issue.”
I will shortly be changing from mean to median in my presentations. According to you this will not change much if anything.
RLH,
There are topics that are highly interesting to you.
Then there are topics that matter for climate science.
There is little overlap between these.
So far have been unable to show that this topic matters for climate science.
Until you have something to show, this is pointless.
“I will shortly be changing from mean to median in my presentations. According to you this will not change much if anything.”
Indeed.
You are expecting the results will be significantly different?
Why?
Will GW vanish? Will it significantly change trends?
You are the one saying that changing from mean to median will cause no or little change.
And yet you object to the change thus relying on ‘everybody else does it’ rather than an argued scientific statistical case.
You are expecting the results will be significantly different?
Why?
Will GW vanish? Will it significantly change trends?
I need to update this to the present and add trend significance metrics, but following from a previous iteration of RLH’s fixation on means/medians I generated trend data using hourly data for each of the USCRN stations per the link below.
The three cases are for “mean” defined as the daily (Tmax+Tmin)/2, “median” defined as the median of the 24 hourly temperature values for each day, and “average” defined as the average of the 24 hourly temperature values for each day.
If I recall correctly, these daily values were then used to calculate a monthly anomaly baseline which was subtracted from the series to generate a temperature anomaly series from which the trends were calculated. I later implemented a more sophisticated FFT-based algorithm to generate hourly anomalies intending to reduce the artifacts monthly baseline averages introduce, but I don’t think that was used for this table.
The result is that there are trend differences between the techniques which are not obviously significant, but I’d have to add confidence intervals to say that authoritatively.
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/uscrnSummaryTable
The mean uses all the data, the full distribution, while the median does not.
I see no scientific reason to not use all the data.
“I see no scientific reason to not use all the data”
So the reasons for robust statistics are not needed as far as you are concerned.
“Robust statistics provide valid results across a broad variety of conditions, including assumption violations, the presence of outliers, and various other problems. The term robust statistic applies both to a statistic (i.e., median) and statistical analyses (i.e., hypothesis tests and regression).
Huber (1982) defined these statistics as being distributionally robust and outlier-resistant.
Conversely, non-robust statistics are sensitive to to less than ideal conditions.”
“In statistics, the term robust or robustness refers to the strength of a statistical model, tests, and procedures according to the specific conditions of the statistical analysis a study hopes to achieve. Given that these conditions of a study are met, the models can be verified to be true through the use of mathematical proofs.
Many models are based upon ideal situations that do not exist when working with real-world data, and, as a result, the model may provide correct results even if the conditions are not met exactly.
Robust statistics, therefore, are any statistics that yield good performance when data is drawn from a wide range of probability distributions that are largely unaffected by outliers or small departures from model assumptions in a given dataset. In other words, a robust statistic is resistant to errors in the results”
Nate effectively argues that Tukey was wrong.
Mark B also thinks that Turkey was wrong in his papers.
Nate says: The mean uses all the data, the full distribution, while the median does not.
I see no scientific reason to not use all the data.
They both use all the data, they’re just different but related statistical estimation metrics that both have utility. Which metric is preferred depends upon the context. Without context it’s pointless to argue whether one is strongly preferred over the other.
What I’ve tried to demonstrate via the work linked above is that there is little meaningful difference in the context of calculating trends in station anomalies.
On general principles in this context (trend calculation of station anomaly data), the choice of mean or median matters if the shape of the distribution changes (as opposed to a shift or compression/expansion of the range) which is, at best, a second order effect in the station data that I’ve looked at.
Temperature is a measure of energy in the Earth system. The total energy is the MEAN energy times volume, and energy gained by the system is of interest for GW modeling.
If the temperature distribution is extreme, ie has a long tail at high T, then the Ts in the long tail (outliers) will simply be counted as higher than the middle in the calculation of MEDIAN, whereas how MUCH higher they are will count for the MEAN.
Thus the Median and Mean will differ.
The MEAN is a measure of the total energy in the system, while the MEDIAN may not be. Thus MEAN is physically more relevant.
When there is condensing humidity, i.e. dew forms overnight and evaporates in the morning, some of the system energy content is latent rather than sensible, so (average) temperature by itself is an imperfect proxy for system energy content.
This is one of the potential effects that can result in an asymmetric diurnal temperature probability distribution.
Again, the important point isn’t that one or the other statistics is better or worse, it’s that it doesn’t make a meaningful difference for temperature trend estimation.
Mark, of course. I left out water vapor to simplify the issue.
Im trying to explain why MEAN may be preferred.
Apply it to the ocean instead, where total energy content is of interest, and temperature is the sole measure of energy.
It may well be that the distribution of temperature is naturally non Gaussian. The mean is a measure of total energy. The median may not be.
Nate you actually have to measure the temperature.
Even today we don’t do that. And the ocean takes perhaps 1500 years or more to adjust its temperature at all depths and we sure didn’t measure it even a little bit 1500 years ago.
OK Bill. Now buzz off.
Nate doesn’t believe in the methods of science he just outlined in a thread above about how science is critiqued. So he says buzz off so he can avoid more critique.
Yes you butt in and try to change the subject of thread. Not interested.
So buzz off.
the argument is about how to measure how much the ocean has warmed. So my comment is on point. We have no idea at all beyond ruling out some wild numbers but we don’t even know.
“We have no idea at all beyond ruling out some wild numbers but we dont even know.”
Deniers deny.
Deniers deny the guessers.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
Choose N. Atlantic to see its absolute temperature if that makes you feel better.
Nate says:
”Crazy high North Atlantic SST in July”
Indeed! Witness the power of natural systems to modify the mean global temperature in a few weeks. And we have mo.rons trying to tell us this has anything to due to CO2.
The actual mechanism that causes CO2 to bring about such abrupt change in a only a few months is always left to imagine as no such mechanism can be determined.
bill…I would not be brave enough to swim in it without a wet suit. I tried off the coast of Vancouver Island in the Pacific on a rainy summer day and standing in the ocean up to my ankles was giving me an ice-cream headache. Took me forever to submerge aclimatize and dip into the water.
Having said that, there is a US female swimmer, Lynne Cox, who has swum in Antarctic water around 0C. She swam in the Bering straight as well.
https://www.nps.gov/people/lynne-cox.htm
A deep cold snap happens in January somewhere.
And we will have mo.rons trying to tell us this has anything to do with Winter.
“The actual mechanism that causes CO2 to bring about such abrupt change in a only a few months is always left to imagine as no such mechanism can be determined.”
Strawman.
The rise of CO2 is a cause for AGW, and as such it can make warm extremes more likely. It is not the cause of ENSO, other known natural variations, nor other anthropogenic effects on temperature.
Several plausible mechanisms have been proposed to explain the recent rapid ocean warming.
These include the drastic reduction in anthro SO2 aerosols over shipping lanes due to the mandated reduction of sulfur in ship fuels, the HT eruption and the GHE of its water deposited in the stratosphere, and the reduction in African dust over the oceans.
Science rarely has instantaneous answers to explain newly discovered phenomena. but given time it often does.
…The rise of CO2 is supposedly a cause for AGW…
Science rarely has instantaneous answers to explain newly discovered phenomena. but given time it often does.
The one thing was know instantaneously is that CO2 can NOT raise temperatures. That would be like saying bananas can raise temperatures.
Just silly nonsense.
Nah, no one is left here who takes your assertions seriously anymore.
Wrong again Nate. There are still some responsible adults here. Although we’re out numbered, it doesn’t make any difference because you cultists have NOTHING.
Nobody here buys your crap anymore. It has no value.
Nate, do I detect a little jealousy on your part?
You know, believing in a false religion is a choice. You do not have to remain ignorant. Reality is for everyone.
Your choice, of course.
And you are not good at reading people’s minds, or reading the room.
Your credibility here is zero. Maybe time to find a new blog.
nate…”The rise of CO2 is a cause for AGW….”
***
That would be about 0.06C since 1850.
Picked a random number close to 0?
Everybody is effectively picking random numbers because they pick random theories. Like CO2 as the climate control knob is a random theory.
Then there are those asserting random nonsense.
I agree Nate pulling the 3rd grader radiation model out of your arse without a demonstration of its ability to warm the surface is random nonsense
I havent brought up any GHE models in a while, stalker.
No one knows what model you are talking about. Last time we actually discussed a model, it was Manabe and Weatherald. If thats the 3rd grader model, then YOU were not ready for 3rd grade level material!
In the past 60 days you endorsed the 3rd grader radiation model. You also endorsed it when you claimed https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
was flawed and in error for not detecting the warming from the backscatter.
So Nate you are perfectly welcome to join the skeptics on this but don’t play games flip flopping back and forth.
So you keep saying but never quote me.
Well I can accept your current viewpoint of the 3rd grader radiation model being a crock of shiiit without any further critique.
Nobody but you thinks that paper is studying the GHE.
No its just studying the mechanism of the GHE believed by a huge percentage of scientists from Greta Thunberg to James Hansen.
And yet 1878 was similar to recent times as far as droughts go.
How uninteresting.
Droughts have occurred throughout recorded history. And no one has claimed otherwise.
Right on Nate calls BS on the media and the crooked scientists claiming otherwise.
Reconsider: Atmospheric Window and Transmitted Surface Radiation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU02-mvvGOM
I think he’s off-base in his reasoning that IR does not come from the solid surface but from a warm layer of the atmosphere. It’s obvious that the only transmitters in this layer of air are trace gases and the amount of radiation from those trace gases would be only a small part of the full IR spectrum, that must come from the solid surface.
The trace gases would be emitting only line spectra whereas the surface with its different elements would emit a full-scale, continuous IR spectrum due to divergent temperatures and materials.
The apparent path length of IR at the TOA is important here.
Hunter boy
1. ” Since one of the major objections to the 3rd grader model as per demonstrated by RW Woods was that the heating in the greenhouses was actually achieved equally by both the IR opaque and IR transparent greenhouses via the trapping of convection and not trapping of radiation. ”
Wrong, Hunter boy.
It seems to me that you never read Woods 1.5 (!!!) page long pamphlet about his experiment.
Do you know how Wood’s pamphlet ends?
” I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter… ”
{ Imagine if Arrhenius had written a 100 page article against the CO2 effect, Wood had been a fan of this CO2 effect, wrote 1.5 pages against Arrhenius’ paper, ending up with the same admission :–).
Oh Noes. }
He prettily failed experimenting: this was due to the fact that he covered both plates with glass, in order to prevent what he had guessed, namely that solar near-IR otherwise would disturb the experiment.
Exactly that is what Vaughan Pratt pretty good understood. And he repeated Wood’s experiment such that – among other things – Wood’s mistake would be avoided.
*
” Here by putting the earth plate above the cold plate convection is again trapped at the top of the greenhouse as demonstrated in the Vaughn Pratt experiment (he finally publicly posted his results) and where the heat would be most likely trapped being transported there by convection. ”
You also can never have read Vaughan Pratt’s experiment report.
Try to definitely go into the original:
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
and don’t forget to read
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf
as well.
*
Why Nasif Nahle found something different I don’t know, ask Roy Spencer, he very certainly knows.
Nahle surprisingly ALWAYS finds things different with regard to GHE and warming.
Binny,
Here is why RW Wood used a glass plate over both enclosures “When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 oC., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.”
As Prof Tyndall, many years earlier had realised, although transparent to visible light, rock salt and glass have different opacities to other frequencies of light. Tyndall called it “combing”
In his mountaineering travels, he noted “The beams of the sun, however, produce heat as well as light, and there are different qualities of heat in the sunbeam as well as different qualities of lightnay, there are copious rays of heat in a sunbeam which give no light at all, some of which never even reach the retina at all, but are totally absorbed by the humours of the eye. Now, the same substance may permit rays of heat of a certain quality to pass freely through it, while it may effectually stop rays of heat of another quality. But in all cases the heat stopped is expended in heating the body which stops it. Now, water possesses this selecting power in an eminent degree. It allows the blue rays of the solar beam to pass through it with facility, but it slightly intercepts the red rays, and absorbs with exceeding energy the obscure rays; and those are the precise rays which possess the most intense heating power.”
Tyndall, in “Heat, a mode of motion”, explains the necessity of RW Woods action – a fact which completely escapes amateur experimenters like Vaughan Pratt and others.
You can’t even describe the GHE, and neither can anybody else!
So much for claiming “evidence”! Evidence for something even you can’t describe?
Go on, make me laugh – try and describe this “greenhouse effect”.
binny…”Do you know how Woods pamphlet ends?
I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter ”
***
There is a simple explanation for that. Wood did not need to go any deeper, he was a renowned authority on gases like CO2. Neils Bohr consulted with him re sodium vapour. He knew, based on the properties of CO2 that it could not produce a greenhouse effect like a real greenhouse could warm air.
The theory in the day was that glass in a real greenhouse trapped IR and that trapped IR warmed the greenhouse air. Wood, an expert on IR and UV radiation could not see how that would work. He hypothesized the real heating agent was a lack of convection and set out to prove that, hence his experiment.
The Wood paper was written in 1909. In those days, the mechanism by which EM was absorbed and emitted by electrons in atoms was unknown. It was not till 1913 that Bohr produced that theory. Wood claimed that nitrogen and oxygen could not cool by radiating energy but he may have been wrong about that since the mechanism was unknown in 1909.
I have no doubt that Wood was correct in his explanation of the real GHE, that N2 and O2 absorb heat from the surface by conduction then transport it higher into the atmosphere via convection. He claimed that N2/O2 could not release the heat but we now know the reason, radiation is simply a poor means of cooling a gas.
Eventually, N2 and O2 should dissipate heat via radiation but meantime both cool due to moving to higher altitudes. However, the explanation for the real GHE makes far more sense than a trace gas being responsible for both heating the atmosphere and radiating all heat to space.
Bindidon I have freely acknowledged that CO2 among other things have an effect on climate.
Understanding causation of current climate hasn’t been demonstrated, not even close by any experiment. If it had that experiment would be detailed and discussed ad nauseum.
but hardly anybody with a braincell promotes any of the experiments you have discussed as a convincing argument for any climate change theory.
The only experiment that shows any possibility of CO2 causing some unstated surface warming are the US military experiments showing the rates of IR absor.ption of CO2 in their research on missile defenses. But thats heat in the atmosphere not at the surface. Pratts experiment shows that also. You can see a pittance of it in your upside down experiment. Its only by fiat that CO2 has become the keystone greenhouse gas. You have no idea of how much time I spent on ”keystone” theories about a whole variety of issues over the years all lacking scientific support. CO2 is no different.
As Tyndall wrote above “But in all cases the heat stopped is expended in heating the body which stops it.”, which almost everybody ignores.
CO2 absorbs IR, but so does all matter, to a greater or lesser degree, and heats – to a greater or lesser degree.
CO2 emits IR, as does all matter, and cools as a result.
For a certain pressure and heat input, Tyndall measured CO2 as intercepting 1750 times as many heat rays as oxygen and nitrogen
Given that only 4 parts per 10000 are CO2, CO2 intercepts less heat rays in total than do oxygen and nitrogen. Surprising to cultists, but reproducibly true nevertheless.
Inconvenient truth, I dare say.
–Bindidon I have freely acknowledged that CO2 among other things have an effect on climate.–
But what effect upon climate does it have.
I think doubling of CO2 could have a warming effect, but this hasn’t been measured, yet.
If it does have warming effect, what kind of warming effect, would the be?
What kind of warming effect which commonly suggested, is that doubling of CO2 level increases global water vapor.
And where on Earth does it increase water vapor.
It seems increasing water vapor above the tropical ocean is a bit insane.
And generally increasing water vapor over any and all the oceans seems somewhat dubious.
So, we could focus on the 30% of the world which is land areas, or more critical/significant in terms global warming is increasing water vapor in deserts in and near the tropics.
It’s know fact that higher levels of CO2 allows plants to be more drought resistant.
gb…”I think doubling of CO2 could have a warming effect, but this hasnt been measured, yet”.
***
Yes, but G&T estimated it using a formula for heat diffusion through a gas. As expected, a trace gas like CO2 cannot diffuse heat into a gas mixture like air other than a trace amount. They calculated for a doubling of CO2 that the contribution of CO2 would be around its mass percent, about 0.06C.
The Ideal Gas Law giveS a similar trace warming for CO2.
Some people continually dismiss mainstream science, and tell us about outlier experiments they are familiar with, then falsely claim that these are representative of all experiments on this topic.
What is “mainstream science” and why is it so?
It is established science tested and replicated many times by many scientists and builds on earlier established science.
In this case, the GHE builds on established optics, thermodynamics, and atmospheric physics and its predicted radiative forcing has been directly observed.
In contrast outlier science has not been replicated and often disagrees with established physics, and thus should be met with considerable skepticism.
It is typically a singular experiment that can only be correct if thousand of previous experiments, and well tested theories, were somehow wrong.
Yet we have people here who treat outlier science as if it has the qualities of mainstream science, and mainstream science as if it can be safely assumed to be fraudulent.
This is quite irrational.
Except in the case of climate science where papers that disagree with the consensus view are not accepted for publication. At all.
Established science. LOL. That’s a leftist propagandist term.
What do rightists like yourself call it?
Nate, your strong belief in your false religion is impressive, but lacks any connection to reality.
Your GHE nonsense is built on things like the sky warms the surface much more than Sun. It doesn’t get any better from there….
“Except in the case of climate science where papers that disagree with the consensus view are not accepted for publication. At all”
False. Roy gets his work published.
“Established science. LOL. ”
Stephen is poster child for this belief in outliers and dismissal of all those who disagree with them.
“Roy gets his work published”
But you have many times said you do not believe what he publishes (and now presumably NOAA/STAR).
nate…”It is established science tested and replicated many times by many scientists and builds on earlier established science.
In this case, the GHE builds on established optics, thermodynamics, and atmospheric physics and its predicted radiative forcing has been directly observed”.
***
Not a shred of evidence in thermodynamics or in atmospheric physics that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. In fact, the 2nd law of thermodynamics kills off the AGW principle that colder GHGs in the atmosphere can warm a warmer surface or atmosphere.
If you have such evidence, please present it.
“Not a shred of evidence in thermodynamics or in atmospheric physics that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. ”
Opinions like this are not facts, Gordon.
Dr. Spencer agrees with the idea of AGW and GHE. He just isn’t an alarmist and continually presents evidence that debunks alarmism and casts doubts about surface data and, therefore, models constructed based on faulty data.
Plus, I don’t believe most of the Climate Scientists are alarmists. It is mostly non-scientists posing as scientists, like the many leftist propagandists who post here.
Some people are so indoctrinated in bogus “mainstream science” that they actually believe passenger jets fly backward, ice cubes can boil water, an imaginary sphere can be meaningfully compared to Earth.
That’s not to mention the funniest part — they believe the sky can warm the surface more than Sun!
It’s a cult.
Clint R
Do they also believe nitrogen gas reflects IR?
Norman, will a 10 ft diameter solid sphere fit through a 3 ft wide door?
So what you’re now trying is to avoid your previous disaster. It won’t work. Reality always wins.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1520950
Clint R
I cannot fathom your point of how a large sphere trying to fit through a smaller door opening has anything at all to do with nitrogen gas reflecting IR. You do not make much sense at all.
On the Judith Curry point. It is not my error to correct. I got that information from this link.
https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/403891/Dr.-Judith-Curry
It is not my error to correct it would be either Wikipedia or this link. As I stated when there are two conflicting sources it would be best to ask her directly. She has her own blog.
Also even if she did get a BS in geography here PhD was in Geophysical Science. She is considerably smarter than you will ever be and she does not have to make up her own physics (with no support).
I guess there is no logic or evidence to convince you that nitrogen gas does not reflect IR. Believe what you need to, it is wrong and I find that you are so anti-science it is not worth the effort to educate you. I suppose you will just keep making stuff up as long as you post here.
Norman, you cannot admit you were wrong. You falsely attacked me but you can’t admit you were wrong. You’re now clogging the blog with endless keyboarding to cover your lack of character.
Judith Curry admitted she was wrong at a huge risk to her career. She left the cult. She has more character then you will ever have. She has character. You’re a cowardly worm next to her.
Clint R
Insults that come from a flea brain like you are not significant.
I posted my source. Deal with it.
You still have to provide real evidence nitrogen gas reflects IR. You divert and cover your ignorance and pretend like you are intelligent. Why do you need to pretend. You don’t know anything at all about science, evidence, logic. You pretend to but your posts really show how little you know and understand about science.
I wonder when you will come up with evidence that nitrogen reflects IR. I gave you an alternate link that claimed Curry had a BS in meteorology. So why do you claim I am wrong? I supplied you with evidence you supply nothing and have nothing. Pretender is what you are a real phony.
Your insults and false accusations won’t work Norman.
You stated that she had a BS in meteorology, but that is WRONG. Her BS was in geography.
You can never admit you’re wrong. That’s one of the reasons you can’t learn.
Her PhD (a higher and later degree) is in geophysical sciences.
Nah, no one is left here who takes your comical claims seriously anymore.
Are you trying to push back from your cult’s beliefs, Nate?
That’s good. You should be ashamed of all that rot.
Clint. All you do is toss ad-homs at people and real science.
But when you show your alternative ‘science’ it turns out to be a joke.
Maybe if you say nonsense like that enough you will believe it, Nate.
But, it will never become reality.
It’s like the nonsense your cult makes up, like passenger jets that fly backward.
Hmm
Clint R obsessed with someone’s point on perspective over passenger jet yet he comes up with nitrogen reflects IR because a 10 foot solid sphere can’t go through a 3 foot door.
If you did not come up with total nonsense points you might have valid criticism. As it stands you are not really in a “Driver’s seat” to call out anyone on anything. Mr. Clint nitrogen reflects IR because a 20 foot solid sphere can’t fit through a 3 foot door R.
Nate of course is correct about you and your posts.
I think Ball4 had it correct when he pointed out your posts are good for entertainment value. Certainly not for an reality or science based content. You have to understand science and logic before that is possible. Since you possess neither your posts are mainly for humor, wondering what nonsense claim you will make next that you can’t support.
Your endless blah-blah, insults, and false accusations won’t work Norman.
You stated that she had a BS in meteorology, but that is WRONG. Her BS was in geography.
You can never admit you’re wrong. That’s one of the reasons you can’t learn.
Clint R
I presented you with the source that stated she had a BS in meteorology. It is not my made up fiction like you use when you claim nitrogen gas reflects IR because a 10 foot sphere can’t fit through a 3 foot door.
I gave you my source. It is not something I made up.
If the source I gave is wrong it is on them not me. You have different sources making different claims. That does not change anything. You still don’t have logic and you don’t know any science. Those are not insults they are obvious facts. No one with any science would make the claim that nitrogen gas reflects IR and no one with logic would try to prove this false claim by associating IR to a solid sphere. This is evidence (not insult) that you do not know science and you are not a logical thinker. Both statements I make are correct based upon the evidence. Deal with it.
Sorry Norman, but your “evidence” is WRONG. Worse is you use it to falsely accuse me. Instead of admitting your mistake, you try to blame your source!
You have no character, and no understanding of the science. You believe ANYTHING your cult spews.
I’m content with that if you are.
Hey Clint R,
how big is a photon, you know they can go through two doors at the same time, right?
bob, please stop trolling.
re R.W. Wood, Pratt, and Nasif Nahle. Excellent comparison here with a mathematical proof…
note…there are odd hex strings throughout the article that I don’t understand. Seems to be an artefact or something.
https://principia-scientific.org/the-famous-wood-s-experiment-fully-explained/
This guy figures Pratt got too much water vapour into his experiment, possibly from using plastic wrap. Apparently WV dramatically increases the conductivity of heat through air after 40 to 50C.
binny…”1. When I write optical wobbling, I mean an optical illusion, and not a physical motion”.
***
Libration is not an illusion, it’s a view angle problem. At various times, an observer from Earth can actually see further around the Moon’s edge than at other times in its orbit.
Libration (longitudianl) occurs because the Moon’s orbit is a slight ellipse. If it was a circular orbit there would be no libration. As it stands, there are two points on the orbital path where the lunar orbit is the same as on a circle. That’s at either end of the major axis.
That’s because we are looking at the Moon straight on along a radial line at those points. On other points of the orbital path, the radial line takes on components like vectors representing a ball rolling down a ramp. There is a sine and cosine component for the radial line connecting the Earth centre to the lunar centre and that allows us to see a bit around the lunar edge at certain points on the orbital path.
Something for ClintR.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga