Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August 2023 was +0.69 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is a little above the July 2023 anomaly of +0.64 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 +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 20 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 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.69 | +0.88 | +0.51 | +0.86 | +0.94 | +1.54 | +1.25 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for August, 2023 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
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
I think this is the warmest August in the UAH data set, beating the 1998 record by 0.3C.
It’s also just short of the overal record anomaly.
Preliminary results from the TempLS surface analysis show very similar; about 0.05S above July, and nearly 0.3C above any previous August.
Good to see you here Nick.
Just wondering – is there any chance of updating your Excel file for your NCEP/NCAR reanalysis?
It’s last entry is April 1, and it’s also missing March 28.
Thanks, I’ll try to fix that
Fixed, I hope.
Sorry Nick – I only just noticed your post. Thanks for the fix.
Bellman
You think it right:
2023 8 0.69 (C, above the August mean of 1991-2020)
1998 8 0.39
2016 8 0.32
2022 8 0.28
2019 8 0.26
2010 8 0.21
2021 8 0.17
1995 8 0.15
2015 8 0.13
2001 8 0.12
But… a month is no more than a month.
” a month is no more than a month”
Well, two months. July was much the same. June not quite a record.
I maintain a table here which shows the hottest years for each month month, in descending order, and for various providers, including UAH.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#hottest
Nice!
Not surprisingly this is also the warmest NH Summer (June – August) by some margin.
2023 0.57
1998 0.40
2020 0.30
2019 0.28
2016 0.26
2022 0.23
2010 0.20
2017 0.19
2021 0.13
2015 0.11
Also, noticeable that apart from the usual appearance of 1998, all the hottest top 10 summers have been in the last 14 years.
Warmest June-July-August globally too, in UAH.
Sorry, my comment wasn’t very clear. Those figures were for global, not just NH.
Summer anomalies for just the Northern Hemisphere are
2023 0.69
1998 0.43
2016 0.36
2020 0.32
2021 0.31
2010 0.30
2022 0.26
2019 0.24
2017 0.20
2018 0.16
The previous record was beaten by 0.26C.
Which is perfectly consistent even with a slow down in warming in recent years. Even if temperatures were flat for 5 or ten years most recent years would have been among warmest..
Though I agree to all replies, I prefer to keep focusing on the long range data.
And that tells me that when 6.0 retired 5.6 in April 2015, 5.6 was already at 0.14 C / decade (6.0 went back to 0.11).
*
Most of the pseudo-skeptical people here say it’s due to the El Nino in 2016, but don’t realize what happened since then.
2016 2 0.70
2023 8 0.69
2023 7 0.64
2016 3 0.64
1998 4 0.62
2016 4 0.61
2020 2 0.60
1998 5 0.52
1998 2 0.49
2017 10 0.47
*
You see that best when adding, cell by cell, UAH LT’s climatology values for 1991-2020
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
to the anomaly grid, and generating the time series out of it. Here is the top 10 of its descending sort:
2023 7 266.058
2023 8 265.923
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
July 2016 has already been bypassed in 2022 and 2020, with 2019 just a tiny bit below it.
*
1998 remained unbeaten despite 2016… until July 2023 came.
And that should be due to the alleged HTE?
Hmmmmh. Gimme REAL proof of that guess.
Oh I agree. The long term trend is what matters. It’s fun to look at the individual record – but that’s all it is, just a bit of fun.
But there is a problem, that a lot who want to reject the idea of any warming will claim that if a record hasn’t been broken for a few years, it’s proof there is no warming. But as soon as records are broken will insist that this has nothing to do with warming, but is down to one of natural causes.
My view is that whatever has caused the current surge in temperatures, was unlikely to have set a record if temperatures hadn’t been steadily rising over the last 50 or so years.
This graph shows the monthly residuals for UAH.
It’s clear that 1998 was the exceptional. Since then all the spikes have been smaller – but adding them to the ongoing warming trend causes records to be broken.
https://imgur.com/N4aqX2e
It’s not that I disagree, I’m pleased to see warming. My issue is the idea that warming is bad, thus Something Must Be Done.
Nothing should be done. Adapt. Be glad it’s not getting colder. That would be something to be concerned about.
Best wishes all.
Bellman
Your graph with UAH’s Globe residuals (i.e. showing its detrended series) motivated me to a comparison of the result with that obtained out of RSS 4.0 in the same way:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NVZ2tQgazEr-qPkjabC3um9cKeGgshxT/view
Here’s a graph that I think shows how unusual this year has been.
Blue line shows the anomaly for each month, whilst the gray area is the minimum and maximum anomaly for each month, up to 2022. The pink area shows the 5% – 95% range of values.
https://imgur.com/oJ8KNsV
The HTE was real.
Temps will settle down now that it is gone.
I am curious what mechanism you propose that caused a steady rise in temperatures (blue line) from a volcanic eruption more than a year earlier, and then disappears right now, 19 months after the eruption.
Folkerts, you’re not even on the right planet.
Quite right, Pupman.
One day Tim will return to Vulcan.
How’s your Ferengi improving?
Andrew Dessler wrote a blog post about a month ago based on a paper that’s in review estimating the impact of Hunga-Tonga and reaching the conclusion that it didn’t have much net effect. He cited some other papers that reached similar conclusions as well.
The post includes a video by the lead author, Dr. Mark Schoeberl, showing the competing effects from the aerosol and the water vapor impulses from that event. Notably the aerosol effect is shorter lived such that it’s essentially back at baseline since late spring and we’re left with the stratospheric water vapor effect which is expected to take about five more years to taper to baseline.
The cited papers seemed to address the short term effect (a year or two) of Hunga-Tonga, but didn’t get into the longer term time evolution of impacts. It will be interesting to see if Schoeberl etal addresses this when/if it is published.
So an (entirely unquantified hypothesis) for HT’s impact on global temperature not showing up until a year and a half later is that the aerosol contribution roughly matched the water vapor contribution until the aerosols precipitated out leaving just the more slowly diminishing water vapor effect. The timing also more or less coincided with the switch from El Nino negative to positive, so there’s a multi-causal hypothesis.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
Thanks Bellman, interesting view.
Probably has a lot to do with the massive, multiple Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai submarine volcano eruptions in January 2022.
Read more here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/06/25/tonga-volcano-eruption-lightning-record-study/
Poor old WUWT recently added the monthly UAH global temperature anomaly record update to its sidebar.
They may come to regret that…
I would not be surprised if the UAH graph gets removed from the WUWT website in the next year or two.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
This combined with a strengthening El Nio means we will, without a doubt, break the record for highest anomaly in UAH satellite measurements. Whatever peculiar event happening now is pretty insane.
Yes, a peculiar event, but not unknown. The Hunga-Tonga eruption is clearly the cause. The initial blast was both water vapor and SO2 but the SO2 has been falling out. At the same time we have moved from La Nina conditions to El Nino condition.
Should make for a warmer winter in the NH.
I agree. That eruption injected around 38 billion gallons of water directly into the stratosphere, about 50,000 Olympic size swimming pools. It increased the water vaporconcentration in the stratosphere, by 10-15 percent. One study I read had it at 13 percent. I wonder how many gallons of water stayed in the troposphere. That is unprecedented and has to be having an effect.
“The Hunga-Tunga eruption is clearly the cause.”
How is it clearly the cause?
I never experienced this Richard M guy giving any valuable, consistent proof for any of his claims – be it at WUWT or here.
Richard is a coolista. Not that I rule it out for the future, but it’s still not here. Richard talks a lot about the AMO, and I am actually curious to see how the global temperature responds to that.
Exactly Walter…
And above all, these coolistas always refer to the detrended AMO, what is sheer nonsense when comparing it to trended temperature series.
Here is an old graph comparing detrended versus undetrended AMO:
http://tinyurl.com/yjnezxjk (grrr, ‘d’ followed by ‘c’ in the drive link)
And here are some temperature series versus the undetrended AMO till end of 2022:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1alycZI-rbKOXsiBKiRDpwI3L1T2LIoPb/view
Newest data won’t change much to the picture.
Bindidon,
Last month you sent me a link to the data for the AMO https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1518622.
Well I plotted the values you gave me and look at the values at the very end. Very interesting huh???
https://imgur.com/irlwn9T
Walter
You are right, it is indeed!
I didn’t see my own link in the browser’s history because I looked only for ‘undetrended’, ha ha. My bad :–)
But… my two links in the comment were links to a new AMO variant based on ERSST-V5 instead of the Kaplan SST used before:
” The AMO is currently not updated due to the source dataset (Kaplan SST) not being updated. We apologize for the inconvience. NOAA/NCEI has a time-series of the AMO based on the NOAA ERSSTV5. NCAR has AMO code. ”
And hmmmh:
” Note their definition removes the global mean. ”
There is therefore currently no official undetrended AMO available.
To obtain a detrended series out of a trended one is easy; but the inverse task of course is impossible.
🙁
“There ya go again.”
Do read Judith Curry’s long and challenging post on the complexities of 2023’s warmth. ‘the effect of any increase in CO2 is lost in the noise’
Should be a warmer winter in the Northern Hemisphere, i wouldnt bank on that , some cold winters during El Nino years,especially on the US easter seaboard, UK 2009/10 was pretty cold and snowy.
There have been talks of a Modoki like El Nio developing and those typically favor cold and snowy conditions of North America and Europe.
Top science publisher withdraws flawed climate study
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-science-publisher-flawed-climate.html
You might not be aware that the withdrawal or cancellation is very problematic as it throws the peer review into disrepute. If you read other sources apparently it was only a single nondisclosed reviewer who wanted the article cancelled, whereas the other reviewers were happy with the methodology.
Do you believe the premise that an article if factually correct should be published even if the conclusion is unpalatable to you?
Some Anon guy wrote:
So, you complain about some “nondisclosed reviewer” as you quote some “other sources” which you did not disclose. Perfect.
As for the retraction, the reviewers at NATURE apparently concluded that the data used in the article did not support the conclusions.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/think-of-the-implications-of-publishing
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/08/27/alimonti-et-al-retracted/
Swanson wanted a source, he got it. Not sure why Little Willy felt the need to respond.
Graham cites Junior and pretends it’s the same “other sources” as our current visitor. A current visitor who might also be doing the rounds elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Graham glosses over a post where a scientist shares his conflicted views about the retraction.
I have no idea why Graham does what he does, but he really sucks at it.
@willard, that is the correct person I was thinking of. The link does also present the evidence of why the peer review process seems to have failed in this case.
Not sure why Little Willy felt the need to respond again.
Dear Anon,
“The correct person” is singular while “other sources” is plural.
Do I take it you’re willing to hide behind Junior once again?
Not sure why some people feel the need to censor others who are contributing insights to the discussion, jut because it differs from their own.
…sure why Little Willy felt the need to respond again.
Is Graham’s lastwordism a form of censorship, Nate?
No.
Thank you, Nate.
Why, what did he say? As you know, I don’t read or respond to Nate any more. Hope he’s not still trying to use that fact to his advantage, taking personal potshots knowing that he’s not going to get any response? Cowardly bullying, in other words. I hope he’s not still being a cowardly bully?
“Hope hes not still trying to use that fact to his advantage,”
If DREMT has no answers for my science posts, that is HIS problem.
“taking personal potshots knowing that hes not going to get any response? Cowardly bullying,”
Usually not personal, unless DREMT makes it so. Then sure,
Says the guy who does the most bullying of anyone here.
I see Nate has commented again. I bet he was cowardly bullying.
” I bet he was cowardly bullying”
DREMT seems to believe that no else should be able to refute his points, and if they do then they are ‘bullying’ and he tries to censor them, IOW he is bullying.
Another comment. More cowardly bullying, I expect. He used to write comments containing all sorts of false accusations, knowing that I couldn’t correct him since I don’t respond to him. That was back when I read his comments, but didn’t respond. I bet he’s still doing the same, as part of his cowardly bullying.
Then he continues his childish charade, pretending that he doesn’t read or respond to my posts….. while obviously reading and responding to my posts!
Maybe he should just focus on rebutting the messages in the posts rather than trying to make it all about the messengers.
Another response, probably containing more cowardly bullying and false accusations.
Indeed, Nate.
Graham specializes in playing victim.
I wonder if he thinks his sadfishing works.
I am indeed the victim of an extended character assassination attempt by yourself and others.
Graham soldiers on, and his victim bullying continues.
See?
@Swanson, there seems to be conflicting sides on whether the data is accurate enough or not.
So do I take it that you do prefer research that supports only your view? What evidence would you need to say that the research was good enough to be published? The fact that 2/3rds of the reviewers seem to be ok with the research or some other criteria that you don’t seem to want to share.
Anon without reason wrote:
I’ve read a lot of papers on both sides. I hadn’t seen the paper in question until today and don’t have the time to read it carefully.
FYI, my first “paper” (a poster presentation back in ’87) was an effort to analyze data for one location to assess extremes of temperature. I acquired the data from the old NCD-C in Asheville which was available only as microfiche and microfilm. It took me 2 weeks to enter and verify some 30,000 data points on a borrowed IBM PCXT, then played with the numbers with some statistical software. Lots of fun.
Perhaps the person known as Anon is just trying to “pick a fight”, so to speak.
Eric,
You might like:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/516C947FCF110B57BBFEFE4D57AAD8
Some interesting comments over there.
Swanson dodges Anon’s questions.
Gaslighting Graham fails to acknowledge that they’re not real questions.
Points to respond to, then. Swanson avoided them like the plague.
Points our current visitor haven’t answered themselves.
So much easier to hide behind Junior.
It’s normal in a debate for someone to raise points for their opponent to consider, and counter, if they can. I’m not aware that it’s normal for somebody else to come along and suggest that the originator of the points respond to those points themselves.
It’s not “normal” to try to coax one’s opponent to commit on points on which one oneself has yet not commited.
That’s just manipulative crap.
Perhaps our visitor ought to recite his concerns regarding scientific norms that were raised elsewhere?
"It’s not “normal” to try to coax one’s opponent to commit on points on which one oneself has yet not commited."
Anyone here clear on what Little Willy’s problem is? Help me out.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Suppose our new visitor finds Junior’s hit piece “interesting.” Has that visitor taken position on it? Not really.
Now suppose our new visitor says that the hit piece is “fair and balanced.” Does he endorse it? Not exactly. All our new visitor is expressing is that they may not know Junior.
Here’s the framework by which Gaslighting Graham and our new visitor operate:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LetsYouAndHimFight
This ploy is at least as old as storytelling itself.
Everything I say and do, you have a problem with. Nobody but you knows why.
Poor Graham, forever the victim.
Standing with his shoulders straight and clearly say:
[THE BIT OUR ANON DOES NOT SAY OUT LOUD] Yes, I agree with Junior and I believe that scientific norms are now shattered forever and I will never believe in the INTEGRITY(tm) of scientists anymore.
is just too much for him.
Yes, I am indeed the victim, of relentless personal abuse from you, and others. That is correct. As to the words you want to put in my mouth, no, I don’t think this single incident shatters the integrity of all scientists.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
And he still dodges the commitment he’s asked to make.
Falsely accusing me of gaslighting is just more personal abuse.
Gaslighting Graham’s “Swanson dodges Anons questions” is abusive.
They were not real questions, and he himself has yet to commit to what the questions presuppose.
Res ipsa loquitur.
No, it was not abusive, Little Willy. Swanson evaded any point Anon made, by talking about his experiences writing a paper.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Our new visitor did not make any point.
He simply asked leading and loaded questions.
Let him commit to the points being made.
Only then will we tell them (and Graham) that we do not care about any of them.
Falsely accusing me of gaslighting is just more personal abuse.
The points made by Anon were:
1) There seems to be conflicting sides on whether the data is accurate or not.
2) It seems you prefer research that supports only your view.
3) Two thirds of the reviewers were OK with the research. That should be enough to convince you the research was good enough to be published.
What is happening here is what always is happening in the political arena.
After failing miserably to make a case for an increase in extreme events. . .a majorly funded effort was mounted to redefine what extreme climate is so the meme can fit the narrative.
Now you have special interests calling out cherry picking for failure to include the events newly redefined as extreme weather and Nature Magazine as usual kowtowing to the pressure.
How is this different than any other issue that has been plaguing social media lately?
No idea why you’d criticize Junior’s scientific shenanigans, Gill, but that’s welcome.
Oh, and regarding Graham’s latest gaslighting:
1. There “seems” isn’t supported by Junior’s posts, in fact he clearly says he stand this issue aside.
2. “It seems you prefer” isn’t a point – it’s passive aggressive crap.
3. “The two thirds” is false, and it presumes that reviews work like voting, which is silly.
So two seems, both silly, and an incorrect fact, begging a question that is also silly.
It’s all so silly.
You said he made no point. You now acknowledge he made three.
Stating falsehoods and mind probing don’t points make.
Gaslighting Graham condones this kind of abuse.
You bothered to try (and fail) to counter the points, so you must acknowledge they are points.
Falsely accusing me of gaslighting is abuse, those three points are not.
Gaslighting Graham still condones our new visitor’s abuse.
“There seems” and “you seem” do not contain any explicit point. “Yes but [insert incorrect fact]” only conveys an implicit point. Is there anyone here who denies that leading questions usually contain implicit points?
Of course they do. That’s why they’re not real questions! And that’s why they annoy and irritate.
Things do not really speak for themselves. Graham has to speak for them. But since this would imply he commits to something, he will try to resist it for hours and hours.
Because that’s how our Gaslighting Graham rolls.
Huh?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Falsely accusing me of gaslighting is just even more personal abuse.
When called out for playing dumb once again, Graham returns to whining.
At this point, pun intended, it should be obvious that our current visitor made no explicit point. Their own position is hidden under false accusations, mind probing, and untruths.
And since Graham mostly plays you-and-him fights, he soldiers on.
He made three points, which Swanson dodged completely.
Graham seems to be gaslighting again.
Why is he playing you-and-him fights all the time?
The current thread speaks for itself.
Yes, your reliance on personal abuse speaks for itself.
Graham is also harassing Eric, which is abusive.
The only person being harassed is me.
“So do I take it that you do prefer research that supports only your view?” is an abusive rhetorical question.
“The fact that 2/3rds of the reviewers seem to be ok with the research or some other criteria that you dont seem to want to share” is not only false but also abusive.
And that’s notwithstanding Graham’s abuses toward Eric.
Willard says:
”No idea why youd criticize Juniors scientific shenanigans, Gill, but thats welcome.”
i will be waiting breathlessly until Willard provides us with the centuries old scientific definition of ”extreme weather events” NOT!
all that is happening here is we have the Donkeys trying to be the arbiter of language and is ready willing and able to punish those that don’t speak strictly the official Donkey endorsed narrative.
If you say so, Little Willy.
Have you tried to RTFR, Gill?
Start here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/
What do extreme weather events have to do with the scientific shenanigans of Graham and of our current visitor?
This has nothing to do with me, or Anon, Little Willy. It’s about a paper being retracted, and the reasons why it was retracted. You’re so obsessed with personalities you completely lose sight of what the discussion is even about.
Once again Graham pretends not being implicated in the scientific shenanigans he’s playing.
Which means he still dodges the commitments he needs to fulfill if he wishes to continue to play you-and-him-fight with Eric.
Little Willy continues speaking in his own private language, that only he understands.
Gaslighting Graham continues to gaslight:
https://philpapers.org/rec/WALCID
What are you braying about Willy?
Commitment, Gill.
Something you may never be able to understand.
So who did you marry Willard?
Your mom, Gill.
Oh so you are into necrophilia! What gender is that? Ash buster?
I hought you were talking about marriage, Gill.
Willard says:
”I hought you were talking about marriage, Gill.”
Apparently your marriage is celibate.
Articles get retracted from time to time. No one said peer-review was perfect, but it’s a necessary step in a process that weeds out more crap than it lets through. Pearl-clutching isn’t warranted.
Articles get retracted, but not usually due to pressure from the media.
It doesn’t matter who raises the objection if the matter is formally investigated, as was the case here.
‘Skeptics,’ both with and without qualifications, have raised objections that have garnered formal investigation in many different fora. The criticism here is hypocritical, as well as trying to brew a storm in a teacup.
barry, the normal way would have been for somebody to write a comment on the paper and get it published in the journal. This was suggested, but apparently none of the people complaining about the paper in the media could be bothered to do that. Why do you think that was?
“Ongena followed up with a second email with a proposal:
“I would invite the colleagues that have objections to send in their objections and to pass them on to the authors. To start a discussion in the press as they already did is certainly worse than publishing a critical paper. They could later also be invited to publish a comment.
We should as a journal not refrain or be afraid from a scientific discussion, but it should be in a correct way.””
“The eight “colleagues who expressed concern” via the media (and listed above) all apparently chose not to provide a scientific comment on Alimonti et al. and no further discussion of the comment was made in subsequent correspondence that I have seen.
However, the investigation proceeded.”
‘start a discussion in the press’
Who did that?
“The climate science denial echo-chamber has been loud and proud this week with claims a new ‘international study’ has found no evidence of a climate emergency in records of extreme weather.
So impressed was the Australian with the work that it ran uncritical coverage on page one and page two.
Using algorithm-friendly headlines such as Report finds no evidence of a climate emergency, Sky News Australia has amassed more than 400,000 views on YouTube across two segments on the story.”
This is what I was talking about earlier. No one would bother with crappy contrarian papers in non-climate journals if it weret for the
loud and proud “climate science denial echo-chamber”
I don’t know why anyone sho0uld care if the most conventional route to investigating – in this case re-reviewing – a paper wasn’t adhered to. So what? It was re-reviewed and retracted.
I thought Pielke’s take was “irrelevant?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1530785
So why quote his commentary?
It’s a storm in a teacup. Pielke is obviously trying to suggest that this incident means peer-review is broken because the dastardly alarmists are closing ranks to circumvent it and trash papers they don’t like.
It’s a storm in a teacup. It’s only got traction because the paper was heralded by the usual suspects and the opposition weighed in in exactly the same manner – through the press. What happened after that is on the publisher, and so what? Is it time to replay Phil Jones’ email about preventing papers passing peer review and getting in the IPCC – while conveniently forgetting that those same papers succeeded peer review got into the IPCC?
These petty brouhahas are fodder for the already outraged. They can scratch that indignant itch.
I wasn’t quoting “commentary” I was quoting a simple relaying of the facts of the case. Unless you dispute it?
3 of the 5 paragraphs you quoted are Pielke’s commentary.
I thought Pielke’s view was irrelevant, according to you?
So why quote him?
Here’s what’s left when you remove Pielke’s comments )and also leave out all the other correspondence on the matter).
“I would invite the colleagues that have objections to send in their objections and to pass them on to the authors. To start a discussion in the press as they already did is certainly worse than publishing a critical paper. They could later also be invited to publish a comment.
We should as a journal not refrain or be afraid from a scientific discussion, but it should be in a correct way.”
Yes, that is what the editor said in response to the publisher’s desire to revisit the paper after it had been peer-reviewed.
Would you like sugar in that teacup?
As I said, barry, it is not “commentary”, it is just a relaying of the facts of the case. “Commentary” would be Pielke Jr. expressing his opinion on the matter, which is as irrelevant as your opinion on the matter.
This is what you are objecting to:
“Ongena followed up with a second email with a proposal” – are you saying Ongena did not follow up with a second email with a proposal?
“The eight “colleagues who expressed concern” via the media (and listed above) all apparently chose not to provide a scientific comment on Alimonti et al. and no further discussion of the comment was made in subsequent correspondence that I have seen” – did the eight colleagues who expressed concern via the media in fact choose to provide a scientific comment on Alimonti et al? Is that what you’re saying? Was further discussion of the comment made?
“However, the investigation proceeded“ – are you saying the investigation did not then proceed?
It’s actually an editorial decision based on pressure from the editor, but it’s not like contrarians care about truth anyway.
> from the editor
from the publisher, that is.
As if contrarians like Junior were really raising concerns about media pressure through they sub stacks.
Articles also get updated and (re)published in other journals.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2023.2239807
“Dear Prof. Alimoti,
We are contacting you today regarding your article
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9
A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming
in our journal EPJ Plus, and where you are the corresponding author.
We are sure you and your co-authors are already aware of the public dispute this has generated,
see e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/22/sky-and-the-australian-find-no-evidence-of-a-climate-emergency-they-werent-looking-hard-enough
https://phys.org/news/2022-09-scientists-urge-publisher-faulty-climate.html
Included in these reports are numerous concerns of scientists who are considered highly expert in this subject.
As a result of these circumstances it is now necessary that the journal carry out an investigation to assess the validity of these concerns, in line with good practice when concerns of this type are brought to a journal.“
Two days later, on 29 September 2022, Christian Caron of Springer Nature and the editorial manager of the Italian Physical Society, Barbara Ancarani (and why she was involved is unclear), contacted Alimonti et al. to let them know that based on the two media stories, an investigation had been opened of their paper, ccing EPJP co-editor-in-chief, Beatrice Frabon
Exactly, thank you: "based on the two media stories".
“to let them know that based on the two media stories” is obviously Junior’s interpretation.
Fancy this: Junior, from his substack, raises concerns about “shenanigans in science.” No comment from our in-house residence sky dragon crank and our new visitor on this.
It’s the correct interpretation. Read the email again:
“As a result of these circumstances it is now necessary that the journal carry out an investigation to assess the validity of these concerns”
The circumstances referred to were the media articles and the “public dispute”.
Well, actually:
1. Springer tells their journal editor to open an investigation.
2. Springer is the publisher.
3. Graham still evades the fact that Junior is doing exactly what he qualifies as “shenanigans in science.”
4. All this because he (and perhaps our fellow travellers) believes that reviews should count as votes.
This is all very silly. Perhaps I should write a piece on this.
I don’t care about “Junior”, or his opinions. The emails speak for themselves.
Gaslighting Graham almost whines about shenanigans in science by citing a Climateball veteran, infamous for his shenanigans in science.
As I literally just said, and you ignored, I don’t care about “Junior”, or his opinions. The emails speak for themselves.
Gaslighting Graham still dodges my questions.
Falsely accusing me of gaslighting is just more personal abuse.
Gaslighting Graham still dodges my questions.
By serendipity, Junior is also known as Roger Dodger.
You have not asked me any questions, and falsely accusing me of gaslighting is just more personal abuse.
More dodging.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Incorrect.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Exactly, thank you: “based on the two media stories”.”
My impression it was based on the criticisms of experts on these topics, that may have been reported in the media.
In the past no one would care if bad contrarian papers were occasionally published in obscure journals.
The problem is that these days such a paper will get amplified in the conservative media and blogosphere, as if it is the one true analysis of a topic.
When the reality is it is just one obscure paper out of many that may not agree with it.
…Willy, please stop trolling.
Exactly, Nate.
Perhaps we should also mention that Junior spent years complaining about the fact that nobody in the academic journals took the Auditor’s blog posts srsly.
Does that mean that his Climateball past was full of political shenanigans?
“Junior” is irrelevant. You’re just shooting the messenger. The emails speak for themselves.
If Junior is irrelevant and our new visitor hides behind Junior, what should we conclude?
That Graham is playing another you-and-him fight game!
No-one’s hiding behind anyone.
Graham still evades taking position on the Climateball episode he obsesses over since yesterday.
No obsession here. Just patiently waiting for you to stop responding to me.
Gaslighting Graham waits for me to stop responding… in a subthread I myself started.
Little Willy, please grow up.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
False, and abusive.
Moar gaslighting by Graham.
False.
Res ipsa loquitur.
…please stop trolling.
… http://www.climatemonitor.it/?p=58501#pll_switcher
It’s also of note that the August 2023 Arctic excursion of 1.54 C is the second highest in the UAH data, with only January 2016 being greater at 2.12 C.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Our resident spammer is a bit slow on the draw this month. But, grammie insists on posting something, even though it’s totally pointless. He apparently hasn’t heard the old saying: “If you haven’t got anything to say, shut up”.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
First decent week in the Uk for a long time, the usual culprits will be blubbering the end of the world is nigh. For god sake its summer, get over it. P.S. Hawaii looked like sabotage of some kind like many other places.
Perhaps you’d care to point out who here claims “the end of the world is nigh”.
First decent week for a long time, if you regard most of June, or a fair bit of August as a long time ago.
The UK Met office has just issued a severe weather warning, meaning there’s a threat to life because temperatures are going to reach 31C or slightly higher (about 85F) in a few parts of SE England. How ridiculous is this? Since when was 85F a threat to life even in the UK where very few people have air conditioning at home? These temperatures are at least 5C above the average for early September but early Autumn heat waves are fairly common. Before all the nonsense about “global boiling” this would be called an Indian Summer and everyone would enjoy it, especially after 2 months of fairly poor summer weather.
> Since when was 85F a threat to life
It’s the humidity, Matt:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-impacts/global-impacts-of-climate-change—projections
The UK Met Office map of Extreme heat stress risk misses areas which ALREADY experience such risks among a large portion of their working population.
Nicaraguans demand action over illness killing thousands of sugar cane workers
Sugar Cane Laborers Dying of Chronic Kidney Disease .
Those sugar cane workers are experiencing a serious side effect of heat stress, not the direct impacts of heat stroke. One would think there are other effects not captured by a the 10 day per year exposure metric.
@swanson, the UK doesn’t have the weather that Nicaragua does, not does it have same workers rights. Kidney disease can be caused by poor diet, not enough salts & lack of proper hydration.
It’s a bit of a stretch to link Nicaragua’s issues with a couple of hot days of n the United Kingdom.
I wonder how heat stress could cause dehydration, Anon. Any ideas?
Eric’s point was that UK’s heat stress map missed areas which ALREADY experience such risks among a large portion of their working population. That’s why he said “UK’s heat stress map that missed areas which ALREADY experience such risks among a large portion of their working population.” Is there something in that claim you do not get?
Oh, here are other countries that have not been highlighted by UK’s heat stress map:
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/heat-stress-deaths-show-europe-isn-t-ready-for-climate-change-1.1943706
Do you think the UK government should prioritize your contrarian concerns regarding AGW and risk more deaths by downplaying heat stress?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
All the time it looks quite periodic
https://udoli.files.wordpress.com/2023/09/agw_u.gif
Well, that’s just the olympiad correlation.
Roy, you haven’t updated August anomaly on the front page.
Temperatures beneath the surface of the Pacific Ocean are falling. Winter in the northern hemisphere will not be warmer than usual.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202309.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202309.gif
So that tiny band is now “the Pacific” and cancels out all the warming you’ve shown elsewhere? Who would have guessed.
Oh! Palmowski is completely harmless.
One genius recently even had the audacity to suggest that global warming could be highly questionable since the 1877-78 El Nino matched that of 2015-16.
So what!
That band is generally a good predictor of the future state of the Nino regions. It would seem to indicate the current El Nino will not be a strong one and likely run for one year.
Still have the Hunga-Tonga effect to deal with for several years.
There will always be some excuse for you, won’t there, Richard M? Rather than face reality.
TFN can’t seem to understand the concept of cause and effect. The warming aligns perfectly with the H-T eruption and SO2 fallout. Your comment drips with projection. You’ve been waiting for so long to push your religion on everyone. You don’t want to accept the obvious.
As you try to justify causation by suggesting mere correlation, but use “align” to try to cover your correlation/causation blooper.
Tell me – do the monthly anomalies in the last 18 months more closely “align” with the eruption, or with ENSO?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Ocean surface temperatures.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
After a temporary increase in geomagnetic activity, the solar wind speed will drop sharply. This will result in the inhibition of zonal circulation at high latitudes.
https://i.ibb.co/bvLxGSJ/pobrane.png
Allarminsts are having a field day
They could say the sky is falling.
I could get another hurricane.
Though it’s cool and wet enough, here.
So, got a disturbance with 90% of cyclonic formation:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
The season is not vaguely over, but I imagined we wouldn’t get
another one over here. Maybe we get another 1/2 dozen.
Some little spots are growing on nearside:
Solar wind
speed: 396.9 km/sec
density: 5.03 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Sep 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 79
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 131 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.14×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.5% Low
“AS PREDICTED, A GEOMAGNETIC STORM: We predicted a G2-class geomagnetic storm this weekend, and it happened. The question is, why? At least one CME was supposed to hit Earth’s magnetic field on Sept. 2nd. Yet solar wind data show no clear signs of a CME impact. Whatever the reason for the storm, it sparked mid-latitude auroras in the USA. “
That word looks vaguely familiar. Which language is it from?
It’s Ebenees , for you Twerps , That’s how aliens spell it
So you’re saying that an alien language is named after you?
Oops.
It’s dachshundian, for sure.
Stop sticking your ankle biting butt sniffing snout into my posts you bindidog creep
I see you don’t have the creativity to create your own insult.
BTW – referring to your OP – no one has suggested these anomalies are a cause for celebration. If anomalies return to decades-old values then both sides win. Albeit different competitions – one just for bragging rights and the other bringing about the desired changes.
Thank you Dachshund for showing us once again how close your language is to that of the German ultra-right neo-fascists.
Shaddap already you trottel
Would you not be having a field day if it was showing record low temperatures?
A new El Nio, what else?
Next time you post don’t forget to put your name into the upper window of
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
and to paste the result from the lower one, giving
Björn Åke Boström
Is the atmospheric opacity increasing or decreasing. Or, does it remain stable under increasing IR active gaseous concentration and decreasing opaque cloud mask fraction. Ts changes notwithstanding.
With high altitude water vapor increased, the opacity should have increased.
What has changed in the trend in atmospheric CO2 since the last year that would have caused such a dramatic change in temperatures? Nothing. The recent undersea volcano sent monsterous amounts of H2O into the upper atmosphere. I’m sure they will blame CO2, but you can be 100% certain, that temperatures will be falling in the near future, and no one will be blaming CO2 for the fall in temperatures.
Remember that other things affect global T besides CO2.
ENSO has caused a lot of Pacific warming recently, and this is added to the general GW trend.
Perhaps other variations, such as in the the N. Atlantic, are coincidentally in warm phases.
Then we have recent mandated changes to ship SO2 emissions, that have reduced cloud cover over shipping lanes.
According to the USGS, there are, on average, 13 active volcanoes erupting every day and since most of the earth’s surface is water, I doubt that there has been much of an uptick in ocean heat from that source.
The Hunga-Tonga eruption was quite different. It sent massive amounts of water vapor into the upper atmosphere.
I wouldn’t call 150 MtH2O massive considering the atmosphere already had about 15,000,000 MtH2O already. It’s just that the stratosphere is pretty dry so while 150 MtH2O is not a lot wrt to the whole atmosphere it is a lot wrt to the stratosphere. And as a point of comparison about 6,000 MtCO2 got added to the stratosphere since the HT eruption. I’m not saying that the HT eruption is not having an effect. It probably is. I’m just trying to put some context around that 150 MtH2O figure.
bdgwx
Absolutely correct.
Only dumb pseudo-skeptical climate deniers use this Hunga Tonga eruption to explain anything.
By< the way, when you look at anomaly changes in UAH's lower stratosphere record, you not only see that the greatest changes always happen at the Poles, but that the changes which happened since the HT eruption were marginal in comparison to other years.
It is also puzzling how contrarians are so willing to accept that a mere 150 Mt of one GHG can cause dramatic warming, but are incredulous about 1,000,000 Mt of another having any effect at all.
bdgwx says:
”It is also puzzling how contrarians are so willing to accept that a mere 150 Mt of one GHG can cause dramatic warming, but are incredulous about 1,000,000 Mt of another having any effect at all.”
How big is your skeptic sample bdgwx?
I am not in that camp and I am not sure who is and who isn’t.
I am just going on the possibility of an effect from the volcano on ozone whose primary effect is to deny sunlight from reaching the surface in the first place.
If you go here and compare the ozone hole there is a significant reopening of that hole over the past several weeks. If its temporary or results in something major we should know in the not too distant future.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/SH.html
After all the UN is taking credit for half a degree C for fixing the hole.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc
Oh so you are into necrophilia! What gender is that? Ash buster?
Hunga-Tonga eruption was quite different.
Richard M beat me to the punch.
‘They’ are upthread noting that the conditions are strange and not attributing these high anomalies to CO2.
But don’t let that stop you fantasising, CO2isLife. Nice, neutral handle, by the way.
barry, please stop trolling.
Although I had expected August to be below July, this makes some sense in light of the hard-working Polar Vortex. Even though we are over months from solstice, the PV is still well organized with max wind speeds over 250 mph. IMHO, the HTE is over but there’s a lot of residual hot air that must be vacuumed out!
“a lot of residual hot air” in this blog, that needs to be filtered out.
Wrong Nate. People need to see that you childish tr0lls have no science.
Where is the science in your post?
All I see some disconnected buzz-words or factoids, and the continuation of a correlation equals causation fallacy.
Yes Nate, that’s often how reality looks to children.
And followed by no answers, just more insults.
I think all can recognize that your posts are just noise.
Elon Musk hints at the bold future of SpaceX’s Starship program
Elon Musk remains intent on colonizing Mars as SpaceX continues to expand its operations.
Ian Krietzberg 3 hours ago
https://www.thestreet.com/technology/elon-musk-hints-at-the-bold-future-of-spacexs-starship-program
[[Hints? What does a madman have to do?]]
“In the wake of a series of successful launches, SpaceX has exceeded the previous year’s flight count, according to CEO Elon Musk, delivering 80% of all Earth payload mass to orbit for the year so far.
China, he said, has delivered 10%. And the rest of the world combined delivered the remaining 10%. ”
“And once SpaceX’s bold Starship program gets up and running, that number will exceed 99%, Musk said. ”
He seems to not have much faith in Bezos. Or, Rocket Lab- which actually flying and trying to re-use rockets.
I was watching the starlink falcon-9 {on internet} launch, and the talking heads said that not only does the firing of returning first stage booster, slow it down, but it “fights fire with fire”
Can Starship’s hot entry in Mars high atmosphere, also “fight fire with fire”.
Though I am more interested in Venus orbit, can it be done with Venus, or Earth re-entry {from lunar distance- or guess also, just from LEO}?
Dr. Spencer
I have tried today to post a calculation I have made that concludes the contribution of temperature to the atmosphere by CO2 is in the order of 19% of the 0.13 degree C per decade recorded by UAH. Is there some reason it has not been accepted?
The site censor is very sensitive to certain words and letter sequences. For example any word with the letters d and c in sequence is rejected, as are words such as absorp.tion.
Copy your comment before posting, then if you have trouble, post one paragraph at a time until you find the problem.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/is-your-comment-here-not-appearing/
Look in your texts for the presence of problematic character sequences, e.g. (without the blank in between, of course)
– ‘d c’
– ‘r p t’
Such sequences automatically let the blog ignore the comment you posted.
Click on the left arrow in the browser’s menu bar to recuperate your comment, so you can re-edit it.
Sometimes, the problematic character sequences are within links:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rli_V3tzq9lFsxZY4YdD CafOt4mVLNJl/view
Use
https://tinyurl.com/app
to get rid of it.
The ozone hole in the Southern Hemisphere is growing.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot_N20.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2022.png
You can see the dependence on the solar cycle.
Compare 2019.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2021.png
I seem to be missing the connection between ozone hole and it’s ability of causing naturally mild climate change.
That’s because you’re new to Climateball, dear Anon.
Have we met before?
Willard you’re not a CO2 maniac?
Only if you ask me, Walter.
Otherwise I’m a ninja.
Could also be getting a boost from increased water vapor.
Funny how you say it is still going and caused by water vapour, while Clint claims it is over and has nothing to do with water vapour (without being able to specify an alternate cause). Would you guys please get your story straight.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Visible greater extent of the southern polar vortex in the lower stratosphere in the South Pacific and will continue to expand.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_sh_f00.png
Winter is finally coming to Australia.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/gfs/2023090412/gfs_T2m_aus_22.png
Only 0.01C from breaking the record for warmest anomaly. Climate deniers are still going to try and say that global cooling is knocking on our front door.
0.69C.
So July’s 0.64C wasn’t a fluke.
Do you think there’s a possibility of getting the average of +0.55 for the last four months of the year to make 2023 the warmest year?
The OLS trend suggests that the normal ENSO neutral temperature for the early 2020s is around anomaly 0.25C.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/every/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/every/trend
El Ninos tend to peak about 0.5C above the trend, so the current El Nino might peak around 0.75C.
I’m surprised. to see temperatures so high so early in the present El Nino. Now they’re here I expect to see more of them.
If all that’s needed for a 2023 annual record is a 0.55C average for the last four months, then it is likely that we’ll see a new record.
Why do you think it’s a fluke? If you throw dice then it’s possible to get any series of numbers. Would prove that the dice would suddenly start melting, would it.
Natural climate change doesn’t prohibit two consecutive months getting warmer. Anyway, wouldn’t just selecting such a short trend be an indication of weather, rather than the longer 300 months needed to be classified as climate.
If I throw an honest die I would expect about 17% of throws to come up 6. If I drill a 3mm hole in the centre of the 1 face and insert a 3mm ball bearing the probability of a 6 rises to about 25%. (Don’t ask how I know :–) )
Similarly with the July and August temperatures. They are unlikely to be 0.4C above the long term trend due solely to natural random or weather variation. Something is causing them to be so high.
The global sea surface temperature has been record warm for about 5 months. And looks like this not over.
This not simply random monthly noise.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
How about the fact that in the entire first 30 years of the UAH record, outside the very strong El Nino of 97/98, the highest two-month average was +0.18. And this El Nino hasn’t reached Strong, let alone Very Strong.
Nate and Antonin,
What do you guys think are driving this anomalous warmth? Could it be related to the fact that ever since the last strong El Nio, the temperature has remained elevated?
Walter,
“The only reason it’s warming is because it’s warming”.
That’s the essence of your comment.
Walter,
It is the high the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI). CERES shows the 36m and 12m averaged EEI at +1.46 W m-2 and +1.92 W m-2 respectively. The planet is accumulating energy because it is taking in more than it is shedding. The Earth responds by warming in an effort to bring the EEI down.
I think it is several factors.
First, ongoing AGW that has been masked by 3 years of La Nina conditions.
Second, ENSO shifted from 3 years of negative to neutral and now El Nino conditions. Last time that happened, in 2015, global sea surface temps jumped to new records in the second half of the year.
Third, the N. Atlantic may have shifted to a warmer phase.
Fourth, due to recent international agreement, shipping now must use low sulfur fuel, and as a result there is less contrail formation over shipping lanes.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/
Fifth, The HT volcano is estimated to contribute a very small warming effect.
Ent conveniently forgets about the HTE.
He’s too busy making up things to tout his cult beliefs, like claiming passenger jets fly backward.
Clint conveniently INVENTS the HTE.
And after previously saying it has nothing to do with water vapour (in opposition to his fellow believers), he has yet to provide a mechanism for this hypothetical effect.
Ant, if will agree to not comment here for 60 days, I’ll like you to the mechanism for the HTE.
You’ll like me if I don’t comment for 60 days? Awwwww
Anyway, thanks for letting me know you need another 60 days to concoct a mechanism.
Yes Ant, I see I forgot to check for typos. Sorry. Here’s the corrected version:
“Ant, if you will agree to not comment here for 60 days, I’ll link you to the mechanism for the HTE.”
And why would my presence here affect your willingness to share your “knowledge”? Surely you are keen to convince others you are right rather than making bald assertions unsupported by science. Or does scientific debate mean something different to you?
Ant, you have no interest in learning science. Your only interest is in attacking Skeptics. I don’t waste time with people that reject reality.
Take a 60-day break, come back as a responsible adult, and I’ll be glad to help you.
I am learning science all the time. Pretty sure you’ve never read a university-level physics textbook cover to cover and attempted the exercises, merely scoured it for out-of-context quotes.
You have no issue with sharing your unjustified theories – what is stopping you from taking the extra step? I am quite confident everyone else here would be interested in your explanation of the mechanism. Is is really so much easier to invent stories about retrograde air travel than to explain your theories?
Ant, your insults and false accusations bounce off me like 15μ photons bounce off Earth’s surface. (You will have no clue what that means.) You’ll be here all day, but I don’t have time for your childish nonsense.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1530544
You mean you’re promising not to speak to me?
Celebrations are in order.
I think a new record is very likely given the source of the extra warming, Hunga-Tonga water vapor, won’t be going away for some time.
Perhaps you’d care to provide evidence that the water vapour in any vertical column of the atmosphere is currently a significant percentage higher than normal.
Heads up – merely stating that a lot of water vapour was released is not evidence that it is still lurking in the atmosphere.
Your comment shows a major lack of understanding IR active gases.
Water vapor’s absorp.tion bands are completely saturated low in the atmosphere. It’s only when you get high enough for the concentration to get low enough that changes make a difference.
I do think it is going to be a complex problem. Currently the 600 mb specific humidity is high but not up at 300 mb. I’ve also read that the water vapor level in the mesosphere is quite high but haven’t seen any data.
It’s THAT comment which illustrates your lack of understanding.
While based on an obvious truth, if saturated in the lower atmosphere then radiation emitted from the surface doesn’t reach the upper atmosphere for saturation/non-saturation to make a difference.
Interesting that you people deny even the existence of a greenhouse effect, yet what you are describing is PRECISELY the greenhouse effect.
Is there anything stopping you linking to this data on stratospheric water vapour? And I mean data, not a reference to another site making another non-data reference.
EM,
Why would a fluke in a natural event relate to a man-made unrelated concept like a month? Geoff S
@EM, I was assuming fair dice, why weren’t you?
If you throw a normal dice purely randomly there is zero reason why you can’t have a series of 2s or a series of 6s. It’s still random, yet some people will instantly try to see a pattern where no pattern exists.
Conversely, some people will invoke randomness to deny a pattern which does exist.
@Antonin, there is that, but consider that the human biology is to be predisposed to see patterns even when non exist. How many people can see faces, animals etc in clouds. Hopefully you recognize that clouds have zero ability to mimic and are truly random.
To notice a slight increase in global temperature is one thing, to associate it with mankind is, to my mind, a step too far. As is trying to state a trend from only 2 months of data that the OP did.
I agree with Anon. Are people really trying to associate this spike with CO2?
” I agree with Anon. Are people really trying to associate this spike with CO2? ”
They shouldnt be. CO2 is responsible for the underlying warming trend which makes such high temperatures possible.
The spike must be due to some additional effect. The first default option is El Nino, but the spike looks high for this stage of El Nino, so we may be looking for three interacting variables. CO2, ENSO and ?.
No they’re not. The naysayers are merely arguing against a straw man. It is associated at least in part with El Nino. Possibly also the warming feedback effect of reduced Antarctic sea ice, but that seems much less likely given that the majority of the “spike” has occurred in the northern hemisphere. And until someone can refer to a data set which shows a marked elevation in water vapour concentrations, that explanation is merely guesswork.
The “spike” was caused by the El Niño and the HTE, acting together.
https://postimg.cc/8FFtpjZF
FWIW, cloud formation isn’t exactly random:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-clouds-always-appe/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Dr Spencer,
You might want to update the “Latest Global Temp. Anomaly” from July to August.
There is a loooong post at Judith Currys site about the warmth this summer.
I have a question for the tipping point theory. The typical seasonal anomaly in the CO2 data is about 6 ppmv. So that means the level of CO2 has dropped by that amount since early spring. How did that trigger the tipping point?
Who is suggesting that we’ve suddenly crossed a tipping point, rather than merely experiencing the effects of El Nino, albeit superimposed on a rising trend?
My point is that we seem to be in a very unusual weather pattern, which is entirely different than climate. Contrary to some of the assertions in the media, there is variation in the weather from year to year during any particular climate period. As I write this, we are approaching peak Hurricane Season with “bath tub” hot temperatures in the waters of the Gulf in particular, and there are currently no hurricanes in the Atlantic or Eastern Pacific regions.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
Indeed there is variation from year to year, something almost all naysayers on this site conveniently forget in La Nina years as they claim that the fall is the beginning of a new long term downward trend in global temperatures.
On the other hand, no one here is claiming these elevated temperatures will continue past this El Nino. We’ve always said it’s the long term AVERAGE which matters, and this variability is simply superimposed on a rising trend. No more.
Give it until the end of the week, we should have the third major hurricane in the Atlantic by then.
At time I wrote that it was true. Currently, Tropical Storm Lee is expected to gain hurricane status by Thursday morning, and predicted to be a major hurricane by Friday afternoon. It is headed for the east coast. Hopefully it will make a turn north like so many have this year.
The main reason for the increase in the temperature of the troposphere is the increase in the surface of the warm ocean in the tropics, due to the inhibition of the east wind along the equator. An increase in the area of stronger evaporation results in an increase in water vapor, which transfers heat from the ocean to other latitudes by convection over the equator.
What you are describing is PRECISELY El Nino.
Why do you have such difficulty in uttering those words?
Maybe it is “ren” come back to haunt us?
It is indeed ren. He hasn’t tried to hide that.
This is the first year in eight straight years that he hasn’t predicted La Nina. Nevertheless he stated earlier in the year that there is no chance of El Nino forming this year. He has a much stronger agenda-based bias than most of the others here, despite many trying to argue how neutral he is simply because he doesn’t get abusive.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
I wonder what the reason is behind “Anon for a reason”‘s anonymity.
On a completely different matter, who has disappeared from here in the last month or so?
When I defended the science behind global warming under my own name, I popped up on internet searches relating to my children’s professional activities.
To avoid confusion they asked me to become anonymous, so I became a minor comic book superhero.
“Anon for a reason” may have a genuine and innocuous reason for choosing to stay out of the limelight. Or he may not.
Ultimately, I don’t really care what his reason is, unless he was blocked under another name.
It was just a way of introducing the main issue … who is he?
BTW – Have you collected from Richard yet?
(No, I am not claiming AFAR is Richard – he is not rabid enough to be Richard. This one really is an independent question.)
RLH has acknowledged courteously that he lost this year’s bet and the RLNI is 20 better off, which is the real purpose of the bet.
@Antonin, no I haven’t posted on this site before a couple of weeks ago. So I don’t know who you think I am but rest assured I’m not that person. Anyway it’s not that I know anyone with a surname of qwerty.
There are a lot of reasons why people want to stay anonymous, especially in today’s cancel culture. I certainly not willing to paint a target on my back or my employer current or previous.
I am not complaining about using a pseudonym. In fact I am not complaining at all (unless you’ve been previously blocked). But it is not usual for new people to appear on this site and be immediately prolific in their posting. It is usually a sign that they are familiar with the site. And there are indeed a couple of people who seem to be AWOL.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
As a follow-up to Bellman’s graph about how unusual this year has been, here is graph showing for each year the change from the first 4 months to the next 4 months.
http://tinyurl.com/May-Aug-minus-Jan-Apr
I can account for most of the extreme changes, but 2004 has me stumped. Any suggestions.
And another metric:
(Yearly range of UAH monthly anomalies) – (Yearly range of NOAA monthly anomalies)
Year … UAH (NOAA)
2023 … +0.37
2022 … +0.00
2021 … +0.09
2020 … +0.09
2019 … -0.03
2018 … -0.11
2017 … -0.02
2016 … +0.04
2015 … +0.02
2014 … -0.12
2013 … +0.20
2012 … +0.12
2011 … +0.16
2010 … +0.05
2009 … +0.14
2008 … -0.14
2007 … +0.16
2006 … -0.02
2005 … +0.04
2004 … +0.19
It’s as though UAH is picking up the ENSO signal earlier than NOAA, which is not usual.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
I show the Monckton pause starting in 2015/02 and shortening to 103 months.
Not sure why you engage with that inbred’s nonsense.
Basically, the ‘Monckton Pause’ tells us that since 2015/02, temperatures have been averaging ~0.25 C above the current baseline and ~ 0.4 C above the baseline for 1980-2009.
Rather than showing some sort of end to global warming, that seems like pretty strong evidence of continued global warming to me. Even when you look for ‘pauses’, you still need to acknowledge increases (and never decreases) every decade or two.
@TimFolkerts, it’s not the fact that the planet is warming slightly, it’s how much it is tied to only human emissions.
There are many plausible reasons on why there are pauses or non consistent warming. The go to reason that’s it’s mankind CO2 emissions seems, to me at least, a somewhat lazy, simplistic, fanciful excuse that is more related to political bias than scientific method.
The reason there are pauses is because there are short term oscillations superimposed on the long term trend. As many of us have pointed out in the past 100% of months will be contained within at least 1 Monckton pause. Some months even have the distinction of being in two of them. This gives Monckton the opportunity to always be able to make a post about a pause. He just doesn’t tell his audience that the current pause is at a higher than the previous one. It is a variation of Simpson’s Paradox in which the focus is put on the confounding trends of shorter cherry-picked periods to distract from the overall secular long term trend. So despite always being in a pause the global average temperature continues to march higher over the long term.
@bdgwx,so you believe that all the temperature measurements are accurate and despite research that shows a high level of badly sited thermometers or urban heat island affects.
Sadly CO2 emissions don’t fully explain any climate change
I don’t think any global average temperature dataset is perfectly accurate. But I accept that they are accurate enough to draw conclusions with a reasonable level of confidence.
You are correct. CO2 emissions do not fully explain climate change or the UAH TLT values. It is but one among many agents that modulate the system. It is because there are other agents acting on the system (like ENSO, solar output, etc.) that necessarily lead to pauses in the UAH TLT values. These pauses are expected and consistent with the contemporary understanding of the CO2 (and other GHGs) effect.
Anon for a reason
” … despite research that shows a high level of badly sited thermometers… ”
Which research do you mean?
The pseudo-research done at Watts’s ‘surfacestations.org’ over 10 years ago, with their 71 ‘well-sited’ USHCN stations (mentioned even by NOAA itself)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ipzDRdJppZDM6ii4qj9h1AKFrC3t0h94/view
showing a bit more warming than 329 ‘poorly sited’ GHCN daily stations around them?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14OiHmTn0DjbJF_s7cEZXicQd6-oAiCqe/view
Ball4 says:
”Sure that imaginary 3rd grader model of Bills doesnt work physically. Bill needs to use the more advanced high school model developed from experiments to understand the real physical world.”
well you have been in here defending the 3rd grader model but don’t feel bad as abit more a decade ago even Harvard University had the 3rd grader model being offered up as an explanation for the GHE.
When did you decide the 3rd grader model was complete bunk?
“its not the fact that the planet is warming slightly, its how much it is tied to only human emissions.”
I would say it is BOTH of those. First, people should acknowledge the clear evidence that the planet IS warming.
Then comes assignments for why it is warming. To me, the ‘lazy, simplistic, fanciful’ approach is it pick some plausible explanation without any careful analysis. ‘Oh, there was a volcano recently.’ ‘Oh, sunspots are low.’ ‘Oh, it is just a natural 60 year (or 400 year or 50,000 year) cycle.’ Sure, these might be involved, but then comes the hard work of showing why/how much, or showing a clear statistical connections.
For CO2, there IS a clear physics reason why it should cause warming. Scientist have spent a lot of time and effort and money (maybe too much) predicting how CO2 should impact the climate. And usually those predictions are pretty close (if a little high).
“For CO2, there IS a clear physics reason why it should cause warming.” WRONG!
CO2 doesn’t “cause warming”. Ice cubes don’t boil water. Fluxes don’t simply add. And passenger jets don’t fly backward.
Here’s the reality:
1. Sun warms the surface. (TRUE)
2. Surface warms the atmosphere. (TRUE)
3. Atmosphere re-warms the surface (FALSE)
We wouldn’t be here if CO2 were a strong or moderately strong greenhouse gas per the AGW hypothesis. CO2 contributes to warming because the surface warms the atmosphere and CO2 is an atmospheric gas. But the planet is complicated and rigorously designed for sustaining life.
“WRONG!”
Sorry Clint, we’ve been through all this before and your hollow assertion is not sufficient to overturn centuries of physics. Feel free to write your own textbook or present at a physics conference if you think there is a specific error somewhere.
It has happened that most physicists were wrong about some topic (eg when relativity or quantum mechanics first came out), but classical thermodynamics is pretty robust.
The simple truth is that insulation ’causes warming’ when added to a house with a furnace. A sheet of plastic ’causes warming’ when added to a greenhouse in the sun. And CO2 ’causes warming’ when added to the atmosphere of a planet receiving solar energy. We could quibble about whether ‘reduces the cooling’ is more accurate, but the net result in all of these cases is a higher final temperature.
Wrong again, Folkerts.
You’re as confused by radiative physics as you ever were. You’re unable to learn.
CO2 doesn’t “cause warming”. Ice cubes don’t boil water. Fluxes dont simply add. And passenger jets don’t fly backward.
Your cult hoaxes are anti-science and you’re stumbling all over yourself trying to support them.
Tim Folkerts says:
”The simple truth is that insulation causes warming when added to a house with a furnace. A sheet of plastic causes warming when added to a greenhouse in the sun. And CO2 causes warming when added to the atmosphere of a planet receiving solar energy. We could quibble about whether reduces the cooling is more accurate, but the net result in all of these cases is a higher final temperature.”
the real simple truth for an actual hot house farmer is when convection blows the sheet of plastic off the top of the greenhouse it doesn’t warm squat. . . despite what your cubicle-bound physics teacher implies.
Classical Thermodynamics? You’re a hoot, Tim. The planet’s climate system is way more complex than an insulation blanket, and CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Also, CO2 follows temperature on both short and long, time scales. You have it back asswards.
Tim, I am with you up to the last sentence. It is a science fact that increasing CO2 should cause some effect. The problem comes in the attempt to quantify that effect. If we cannot get agreement from different methods of temperature measurement trends, how can we predict or “project” the true effect. The climate models produce a wide range of results. ENSO shows up very clearly in the UAH record as a significant effect apparently from water vapor, and surface data sets somehow miss this. Or, is that because they use so much data smoothing to try to imply a smooth and steady increase? In theory CO2 should have an effect, but the science is a very long way from quantifying what that effect really is relative to the primary greenhouse which is still water vapor.
Oh my! Strawmen abound!
“despite what your cubicle-bound physics teacher implies.”
I was implying exactly what you said. A sheet of plastic over a frame prevents convection. Any time you make it tougher for heat to escape from a heated object, the object will get warmer. Whether you are preventing convection, conduction, or radiation.
“The planets climate system is way more complex than an insulation blanket” … and classical thermodynamics deals with situations way more complex than blankets. In particular, no matter how complex and chaotic the climate system is, there is nothing in the 2nd Law that prevents CO2 from helping warm the surface, even when the CO2 is cooler than the surface.
“CO2 follows temperature on both short and long, time scales.”
This one is more interesting, but still a strawman. Yes, historically over the past several glacial eras, this has been true. However:
1) This does not preclude CO2 from having a warming effect. Something (like changing orbits or moving continents) could trigger warming which would release CO2 from the warming oceans. The CO2 could add a warming effect, leading to more warming in the oceans and more CO2. [This does NOT imply infinite feedback.]
2) The recent rise in CO2 is clearly NOT due to ‘CO2 following temperature’. Fossil fuels are the clear source. Now CO2 is leading warming.
Last (and least) “passenger jets dont fly backward.”
A strawman out of a completely different discussion!
“It is a science fact that increasing CO2 should cause some effect.”
“In theory CO2 should have an effect…”
Correct Tim S. And that effect would be a slight cooling.
Tim S, I agree with everything you wrote. Quantifying the effect of CO2 IS tough. I think it is amazing that climate models are are good as they are (and that is still not very good).
Tim,
The surface warms the atmosphere. 0.04% of the atmosphere doesn’t warm the surface.
Tim and Norman,
The only purpose of the AGW agenda is for Marxists like you to control capitalism, nothing else. You two push the UN climate agenda. I don’t know what you get out of or will get out of it, but you do.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Oh my! Strawmen abound!
”despite what your cubicle-bound physics teacher implies.”
I was implying exactly what you said. A sheet of plastic over a frame prevents convection. Any time you make it tougher for heat to escape from a heated object, the object will get warmer. Whether you are preventing convection, conduction, or radiation.
—————————
No Tim the plastic only constricts air molecules from trading places with cooler air molecules. And when they trade places that means the molecules rise to TOA to radiate any heat not radiated to space during its journey upwards.
We have seen from experiments such as Vaughn Pratt’s that variously using IR transparent and IR opaque covers doesn’t change the temperature of the surface. What changes is the temperature of the cover (or gas if you are using gas for a cover).
so you are apparently just parroting your cubicle bound physics teacher who lacked any experience in working with the stuff.
“Any time you make it tougher for heat to escape from a heated object, the object will get warmer. Whether you are preventing convection, conduction, or radiation.”
I see that nobody has rebutted this accurate statement with loads of experimental support.
“Any time you make it tougher for heat to escape from a heated object, the object will get warmer. Whether you are preventing convection, conduction, or radiation”
Sure, Tim…and to prevent radiative losses requires reflectivity, and not absorp.tion/emission, in the insulator.
“requires reflectivity, and not absorp.tion/emission, in the insulator.”
False. Tyndall’s experiments clearly showed that IR abs.orbing gases reduce heat transfer.
Not sure why people feel they can make up their own fake physics rules that deny 150 y of established physics!
It’s amazing to see such discussions when people exclusively concentrate on CO2:
” The surface warms the atmosphere. 0.04% of the atmosphere doesn’t warm the surface. ”
like do e.g. 6.9L pickup drivers manifestly interested in keeping ‘my cheap gallon’ alive forever.
1. CO2 hasn’t been the GHE’s main component during millennia: it was water vapor all the time.
This might change in the near future.
2. CO2 doesn’t ‘warm the surface’: that is the pseudo-scientific, pseudo-skeptical people’s wrongly and endlessly repeated, nonsensical narrative.
All what CO2 does is to increase over time the loss of radiative cooling, despite the incredible idiocy propagated all the time by ignoramuses like Clint R, claiming that more CO2 in the lower atmosphere means more radiative cooling!
Well, he’s got a point, Bindidon. After all, what "holds onto the heat" the best?
1) An atmosphere without GHGs, which can be warmed from the surface upwards via conduction and convection, but cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.
or
2) An atmosphere with GHGs, which can radiatively cool very efficiently.
DREMT
When you say the atmosphere can radiatively cool efficiently, what time frame are you implying by “efficiently”?
For example, if whatever forcing is causing the current “spike” were to disappear overnight, how long would the atmosphere take to dissipate that heat and return to its previous temperature?
(Note – I’m not asking for theories about what is causing the “spike”.)
No idea. Can an atmosphere without GHGs radiatively cool more or less efficiently than one with GHGs?
Which atmosphere without greenhouse gases could someone interested in that question look at?
Correct answers are “1” and “less”.
Perhaps best just to let meteorologist Roy Spencer correct these misconceptions.
From previous article:
The greenhouse effect does not produce its own heating effect, it reduces the net rate of cooling in the lower atmosphere, while providing net radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere.
And the evidence is successful weather prediction:
All of this is well explained by a model of the radiative processes, for instance in every weather forecast model, and the model will create exactly what is observed. Without the GHE, you cannot explain the thermal structure of the atmosphere.
Roy quotes disappeared!
Should have been:
“The greenhouse effect does not produce its own heating effect, it reduces the net rate of cooling in the lower atmosphere, while providing net radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere. ”
And the evidence is successful weather prediction:
“All of this is well explained by a model of the radiative processes, for instance in every weather forecast model, and the model will create exactly what is observed. Without the GHE, you cannot explain the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”
The correct answers are still “1” and “less”, unless anyone can explain how those answers could possibly be wrong?
Here is a claim:
(C) An atmosphere without GHGs cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.
Here is a question:
(Q) Can an atmosphere without GHGs radiatively cool more or less efficiently than one with GHGs?
It seems to me that someone who asserts C ought to have an answer to Q…
I have already given the answer, twice.
Perhaps “no” isn’t an answer to Q.
After all, it would not help support C since it would be equivalent to it…
The answer to Q is “less”. For the third time.
“Less” would not provide any support to C either…
In any event, from C follows the intriguing idea that added greenhouse gases to an atmosphere allows it to cool more efficiently.
Is that what we can observe on planets with lots of greenhouse gases?
You are seriously trying to dispute C?
(C) An atmosphere without GHGs cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.
Some people (who are GHE defenders) have suggested that an atmosphere without GHGs cannot radiate at all. I go less extreme, and merely suggest that an atmosphere without GHGs cannot radiate very efficiently.
Is Graham srsly trying to assert C without supporting it?
Yes. It requires no support, as it is (or should be) self-evident.
It’d be interesting to know how many “self-evident” claims like that we could find in empirical sciences.
A cloudless sky cools quicker. Is it because there is more greenhouse gases?
An atmosphere without GHGs cannot radiatively cool very efficiently. If anyone disagrees, let them speak now.
HOW TO REVERSE THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Step 1. Make an unsupported assertion.
Step 2. Pretend that this assertion is self-evident.
Step 3. Challenge anyone to prove you wrong.
There is no fourth step.
I genuinely consider the “claim” to be self-evident. I’m not sure what you want me to say. As usual, you falsely accuse me of shady tactics. Within a few comments you have devolved the debate into something personal.
Nate says:
September 6, 2023 at 5:12 AM
Any time you make it tougher for heat to escape from a heated object, the object will get warmer. Whether you are preventing convection, conduction, or radiation.
I see that nobody has rebutted this accurate statement with loads of experimental support.
——————————
Well perhaps you need an experiment to proves that you can prevent radiation Nate before making other claims about what happens when you do.
What about radiation Nate, Gill?
Perhaps you could try to convince Graham to stop playing scientific shenanigans and openly stan for his non-radiative gases guru.
Another personal remark. If you can’t debate the science, don’t bother commenting.
Gaslighting Graham is playing scientific shenanigans.
This is self-evident.
Prove me wrong.
Yet another personal remark. If you can’t debate the science, don’t bother commenting.
Why would anyone debate a claim that is self-evidently false?
Certainly not Graham!
Hence his constant whining.
So, we can only conclude that Little Willy thinks an atmosphere without GHGs can radiatively cool very efficiently. So an atmosphere, lacking radiatively active gases, can nonetheless radiatively cool very efficiently. Remarkable.
So we can safely conclude that Gaslighting Graham has no response for the questions he has been asked.
“Well perhaps you need an experiment to proves that you can prevent radiation Nate before making other claims about what happens when you do.”
Not really. As I noted Tyndall showed that 150 y ago. Specifically he showed that IR abs.orbing gasses can reduce radiative heat transfer.
Just not controversial.
I haven’t been asked any questions, Little Willy.
So I thought it best just to let PhD meteorologist Roy Spencer correct these misconceptions.
He makes it plain that GHG causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the upper atmosphere to cool, and the thermal structure of the atmosphere cannot be understood without the GHE. And that meteorologists cannot correctly predict the weather without including the GHE.
But some people here seem to believe, though they are not meteorologists, that they still know better, and that Roy and all other meteorologists are getting it wrong…. because of 2LOT or something.
I don’t know why they think this way.
I guess Dunning and Kruger were right.
Oh, you did ask this:
“A cloudless sky cools quicker. Is it because there is more greenhouse gases?“
No, it’s because dry air has a lower heat capacity than moist air.
P1. An atmosphere without GHGs cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.
P2. Dry air has a lower heat capacity than moist air.
C. Gaslighting Graham is a genius.
Thank you.
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?feature=shared&t=300
To be clear, both P1 and P2 are correct, and there is no contradiction, inconsistency or problem between them. So, no idea why you’ve arranged them together as if there is.
To be clear, Graham obviously still holds that non-radiative gases are responsible for the radiative properties of an atmosphere, so as far as logic is concerned, anything goes.
I have never claimed anything of the sort.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1495714
I suppose it depends on what “of the sort” means.
ME: A sheet of plastic over a frame prevents convection.
BILL: plastic only constricts air molecules from trading places with cooler air molecules.
Ummm … “convection” means “warmer air molecules trading places with cooler air molecules”. So you are agreeing with me while thinking you are disagreeing.
“Can an atmosphere without GHGs radiatively cool more or less efficiently than one with GHGs?”
This is the wrong question. The more important question is “Can a PLANET without GHGs radiatively cool more or less efficiently than one with GHGs?”
The answers is clearly that the planet as a whole WITHOUT GHGs cools MORE effectively. If we could suddenly, magically remove GHGs [ie make the atmosphere above transparent to IR] from the atmosphere, it is true that the atmosphere would cool less effectively. But at the same time the surface would cool MUCH more effectively. The NET result would be a cooler surface AND a cooler atmosphere in contact with the cooler surface.
Or put another way, there would be no need for the atmosphere to cool effectively since the atmosphere would never have gotten warm to begin with without GHGs.
Yes, Little Willy. Note that what you have linked to does not state that non-radiative gases are responsible for the radiative properties of an atmosphere. You get yourself so confused, then claim I am gaslighting you when I point that out.
No, Tim, what I asked was the right question, what you have responded with is a distortion of the point being made. It’s not about the temperature of the planetary surface, it’s about the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface. That is what we all experience on a daily basis.
“If we could suddenly, magically remove GHGs [ie make the atmosphere above transparent to IR] from the atmosphere, it is true that the atmosphere would cool less effectively.“
You have agreed that an atmosphere without GHGs cools less effectively than one with GHGs. Thank you.
“its about the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface.”
Yes, and the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface closely correlates to the temperature of the surface. Without the GHE, surface would have an average temperature ~ 255 K (ie arctic conditions). The atmosphere above the surface would ALSO average ~ 255 K.
So without GNG (no radiative cooling of the atmosphere) the atmosphere near the surface would indeed to COOLER than it is now.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] what you have linked to does not state that non-radiative gases are responsible for the radiative properties of an atmosphere.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The N2/O2 is the planetary insulation
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham is holding the view that insulation isn’t a radiative property?
Tim, for GHGs to make the surface warmer, you would need to have “back-radiation warming”. Not going into all that again.
Little Willy, you do realise there are other forms of insulation besides radiative insulation?
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham was referring to soundproofing?
In any event, perhaps he could explain, with the use of his “holding” theory, how a bag of CO2 blocks more radiation that a bag of air:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?feature=shared&t=300
“you would need to have back-radiation warming.”
I don’t know why you have problem with cooler surroundings impacting the temperature of warmer objects. If I run my coffee maker outside on a cold winter day, the coffee will be cooler than if I run it inside. Even if I got rid of conduction, radiation would still have the same effect.
Heated objects (like the coffee pot; like the earth) are affected by the temperature of the surroundings (like the cool air vs the cold air; like the cool atmosphere vs cold space).
“1) An atmosphere without GHGs, which can be warmed from the surface upwards via conduction and convection, but cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.”
Without GHG, a 288 K surface would radiate directly to space which is at 3K.
We can calculate that radiative flux, it is 5.67e-8*(288^4-3^4)*0.9, assuming surface emissivity of 0.9.
Which gives 350 W/m^2 leaving Earth.
Currently we have about 240 W/m^2 leaving Earth.
The solar input to the surface, considering Earth reflects 30% of it, is ~ 240 W/M^2.
So we have 350 W/m^2 output and 240 W/m^2 input. Obviously the Earth is going to cool. A lot! To 255 K.
And as noted by Tim if the surface is 255K. then the atmosphere cannot be warmed above 255 K.
Oh well.
And without the radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere, there will be no convection.
Poor Nate believes: “Currently we have about 240 W/m^2 leaving Earth.”
He believes that because his cult has taught him that. He doesn’t know that there is no way to determine such a value properly.
Oh well….
Second strike, Pupman:
Graham agrees with that figure.
Nate says:
”1) An atmosphere without GHGs, which can be warmed from the surface upwards via conduction and convection, but cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.”
Without GHG, a 288 K surface would radiate directly to space which is at 3K.
We can calculate that radiative flux, it is 5.67e-8*(288^4-3^4)*0.9, assuming surface emissivity of 0.9.
Which gives 350 W/m^2 leaving Earth.
Currently we have about 240 W/m^2 leaving Earth.
————————
Thats not very precise. RE: GHE, You willy nilly switcheroo from a view from space of the planet, then bifurcate the planet into an atmosphere and a surface and draw conclusions from that.
What is your definition of a GHE. The temperature of the surface or the temperature of the atmosphere? And if atmosphere what part of it? As we know the atmosphere has a very varied temperature.
Tim Folkerts says:
”its about the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface.”
Yes, and the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface closely correlates to the temperature of the surface. Without the GHE, surface would have an average temperature ~ 255 K (ie arctic conditions). The atmosphere above the surface would ALSO average ~ 255 K.
———————-
You mean your claim is the temperature of the surface evenly correlates to the temperature of the surface with varied levels of GHG in the atmosphere including no GHGs? Where is your database on that where that correlation was computed. Or did you read that on some blog?
“He believes that because his cult..”
If by ‘cult’, you mean by observations, then sure.
But what do you believe the outgoing energy from the Earth is?
Give us that so we can divide by the area of the Earth to determine the average flux.
“What is your definition of a GHE. The temperature of the surface or the temperature of the atmosphere? And if atmosphere what part of it? As we know the atmosphere has a very varied temperature.”
Sure one way is simply the difference between the average surface temperature and the average effective T as measured by an IR thermometer from space, i.e. the radiative T from the SB law.
Little Willy, nobody denies the radiative properties of GHGs, that they absorb (and emit) IR.
Tim, you need to move with the times. Today’s GHE enthusiasts have abandoned the whole “back-radiation warming” thing.
Gaslighting Graham fails to respond to the question while asserting a falsity.
Nate says:
”Sure one way is simply the difference between the average surface temperature and the average effective T as measured by an IR thermometer from space, i.e. the radiative T from the SB law.”
So what is your definition of ”average surface temperature”?
So do you believe there is a tight correlation between the blackbody ”effective T” and actual temperature? If so why?
“So what is your definition of average surface temperature?”
I think you know air temperatures are measured near the surface. I think you know what a MEAN is, or can look it up.
It is that.
Are you you going off on a tangent?
“So do you believe there is a tight correlation between the blackbody effective T and actual temperature? If so why?”
I don’t what you mean by tight correlation here? What is the issue?
Do you disagree with Roy Spencer that there is a GHE and it is needed to make sense of the thermal structure of the atmosphere? And it must be included in weather models to make accurate weather prediction?
If not, why not?
If you’re referring to what I said to Tim as a “falsity”, Little Willy, it most certainly isn’t:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-673217
“there would be no need for the atmosphere to cool effectively since the atmosphere would never have gotten warm to begin with without [greenhouse gases]”
Thank you, Tim.
Tim is only right in his quote if your old pal Vaughan Pratt is wrong, Little Willy. You can’t have “back-radiation warming” being both a real thing (as Tim argues) and not a real thing (as Pratt argues).
Gaslighting Graham tries to suggest that I was referring to his current deflection.
The question, for those in the back who are not paying attention, is to explain, using Graham’s “holding” theory, how a bag of CO2 blocks more radiation that a bag of air:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?feature=shared&t=300
Perhaps he now agrees with what the IPCC says:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-1389643
?
DREMT 2:10 pm has humorously misread Pratt somewhere.
You can have “back-radiation warming” being both a real thing (as Tim argues) AND a real thing (as Pratt argues) and DR. Spencer demonstrated.
It is DREMT that has long been wrong about “back-radiation warming”.
Little Willy, your experiment just demonstrates that GHGs absorb (and emit) IR, which wasn’t in dispute.
Ball4:
"Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”"
– Vaughan Pratt.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Here is the experiment:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?feature=shared&t=300
A bag of air blocks less radiation than a bag of CO2.
How is that possible if we accept that O2/N2 “holds” to radiation?
O2/N2 doesn’t “hold to” radiation anything like as well as GHGs. As we know.
My argument was about O2/N2 more effectively “holding onto” energy gained from the surface via conduction, far better than GHGs, which “radiate it away”.
Once again, Little Willy doesn’t understand something, and tries to blame me for it. Like I didn’t already go to enormous lengths to try to explain this to him before.
DREMT 2:36 pm, thanks for confirming where DREMT has misread Pratt.
Obviously Pratt does not write “back-radiation warming” is not a real thing in that passage as DREMT earlier claimed.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] O2/N2 doesnt hold to radiation anything like as well as GHGs.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The N2/O2 is the planetary insulation, however, because it holds onto the heat better than the GHGs
Now Little Willy needs to learn the difference between “radiation” and “heat”, and Ball4 needs to learn the meaning of “inference”. It’s tough for them.
In Gaslighting Graham’s world, O2/N2 doesn’t “hold to” radiation anything like as well as greenhouse gases, but it “holds” to heat better than greenhouse gases.
The mind of a Sky Dragon crank is a fantastic thing, here in the original sense of “fantastic.”
As I said, and you ignored, my argument was about O2/N2 more effectively “holding onto” energy (colloquially, “heat” energy) gained from the surface via conduction, far better than GHGs, which “radiate it away”.
Every real thing radiates EMR, at all temperatures, all the time.
EMR is NOT heat.
DREMT admits being wrong as DREMT should have then correctly written:
You can’t have “back-radiation warming” being both a real thing (as Tim argues) and
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
(as Pratt argues).
No inference needed. DREMT misread Pratt into something else writing DREMT’s words not Pratt’s.
Pratt has even conducted experiments proving “back-radiation warming” is a real thing in accord with Tim’s comment.
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally. Could their result have been foreseen? Yes, and moreover very easily”
– Vaughan Pratt.
From these words, among others, I infer that Pratt agrees the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
Original source for that supposed Pratt 3:14 pm quote? DREMT 3:14 pm infers incorrectly.
From Vaughan Pratt screenname with link to his Stanford.edu comments on Global Environmental Change for review:
“There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-671002
Source is here, Ball4:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669859
The resolution to the apparent conundrum is that Pratt still believes there is a GHE, but no longer believes in the back-radiation account of the GHE. Which is why I said to Tim:
“…you need to move with the times. Today’s GHE enthusiasts have abandoned the whole “back-radiation warming” thing.”
And so Gaslighting Graham still refuses to get that cooler surroundings impact the temperature of warmer objects.
Still, it’s amazing how he both pretends that he does not want to relitigate backradiation while squirreling it in all his responses now that Tim called his bluff.
Little Willy, your second paragraph is incomprehensible, or at least I have no idea what you’re going on about, and would be very surprised if anyone else did.
Your first paragraph refers to “surroundings”. I hope it’s not been forgotten that space is the absence of “surroundings”, rather than actually being “surroundings”. People tend to treat it as if it’s a big lump of a very cold substance. It isn’t. It’s (largely) a vacuum.
So there are screennames “Vaughan Pratt” writing here:
“There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the “back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally.”
And Pratt goes on to write “nowhere in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, AR5, is there any mention at all of back radiation.”
This is not exactly correct because AR5 is based in part on TFK09 which does use the term “back radiation”. Go argue with Pratt that AR5 really IS based on a ref. with the term “back radiation”.
What Pratt does mean is S&O debunk using the poor term “back radiation” when physically a report should use forward radiation from the atmosphere toward the L&O surface, downwelling long wave radiation, or all-sky emission to surface.
Pratt is constructively advising commenters (who don’t want to start arguments) to drop using the term “back radiation” per S&O and start using those other more physical terms.
Unless of course the commenter’s real intention is to start years long arguments.
(GASLIGHTING GRAHAM) Tim, for GHGs to make the surface warmer, you would need to have back-radiation warming. Not going into all that again.
(ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM) But backradiation.
(ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM) Perhaps, but backradiation.
(A FEW HOURS LATER, GASLIGHTING GRAHAM) Did I mention backradiation?
No, Ball4, your interpretation is shown to be wrong by:
"Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.”"
Note that Pratt doesn’t use the term “back-radiation”, but it’s clear from context that the part of the radiation directed towards the surface (which would be the “back-radiation”) does not warm the surface, in Pratt’s view. So it’s not that he’s quibbling over the name “back-radiation” – he is implying that it’s wrong to state the “back-radiation” or whatever you want to call it warms the surface! That is the only way I can interpret this comment.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Its clear from context that the part of the radiation directed towards the surface (which would be the back-radiation) does not warm the surface, in Pratts view
[VAUGHAN] the energy of photons escaping from Earths surface is diverted to energy being radiated in all directions from every point of the Earths atmosphere.
There is actually no inconsistency or contradiction between those quotes, Little Willy, but if you are going to continue in this manner, readers may want to note that your quotes are over ten years old whereas the ones Ball4 and I are discussing are more recent. Meaning simply that people do change their minds, over time. Well, some people do, anyway.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] he is implying that its wrong to state the back-radiation or whatever you want to call it warms the surface!
[VAUGHAN AGAIN, FOR THE KO] This is not the usual explanation of whats going on in the atmosphere, which instead is described in terms of so-called back radiation. While this is equivalent to what I wrote, it is harder to see how it is consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Not that it isnt, but when described my way it is obviously thermodynamically sound.
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally. Could their result have been foreseen? Yes, and moreover very easily
Vaughan Pratt.”
Where is this quote from and lets see the context?
If he says this, he must be unfamiliar with the poor quality of this experiment.
“You cant have back-radiation warming being both a real thing (as Tim argues) and not a real thing (as Pratt argues).”
Does he?
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/.
After describing the GHE in his way, he states:
“This is not the usual explanation of whats going on in the atmosphere, which instead is described in terms of so-called ‘back radiation.’ While this is equivalent to what I wrote, it is harder to see how it is consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Not that it isnt, but when described my way it is obviously thermodynamically sound.”
Anyway/ The point is that he agrees that there is a GHE, while Clint, DREMT, and others here do not, without a sound rationale.
They think can pick and choose from Mr. Pratt’s science, as if it is an a la carte menu, choosing the appetizers they like, while rejecting the main course.
Sorry it doesnt work that way. There is a GHE, and your man agrees, as does Roy Spencer.
Vaughan only says that S&O shows that lapse rate matters to explain the greenhouse effect, Nate.
For some reason Gaslighting Graham holds that Vaughan and Tim disagree about… something.
What Pratt is saying in that quote from over ten years ago seems more in line with what “Pathway 2” summarises in this quote from Ron Clutz. Pratt is speaking of a delay in the energy getting out to space. I wouldn’t agree with him that it’s equivalent to “back-radiation warming”.
“Another way to put the issue.
The CO2 hysteria is founded on a false picture of heat flows within the climate system. There are 3 ways that [energy] passes from the surface to space.
1) A small amount of the radiation leaves directly, because all gases in our air are transparent to IR of 10-14 microns (sometimes called the “atmospheric window.” This pathway moves at the speed of light, so no delay of cooling occurs.
2) Some radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by IR active gases up to the tropopause. Calculations of the free mean path for CO2 show that energy passes from surface to tropopause in less than 5 milliseconds. This is almost speed of light, so delay is negligible..
3) The bulk gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are warmed by conduction and convection from the surface. They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun. Latent heat from water is also added to the bulk gases. O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space.
In a parcel of air each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, mostly O2 and N2. In the lower atmosphere, the air is dense and CO2 molecules energized by IR lose it to surrounding gases, slightly warming the entire parcel. Higher in the atmosphere, the air is thinner, and CO2 molecules can emit IR and lose energy relative to surrounding gases, who replace the energy lost.
This third pathway has a significant delay of cooling, and is the reason for our mild surface temperature, averaging about 15C. Yes, earth’s atmosphere produces a buildup of heat at the surface. The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface, while CO2 provides radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere.”
“in this quote from Ron Clutz”
Gaslighting Graham is a genius.
All this to circumvent the fact that a bag of CO2 blocks more radiation than a bag of air:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?feature=shared&t=300
If Sky Dragon cranks were right, what everyone can see with their own eyes during this experiment would not be possible.
Vaughn Pratt is a retired computer science professor. Why are we supposed to accept his authority on meteorology or climate science, while rejecting PhD meteorologist Roy Spencer’s?
Little Willy continues to bash his straw men. Meanwhile, a recap:
What "holds onto the heat" the best?
1) An atmosphere without GHGs, which can be warmed from the surface upwards via conduction and convection, but cannot radiatively cool very efficiently.
or
2) An atmosphere with GHGs, which can radiatively cool very efficiently.
The correct answer is 1). Note that we are talking about an atmosphere, not the surface.
Can an atmosphere without GHGs radiatively cool more or less efficiently than one with GHGs?
Correct answer, as Tim agreed, is “less”.
Tim’s rebuttal to my point was that the surface would be warmed by back-radiation, in an atmosphere with GHGs…but this runs counter to Vaughan Pratt’s recent statements that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked, and that a surface receiving “back-radiation” would not be warmed by it. Why bring up Pratt? I do so for 2 reasons:
1) Having one of their own opposing the back-radiation account of the GHE might prise open a few minds amongst the GHE defenders.
2) It’s a lot easier and less tedious than going over the arguments about “back-radiation warming” for the twentieth time.
Note that it’s not an appeal to Pratt’s authority. I am not saying it is right because he says so.
So if Tim is wrong in his “back-radiation warming” rebuttal to my point, then my point about the atmosphere stands.
Anyway…that’s where we’re at.
Because Vaughan knew more formal stuff in his early 20s than Roy would ever do in his lifetime, Nate. While he did help found Sun, he’s known for his work in logic. Besides, he agrees with Roy on the basics:
http://clim8.stanford.edu/manmadecc.pdf
Since Gaslighting Graham has nothing against a very simple experiment that shows how a bag of CO2 blocks more radiation than a bag of air, he’s returning to his old Machiavellian self.
Yes, I have nothing against that experiment – there is no need for me to.
Gaslighting Graham definitely has no need to say anything about an experiment that DESTROYS Sky Dragon cranks.
Venus cools so efficiently that it’s 475C.
It destroys your straw man very efficiently, Little Willy.
Venus is closer to the Sun, obviously, and “with a surface pressure of 92 bar its atmosphere is 92 times as massive as Earth’s atmosphere”.
Mercury is even closer to the Sun, yet it’s -173C at night.
Gaslighting Graham goes on his silly tapdancing, never really staking a real postion, dodging and weaving, playing silly you-and-him fights, like the little weasel we all know and love.
What will it be when he’ll discover that Vaughan basically recites what Sabine does in her video, which we can read in Pierrehumbert’s textbook.
Tim surely *must* disagree with all of that!
What a twat.
Yes, Little Willy, that’s because:
“Mercury spins slowly compared to Earth, so one day lasts a long time. Mercury takes 59 Earth days to make one full rotation. But a year on Mercury goes fast. Because it’s the closest planet to the sun, it goes around the Sun in just 88 Earth days.”
My position has been clearly stated, Little Willy. The Ron Clutz quote is pretty close, and I went through it all with you at great length at the link you posted earlier. It’s not my fault if you can’t understand it.
If you really dislike me this much, perhaps you should take some more time off commenting? Or maybe just avoid my threads rather than instantly jumping in on every single thread that I comment on, the minute I start commenting.
Mercury’s exosphere is composed mostly of oxygen, sodium, hydrogen, helium, and potassium. That’s a lot of heat holders right there!
Gaslighting Graham just can’t stay in place. He needs to tapdance.
Yes, Little Willy, Mercury doesn’t even really have an atmosphere.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again…
Let’s recap:
[GRAHAM’S NEW GURU] The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface.
[THE ACTION LAB] Since the CO2 is “holding” some of the IR light you get a lower reader that you would have had without the CO2.
The bulk gases do not seem to “hold” heat in that experiment the same way CO2 does:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?feature=shared&t=300
Must be because heat isn’t radiation.
There’s really nothing else to all these shenanigans.
Read the whole Ron Clutz quote (nothing new, by the way, I’ve quoted it many times before), several times. Then try to understand it. I can’t understand it for you, unfortunately.
If Gaslighting Graham’s guru was right, a bag of CO2 would not intercept more radiation than a bag of air.
We know that a bag of CO2 intercepts more radiation than a bag of air.
Gaslighting Graham is a genius.
“If Gaslighting Graham’s guru was right, a bag of CO2 would not intercept more radiation than a bag of air.”
No, that’s not a condition for him to be right.
Keep on proving that you don’t understand his comment.
Gaslighting Graham still dodges the questions.
Nate says:
So what is your definition of average surface temperature?
I think you know air temperatures are measured near the surface. I think you know what a MEAN is, or can look it up.
——————
Well this discussion has been about warming the surface not the atmosphere near the surface.
What is the difference in temperature between the near surface atmosphere and the surface? And what would the near surface atmosphere temperature be if there was no CO2? You can’t use your beloved 3rd grader model for this.
“So it’s not that he’s quibbling over the name “back-radiation” – he is implying that it’s wrong to state the “back-radiation” or whatever you want to call it warms the surface! That is the only way I can interpret this comment.”
DREMT 5:00 pm is obviously incorrect as Pratt comments on experiments show & DREMT can interpret the Pratt comment in way DREMT would like.
The physical fact is Pratt is quibbling about the term “back radiation” used by commenters here when the term is not used in AR5 (except for ref.s Pratt missed) and wiki at the time needed to be corrected to experimental results.
Pratt has reported on experiments confirming (whatever DREMT wants to call certain radiation from the atm. except “back radiation”) GHE does warm the planetary surface to equilibrium (ref. Pratt’s own link).
AGAIN, Pratt confirms:
“There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the “back radiation” account of the greenhouse effect experimentally.”
> Well this discussion has been about warming the surface not the atmosphere near the surface.
You might wish to consult with Graham about that one, Gill.
Meanwhile, enjoy this little lecture about how the Earth’s atmosphere “holds heat”:
https://youtu.be/_xhm42KykEE?feature=shared
Ball4 continues to argue by repeated assertion that Pratt means something other than what his words clearly indicate. He will keep that up indefinitely, most likely, if I continue to respond to him.
Pratt means nothing other than what his words clearly indicate:
“There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the “back radiation” account of the greenhouse effect experimentally.”
There’s so much one can do with Graham’s reading comprehension, B4:
[RONC] Clearly, the water vapour content of the troposphere is the major cause of the natural greenhouse effect, contributing up to two-thirds of the 33 oC warming.
Is there a better way to deny the greenhouse effect than to say that water vapour is the major cause of the natural greenhouse effect?
Clutz can contradict himself, if he likes. That’s no concern of mine. This comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532532
is clear enough. It really doesn’t matter who wrote it.
So let’s wrap up this sequence:
Vaughan dislikes the explanation of the greenhouse effect. He prefers one that centers on the lapse rate. This has been known for more than a decade. This take is pretty much uncontroversial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
He acknowledges that, in the end, the two models are more or less equivalent.
To Gaslighting Graham, that is evidence that backradiation does not exist. Oh no, sorry – he does accept that it exists!
Ron Clutz holds that the greenhouse effect is more complex than what is usually presumed. According to what he kept peddling in just about every single thread for more than a decade on various contrarian venues, greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, but something something.
To Gaslighting Graham, that is evidence that the greenhouse effect does not exist. Oh no, sorry – he does accept that it exists! Except when he says that it does not.
So yeah. whatever.
> Vaughan dislikes the explanation of the greenhouse effect.
The usual explanation, that is one that centers on backradiation.
Here’s where Sabine completely DESTROYS it:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8?feature=shared&t=480
In our next installment, we will see how, according to Graham:
1. Greenhouse gases exist.
2. Backradiation exists.
3. A bag of air “holds” less radiation than a bag of CO2.
4. The greenhouse effect does not exist.
Stay tuned!
That’s wrong, Little Willy. Pratt has recently written comments which can only be interpreted as expressing his belief that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked, and further, that this means radiation from GHGs impinging on the surface should not be considered to be warming that surface. That’s a direct contradiction to Tim, and others, who argue that it can. Over ten years ago he made a comment that his description of the GHE, involving the lapse rate, and energy being delayed in its exit from the Earth system by GHGs, was "equivalent to" the "back-radiation warming" explanation, but I disagree that this is true. It’s more "equivalent to" Pathway 2, from the Clutz comment I just linked to, which only results in a negligible delay in the escape of energy from the Earth system.
As Clutz points out, Pathway 3 (involving the N2/O2) results in by far the biggest delay in the escape of energy. To be clear, his comment trashes the idea of a GHG-warmed Earth (to anything beyond "negligible"). I can accept that there may be "negligible" warming from Pathway 2, on Earth. Does that mean I believe there’s a GHE? No (though these guys will jump on anything they can). "Negligible" means so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant.
“What is the difference in temperature between the near surface atmosphere and the surface? And what would the near surface atmosphere temperature be if there was no CO2? You cant use your beloved 3rd grader model for this.”
So you are intending to go off on a tangent from the main issue here seeking out red herrings.
Not much difference. Negligible compared to the difference from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, where the GHG are emitting.
The thing about Sabine’s video is that she freely admits she had completely misunderstood the GHE until now…but now, of course, we’re expected to believe she definitely has it right!
Why is it that the GHE is such a difficult concept to pin down? So many people, so many different ideas of what it actually is. No wonder Swenson so frequently asks for a GHE description. He’s pointing out that nobody can agree on what it even is!
“Because Vaughan knew more formal stuff in his early 20s than Roy would ever do in his lifetime, Nate. While he did help found Sun, hes known for his work in logic. Besides, he agrees with Roy on the basics:”
In his 20s? Which was a looong time ago.
Logic is great, but it doesnt guarantee you understand meteorology or experimental physics.
IMO, anyone complimenting Seim and Olsen and saying their experiment demonstrated anything useful at all is showing some sort of cluelessness.
“So many people, so many different ideas of what it actually is.”
Not among experts who need to calculate its effects in eg weather or climate models.
The different ideas are about how to explain it in words (not math) to laymen.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Perhaps the concept of “account” escape him?
Usually, when a scientist talks about an account of a phenomenon, it refers to an explanation or to a model. The distinction does not matter much.
What matters is that Gaslighting Graham accepts that greenhouse gases exist, that a bag of CO2 holds more radiation than a bag of air, and that he believes that backradiation exists.
We should all welcome Gaslighting Graham in Team Science!
Wait until Little Willy learns that pretty much everyone who disputes the GHE agrees on all of those things.
He always forgets the most important part of the GHE, the "Effect". That’s "warming", supposedly.
“Why is it that the GHE is such a difficult concept to pin down?”
Because GHE has unfortunately escaped the lab into the domain of ill-informed journalists, politicians, and blog commenters rather than accomplished scientists. Even those who publish more frequently in scientific journals than in the popular press either assert that the greenhouse effect is the result of “closing the atmospheric window”, thereby “trapping” radiation, or that it is the result of increased emission from the atmosphere.
When adherents to both explanations clash, the result is indeed “warming”, although local here rather than global.
Gaslighting Graham pretty much agrees that greenhouse gases exist. He also agrees that backradiation exists. And he agrees that a bag of air “holds” less radiation than a bag of CO2.
But he disagrees that the greenhouse effect exists, of course.
And for that he has the support of Vaughan Pratt, who has a one pager on the greenhouse effect:
http://clim8.stanford.edu/manmadecc.pdf
And he also cites Ron Clutz, a contrarian who holds that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas that explains the greenhouse effect.
You can’t make this up.
GHE Defenders like to point out that only the really accomplished scientists truly understand the GHE…and at the same time, it’s just basic physics.
The explanation of how a gas molecule “holds to” radiation is pretty basic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U69qhVuOt34
A model of the greenhouse effect can also be very basic. Sky Dragon cranks like to attack the simplest of all of them.
But a model that describes the greenhouse effect of a whole PLANET can become quite complex quite fast.
Gaslighting Graham is looking for an inconsistency that does not exist.
Little Willy’s critique of the comment from Clutz has got lost in the post.
Ball4 says:
AGAIN, Pratt confirms:
”There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect.”
”Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally.”
———————
Ball4 wrestles with the bell clear logic in this.
No paper debunks the GHE because if anybody is going to debunk the GHE they will need to show that there is no GHE.
On the second point S&O show the greenhouse effect is not caused by the third grader radiation model. otherwise known as the backradiation model. . .even though people here knows it doesn’t work they continue to spread disinformation about it working.
This is the way they were taught and they aren’t going to stop believing it until somebody proves it works another way.
Bill, just go with global near surface atm. measured monotonic warming/decade “is a result of increased emission from the atmosphere” over that of deep space instead of “back radiation”. And you will be ok with 1LOT, 2LOT, Pratt, S&O, Clutz, and especially Tyndall.
Nate says:
Any time you make it tougher for heat to escape from a heated object, the object will get warmer. Whether you are preventing convection, conduction, or radiation.
Not really. As I noted Tyndall showed that 150 y ago. Specifically he showed that IR abs.orbing gasses can reduce radiative heat transfer.
Just not controversial.
—————————
Its controversial if you start claiming an object in side of a room warmed by 400w/m2 emitting walls, floor, and ceiling will continue to warm because of Tyndall’s findings.
If Graham has anything to say against this explanation of how gases “hold to” radiation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U69qhVuOt34
He should say so now.
Or he can continue his round of gaslighting.
Whatever.
Nate says:
”Not much difference. Negligible compared to the difference from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, where the GHG are emitting.”
Not much difference? You mean you don’t know? Indeed the difference varies greatly depending upon humidity, time of day, cloudiness, wind speed, etc.
Are you saying you don’t have a source for your conclusion here that it doesn’t make any difference?
That GHGs absorb (and emit) IR radiation is not in dispute. What’s wrong with you? You’re like a broken record.
And so Gaslighting Graham glosses over a lecture in which we learn why O2, N2, like Ar, have no dipole moment and thus can’t “withhold” (Michel’s term) radiation:
https://youtu.be/U69qhVuOt34?feature=shared&t=10
All he had to do was to watch 15 seconds of it.
Sky Dragon cranks’ dissonance may not be cognitive.
“Its controversial if you start claiming an object in side of a room warmed by 400w/m2 emitting walls, floor, and ceiling will continue to warm because of Tyndalls findings.”
Which is quite a strawman!
Find anyone claiming such.
“Are you saying you dont have a source for your conclusion here that it doesnt make any difference?”
Bill took a wrong turn down red herring lane. Will not follow.
Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532404
Nate says:
”Its controversial if you start claiming an object in side of a room warmed by 400w/m2 emitting walls, floor, and ceiling will continue to warm because of Tyndalls findings.”
Which is quite a strawman!
Find anyone claiming such.
———————————-
you just did.
how is a bundle of bricks suspended in a room filled with co2 with walls/ceiling/floor radiating 341watts/m2 different from a planet with a co2 atmosphere being radiated by a sky radiating a mean 341w/m2 as depicted by the 3rd grader radiation model????
your claim is the co2 will radiate an additional amount of radiation and no amount of experiments demonstrating you are wrong has failed to convince you along with the rest of the follower sheep in this room.
Gill,
Looks like Graham believes in a original greenhouse theory when he suggests that convection rules atmospheric heat transfer.
Do you caution any of this?
Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532532
Hey, Gill, over there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532978
Perhaps you should at least try to get my position right yourself before discussing it with others, Little Willy?
Habitual liar Bill sez:
“you just did.”
Then offers NO QUOTES of me saying any such thing!
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham could stop his silly motte-and-baileys and lookup what happens when we increase the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere?
As everyone but you seems to know, the Earth surface is heated by a heat source. It is then cooling thru the atmosphere to space, a very very cold reservoir.
That is quite different from a room with uniform temperature:
“”how is a bundle of bricks suspended in a room filled with co2 with walls/ceiling/floor radiating 341watts/m2 different from a planet with a co2 atmosphere being radiated by a sky radiating a mean 341w/m2 as depicted by the 3rd grader radiation model????”
Seriously Bill, if you can’t see why these situations are completely different, then you are hopelessly lost.
“That GHGs abs.orb (and emit) IR radiation is not in dispute. Whats wrong with you? Youre like a broken record.”
Accepting such facts, and then denying the consequences of such facts is still science denial.
The consequence is that heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to space is reduced with GHG present, as Tyndall showed, and as Modtran shows.
Nate obviously you can’t tell the difference as you didn’t answer the question nor even attempted to do so.
No “motte-and-baileys”, Little Willy, and no need to “look up” what I’m already familiar with. When more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, total OLR should be reduced, according to theory. Instead, what is actually observed is that total OLR has tracked global temperatures since 1985:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1539
And the paper concludes:
“From the joint analysis of the HIRS OLR and the NASA GISS global surface temperature anomaly, we derive an empirical estimate of the longwave climate feedback parameter dOLT/dT
of 2.93 +/− 0.3 W/m2K”
Nothing in there about this debunking GHE theory.
Oh well!
I would also point out that their result for dOLR/dT overestimates the trend for the 2000-2018 portion, which is the latest continuous data with a single system (CERES).
Thus this CERES stretch does not need subjective adjustments to line it up with data from earlier periods, as does the whole data set that is used in the paper to derive dOLR/dT.
It was also discussed at this blog, prior to these results, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/what-do-16-years-of-ceres-data-tell-us-about-global-climate-sensitivity/#comment-228453
People may not have noticed that the Roy Spencer article dis not produce an analysis of dOLR/dT.
Nor did it conclude that there is no GHE. It is talking only about the strengths of feedbacks.
Oh well!
…was also discussed at this blog, prior to these results, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/what-do-16-years-of-ceres-data-tell-us-about-global-climate-sensitivity/#comment-228453
Both Gill and Graham fail to answer questions.
And neither of those sources agree with this made-up DREMTOID:
” total OLR should be reduced, according to theory.”
Again, it needs to be said:
Oh well!
Little Willy flatly lies, arriving promptly for another full day’s trolling.
Oh well indeed, Nate.
Looks like Grahams new abusive nickname was not on the page to which he handwaves. Has he ever told why he changed socks?
Also, I wonder how he can make the original greenhouse effect work on Venus. How would less non-radiative gases *hold* more heat?
So many questions, so little time.
Nate says:
As everyone but you seems to know, the Earth surface is heated by a heat source. It is then cooling thru the atmosphere to space, a very very cold reservoir.
That is quite different from a room with uniform temperature:
how is a bundle of bricks suspended in a room filled with co2 with walls/ceiling/floor radiating 341watts/m2 different from a planet with a co2 atmosphere being radiated by a sky radiating a mean 341w/m2 as depicted by the 3rd grader radiation model????
Seriously Bill, if you cant see why these situations are completely different, then you are hopelessly lost.
————————–
they are different but your argument is that the greater the backradiation the more the forcing.
but we know from experiment thats complete bunk because even in a room heat rises to the ceiling and no warming is experienced at the surface.
and here with a lapse rate the alleged and disproven warming becomes even less likely as the atmosphere becomes colder and not hotter as you have argued is necessary. it is simply the reverse of your theory (i.e. less false forcing)
Ball4 says:
”Bill, just go with global near surface atm. measured monotonic warming/decade is a result of increased emission from the atmosphere over that of deep space instead of back radiation. And you will be ok with 1LOT, 2LOT, Pratt, S&O, Clutz, and especially Tyndall.”
But none of those folks showed the 3rd grader model as working Ball4.
As we know emissions can be reflected. . .that is one possible explanation for the failure of the 3rd grader radiation model.
Gill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532957
“But none of those folks showed the 3rd grader model as working Ball4.”
Sure that imaginary 3rd grader model of Bill’s doesn’t work physically. Bill needs to use the more advanced high school model developed from experiments to understand the real physical world.
Bill 8:41 am also writes “we know…heat rises”. Since heating and working are on an equal footing in thermodynamics, Bill must then also know work rises.
Bill has no lack of imagination & shows just a lack of accomplishment in the field of atm. thermodynamics demonstrated when commenting here.
Venus again, Little Willy?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532577
Speaking of Venus, I recently found this NASA page:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/mercury/in-depth.amp
Which states:
”Despite its proximity to the Sun, Mercury is not the hottest planet in our solar system – that title belongs to nearby Venus, thanks to its dense atmosphere”
Strange that they don’t mention a GHE!
In fairness, if you think about Pathway 2, here, but apply it to Venus:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532532
Pathway 2 only results in a negligible delay in the escape of energy on Earth, but with an atmosphere 92 times as massive, the delay might well be non-negligible.
So, for the reasons Venus is so hot (and still in line with the Clutz comment theory):
1) Closer to the Sun.
2) Dense atmosphere.
3) Non-negligible delay in the escape of energy via Pathway 2, due to massive atmosphere.
And so Gaslighting Graham shows he really has no clue.
Let’s give him a hint:
Perhaps he should try to armwave the Planck effect a little more instead of trying to explain how his rediscovery of the original greenhouse theory is meant a phenomenon that has been observed.
> is meant a phenomenon
*to explain*, that is.
Roy’s form is eating words again.
Time to clear the cache and reset the browser.
People are always seeking out context-free cherry picked factoids that can be used to mislead themselves and others.
“2) Dense atmosphere.”
Which enhances the greenhouse effect. See: pressure broadening.
And dense with what? CO2. Hmmm.
“they are different but..”
Just stop there, Bill. There is no fix for your bad example.
Willard says:
”An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature.”
Hmmm, upper atmosphere seems to be cooling just fine Willard. If it didn’t the upper atmosphere would be a lot hotter.
And if backradiation doesn’t warm anything just how does heat allegedly trapped in the upper atmosphere without warming anything up there, manage to warm the surface?
So Little Willy abandons talking about Venus all of a sudden, and switches to one of the other forms the GHE takes when the “back-radiation warming” explanation is trashed…the “effective emission height” version.
All fun and games.
> Willard says:
Stop your deflection right there, Gill. That’s wrong. Revise and resubmit.
Oh, and if you could answer the question I asked you earlier, that’d be great.
While Gaslighting Graham has yet to answer many of the questions he has been asked, he could try to explain the two following tidbits using his “holding” theory:
The atmosphere of Venus is primarily of supercritical carbon dioxide.
It is so dense and hot that it has opaque clouds of sulfuric acid that makes optical observation of the surface impossible.
In fairness, Venus isn’t as dense as Gill.
Little Willy, there are no unanswered questions. Not sure why you keep lying about that.
I already explained why Venus is so hot, in keeping with the Clutz comment theory. You had no response. You just changed the subject.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533210
Most of his retorts are utterly unresponsive anyway.
Perhaps he should wonder why Venus, which is smaller than the Earth, has an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more dense than the one on Earth.
We’re just getting further and further off-topic.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
The atmosphere of Venus is very dense because CO2 reached supercriticality. It’s something like a fluid state. It’s referred to as sCO2. We don’t know for sure why, but one theory is that the planet experienced a runaway greenhouse effect.
Now, how is that supposed to work using his “holding” theory – it’s in fact N2 that is “holding” the heat, even if there’s less of it in proportion?
Because… pressure?
Because… the Sun?
The Venusian atmosphere contains a lot of carbon dioxide. According to the “holding” theory, that should mean it’s more efficient at cooling, right?
Right.
Gaslighting Graham is just shadowboxing.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533250
Res ipsa loquitur.
I thought you guys would be happy with point 3)…trouble is you don’t actually follow my arguments, so you have no idea what I mean. Unless I really spell things out for you, you just don’t get it, do you?
Willard the basic theory repeated here endlessly by Nate is look up and see a warmer sky will result in a warmer surface.
But thats the 3rd grader model assumption that is shown not to work.
Now you are saying the colder the sky the warmer the surface gets.
Sounds like typical CAGW BS. Gee, its going to both warm and cool at the same time.
So all we need here is a description that isn’t the 3rd grader radiation model of how a warmer sky heats the surface how that colder sky heats the surface. . .specifically.
Of course you have no idea so you will continue to obfuscate.
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arby’s.
And you still haven’t answered my questions.
Bill, here’s a quick debunking of that “effective emission height” version of the GHE:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/01/24/the-emission-height-fallacy/
Nate,
Here’s a simple demonstration that Joe and his flying monkeys are unable to grasp that the atmosphere can be more than a slab.
That is in no way a response to the arguments made in the article I posted. Did you even bother to read it?
Graham gently gaslights again.
In no way can he cite Vaughan, Ron, Kristian, and Joe in the same exchange and understand any of this.
Doesn’t matter who says what, Little Willy. All that matters are the arguments made.
“Given that the atmosphere is fixed in depth (material additions are negligible), then if the effective emission height increased you would have the same effective temperature of -18C but now emitting over a larger surface area and thus emitting more total energy. That would therefore violate conservation of energy because there is no additional total energy to emit given that the solar energy input is constant…”
“…Here are the options for the emission height fallacy (EHF…it’s official):
a) same lapse rate, emission occurs at higher effective altitude but lower temperature: this therefore doesn’t affect the surface temperature, and so the argument here is moot. The atmosphere is fixed in depth and the lapse rate stays the same, the emission just gets pushed up to a higher altitude (larger shell) and lower temperature – this therefore has no effect on the surface temperature. The effective temperature of total energy emission would still remain constant here too.
b) same lapse rate, emission occurs at higher effective altitude and same effective temperature: this violates conservation of energy. Emission is moved to a larger shell, but at the same temperature as the smaller previous shell; thus, more energy is being emitted than before and thus conservation of energy is violated.
c) steeper lapse rate: disproven by derivation of lapse rate, and GHG’s do not change the lapse rate
Thus, the emission height argument doesn’t hold water – that’s not what GHG’s do, and they can’t do that, because if they did, you would get a violation of conservation of energy. Option a) is the only possibility that could occur due to increased absorp.tion and scattering of IR energy from CO2…but it’s benign, and is consistent with no tropospheric hotspot and no surface warming.“
Hey, Gill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533416
Bill Hunter says:
”Of course you have no idea so you will continue to obfuscate.
Willard says:
”Gill, Gill,
This is an Arbys.
And you still havent answered my questions.”
Theory confirmed!
Which theory, Gill – the “holding” one?
The theory that you have no idea, and will continue to obfuscate.
Gill still evades a question.
Little Willy, you never answer any questions.
Gill?
Little Willy?
Bill Hunter says:
Of course you have no idea so you will continue to obfuscate.
Willard says:
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arbys.
And you still havent answered my questions.
Theory confirmed!
Willard says:
”Which theory, Gill the holding one?”
Confirmation replicated!
Willard says:
”Gill still evades a question.”
Confirmation replicated once again!
Willard says:
”Gill?”
Confirmation replicated yet again!
Nate says:
” ”they are different but..”
Just stop there, Bill. There is no fix for your bad example.”
We can absolutely agree on that. But its not my job to defend your theory.
Auditors run into a lot of such excuses where when material either the auditor is talking to an inculcated parrot or he is going to have a finding.
Bill Hunter says:
September 10, 2023 at 9:23 AM
Bill Hunter says:
Of course you have no idea so you will continue to obfuscate.
Willard says:
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arbys.
And you still havent answered my questions.
Theory confirmed!
Willard says:
Which theory, Gill the holding one?
Confirmation replicated!
Willard says:
Gill still evades a question.
Confirmation replicated once again!
Willard says:
Gill?
Confirmation replicated yet again!
=====
And so Gill fails to answer another question.
“We can absolutely agree on that. But its not my job to defend your theory.”
Good, cuz my theory is not what you keep suggesting it is, and never quoting me using.
Nate your problem is your theory which was developed in the 1960’s was sold to the public through about 2010 as being driven by the 3rd grader radiation theory.
So now that you have acknowledged that that is a lie. . .you still haven’t shown us how the atmosphere warms up to warmer than the surface to warm the surface.
And of course from my auditor perspective the fact you can’t do what I asked is because you and your handlers don’t want an answer.
Managers in the corporate world often adopt this type of blind, dumb, and deaf monkeys because they don’t want to put their bonuses at risk.
If they outline a process to do that they know from experience that some bright enterprising mind will figure out a way to test it. And because these people are already getting what they want they don’t want to take that chance.
So the only question re: you is whether you are already getting what you want or if you have been conned.
> theory which was developed in the 1960s
How about some receipts, Gill?
“So now that you have acknowledged that that is a lie.”
Bill continually tries to attribute arguments, statements and beliefs to his opponents, that they never actually expressed.
Clearly he realizes he cannot win by honest debate.
Well indeed Nate you have been spending virtually all your time here in avoiding taking a position on anything.
Why is that?
Seems refreshing.
Willard says:
> theory which was developed in the 1960s
How about some receipts, Gill?
—————————–
Whats the matter Willard having some difficulty googling Manabe and Wetherald?
Gill, Gill,
One paper isn’t a theory, and that paper was about sensitivity.
Are you sure you read it?
“here in avoiding taking a position on anything”
My position is that your recent posts are about nothing worth discussing.
Willard thats fine you can argue with that with Nate.
No question M&W first paper was a theory held by M&W and its publishers. . .and obviously a lot of its readers. So have you read it?
I’m quite sure Nate agrees with me that you haven’t read the paper, Gill, and I do agree with him that your recent comments are not worth much.
Willard the fact that neither you or nate can put your finger on how m&w causes the atmosphere to warm says everything. . . including having a basis to claim i haven’t read the paper.
i dont see anything either so dont feel too badly.
Here are the facts of the matter, Gill:
You did not answer any question. You provide no receipt. You project your own lack of commitment onto Nate. Most if not all of his points fly above your head.
Your whole recipe has now become as lazy as Mike Flynn’s.
So sad, too bad.
willard all you do here is make unsupported allegations that you are never able to factually back up. like can you actually specify and factually support a single allegation of a point made by nate that flew over my head?
Gill, you goose.
Start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533367
Why do you keep lying?
Willard if you are referring to your voluminous and vacuous back and forth with DREMT. . .I don’t follow that as it is way too boring.
You claim to having asked a question of me which I can’t find. A link to that question would be helpful if one exists. If one doesn’t exist then cease making the claim.
How do you know that something is vacuous if you do not follow it, Gill?
Auditors these days.
Willard says:
”Heres a simple demonstration that Joe and his flying monkeys are unable to grasp that the atmosphere can be more than a slab.”
Willard A pissin contest between Joe Postma and Skeptical Science doesn’t amount to a single iota of evidence of how the GHE exists.
I simply made the point that one has to adopt some of Postma’s views of the situation to actually have a mechanism known to man to create a GHE.
All I see in this pissin contest from SS is a conclusion based on a single process in the atmosphere without considering any other processes that may arise as feedbacks long before the surface is affected.
There is this cavalier attitude within the CAGW community to estimate the outcome of a single mid atmosphere process, namely the absor-ption of surface emitted energy by GHGs and claim that since this occurs at a higher altitude with increasing GHGs the surface will warm.
The science on this ends with the Modtran model based upon military experiments of firing CO2 lasers through the atmosphere for the development of defense missiles using IR detection capabilities.
What is needed is some actual science on the disposition of this energy. . .not the pre-science revolution process of guessing by the anointed population that has a special interest dog in the fight.
What you also get with increased GHGs are thinner layers that are more efficient at cooling. So the public gets regaled with the failed 3rd grader radiation model to fill that gap in the science.
> IMO, anyone complimenting Seim and Olsen and saying their experiment demonstrated anything useful at all is showing some sort of cluelessness.
Anyone who does not know about Agree and Amplify lacks an important Climateball technique.
Moreover, they put themselves at a disadvantage when judging logicians.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Bill, heres a quick debunking of that effective emission height version of the GHE:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/01/24/the-emission-height-fallacy/ ”
Indeed! Sophistry is the only science argument of the CAWG crowd who are in lockstep with Kevin Trenberth that the monitoring must be wrong. I would assume there is a priority to find a hotspot. . .unless of course the theory is getting changed again to a no hotspot theory and featuring stratospheric cooling instead. Who knows what new twists we will see in the future.
We know that is Postma is a con man, and his arguments are designed to leave out facts or misrepresent them in order to mislead people.
“a) same lapse rate, emission occurs at higher effective altitude but lower temperature: this therefore doesnt affect the surface temperature, and so the argument here is moot.”
There is simply no logic here at all. Something happens at TOA, which results in less energy output from the Earth’s atmosphere, and a NET energy gain.
Who knows how this net energy gain gets distributed in the atmosphere? Not Postma!
“The atmosphere is fixed in depth and the lapse rate stays the same, the emission just gets pushed up to a higher altitude (larger shell) and lower temperature this therefore has no effect on the surface temperature. The effective temperature of total energy emission would still remain constant here too.”
FALSE! the larger shell argument is stoopid because it is negligible. He didnt bother to calculate it!
> A pissin contest between Joe Postma and Skeptical Science
While I bow to your expertise in passing contests, Gill, it was not meant to set up your usual diversion. However, your response to Gaslighting Graham shows that ou seem to find some pis sin contests more convincing that others,,,
Weird how it always works so that you never do.
Willard says:
”> IMO, anyone complimenting Seim and Olsen and saying their experiment demonstrated anything useful at all is showing some sort of cluelessness.
Anyone who does not know about Agree and Amplify lacks an important Climateball technique.
Moreover, they put themselves at a disadvantage when judging logicians.”
anybody who understands logic understands that when a proponent of a specific theory they want to foist on others resorts to ad hominems rather than clear verifiable statements of fact their claims are just noise as well.
and of course after hundreds of posts over the years here by nate in defense of the 3rd grader radiation theory even facts becomes anathema to him. what Seim and Olsen show is that a cloud of co2 put between a heated warm place and a cool space doesn’t cause the heated warm place to warm up. . .upon which nate picks up an electronic device measuring the temperature of the cloud of gas and points at a mirage as evidence warming must be ocurring.
“and of course after hundreds of posts over the years here by nate in defense of the 3rd grader radiation theory”
Yet oddly, Bill can’t quote a single one.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533651
” points at a mirage as evidence warming must be ocurring.”
Nah, just straight forward observable facts. Which Bill admitted were observable,
“Nate says:
‘In this case the sensor surface actually does WARM, as sensed by thermocouples attached to it.’
Bill sez: “Of course it does Nate. If the objects being targeted are warming (or you switch to a warmer target as you do from the freezer to the refer) the thermopile will warm up”
Until he realized that he was required by the Sky-dragon-Slayer code to deny it.
Glad you agree the “effective emission height” nonsense is debunked, Bill. Don’t let anyone try to tell you that it somehow results in less total OLR leaving the Earth system, either. If that were the case, it would have been observed. Instead, we observe total OLR increasing since 1985, in lockstep with surface temperatures:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533132
And Bill,
Dont let anyone try to tell you that GHE models predict “less total OLR leaving the Earth system” because that is a strawman.
[GILL, PRETENDING TO READ CHRIS’ DEMOLITION OF JOE’S CRAP] Pissin contest!
[GILL, PRETENDING TO READ AND UNDERSTAND JOE’S CRAP] Indeed!
Gaslighting Graham found himself a cheerleader under the desguise of an auditor.
Little Willy gets tremendously upset if anyone should dare agree with me.
Gaslighting Graham gets all warm and fuzzy when a fellow Sky Dragon cranks waves his pompoms for him.
Real auditors would recognize this as check kiting. Whatever.
It’s nice to occasionally receive something other than a relentless stream of negative energy, false accusations, misrepresentations, outright lies and insults, I suppose.
Well I am not going to go back and embarrass you if you are going to deny you ever supported the 3rd grader model.
But I do note that in your subsequent post you are back there championing it once again. So in effect you have proven my point with your reply.
As I said in my post what you are seeing is a mirage that you are interpreting as something warming.
There is a difference between sensing the temperature of a distant object and warming of the sensor. you just prefer to equate the two but the 3rd grader radiation experiments show that to be a false equivalency.
If you want me to account for some radiation sensed you have to realize what you are doing is picking between radiation being a particle vs a wave. The two behave differently. you think of it in a particle frame of reference but waves don’t behave like particles. So you have manufactured a mirage out of your cherry picked choice of what EM consists of.
Thats why experiment trumps theory. So as I see it your theory of less emissions from the upper atmosphere is actually a combination of both warmer and cooler emissions.
You seem to not acknowledge that more CO2 lower in the atmosphere will allow less capture higher. So it isn’t without consequence that emissions are less higher because they are higher lower as a compensating mechanism. The higher you go in the atmosphere the thicker layers become and you want to cherry pick the top of the layer to make your case when in theory its not capturing any of the emissions from the bottom of the same layer so ”the layer” becomes both warmer and cooler at the same time.
This is like a lot of stuff in life.
So on a layer basis there is no net change. Perhaps if there were no convection and no winds and no diffusion occurring in gases you could feel that warming around your ankles while your head got cooler. I don’t know. But I don’t know of any way to stop diffusion at all, all I can do with convection is make the well about as wide as my ring finger, and well things to seem a bit warmer on a windless day.
This also explains the lack of a hot spot
Now I am not advancing that as the answer as it will require investigation and experiment to do so. But one has to explain why the 3rd grader experiments are failing to detect warming or you and your kind needs to propose an alternative mode of downwelling heat.
Gill, Gill,
This is an Arby’s.
Graham’s own daddy figure says that the two models were equivalent.
Wait – wasn’t he your daddy figure too?
Pratt is wrong that the two “models” are equivalent…but he’s right that the back-radiation account of the GHE (or third grader radiation model) is debunked. He’s not my authority figure though, he’s an authority figure for GHE defenders. That’s why I mention him, because it might just open up those closed minds of yours.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again. Vaughan considers himself an amateur. Nevertheless, as a logician, he knows about equivalence.
And once again our Sky Dragon cranks confuse models and theory.
Little Willy, I wasn’t gaslighting in the least…and just because Pratt knows a lot about the concept of equivalence does not mean that anything he says is equivalent, is actually equivalent, or is even more likely to actually be equivalent.
Gaslighting Graham loops and loops again.
Another false accusation.
Ah, Gaslighting Graham’s gone into a loop again. Best to ignore him when he gets like this. Let’s give the mic to Rasmus again:
Op. Cit.
And?
Actually nate much of it makes sense, except that when you say it warms the system.
as noted in the vaughn pratt experiment, where additional thermometers were deployed, is you get warming at the local site of the new opacity (the ceiling) which in a freely convecting system the heat will convect and diffuse upwards into the still transparent area of the atmosphere as radiant opacity does not obstruct the movement of molecules. and your explanation is completely lacking of any mechanism to get a single joule of warming at the surface.
that was the role of the failed 3rd grader radiation model. now you have nothing. and you have even claimed i lied that you ever supported it.
Everybody can see you lie, Gill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533277
This comment proves two of them.
Nate says:
”5. As a result of (4) the outgoing flux from the atmosphere is reduced, while the incoming flux is not. Thus there develops and energy imbalance, otherwise know as a RADIATIVE FORCING.
6. Over a PERIOD OF TIME, decades or more, the forcing results in WARMING of the system, and higher surface T, and higher IR emissions from the surface, and feedbacks such as ice-albedo-feedback, and as a result the entire lapse rate curve shifts to higher T, as the Earth tries to return to energy balance.”
Actually nate much of your post makes sense, except that when you get to these points.
as noted in the vaughn pratt experiment, where additional thermometers were deployed, is you get warming at the local site of the new opacity (the ceiling) without restraint on diffusion and convection will move the heat up into the still transparent area of the atmosphere.
Fact is radiant opacity itself doesn’t restrain the movement of more active molecules upwards.
And your explanation ended without a mechanism to move the energy back to the surface.
that was the role of the failed 3rd grader radiation model. now you have nothing. and you have even claimed i lied that you ever supported it. Now what you did here is you hid the boogeyman that destroys your argument in ”warming of the system” without any description of how that would include warming throughout the system.
Bill quotes somebody saying:
“As a result of (4) the outgoing flux from the atmosphere is reduced, while the incoming flux is not. Thus there develops and energy imbalance, otherwise know as a RADIATIVE FORCING.”
Don’t forget, Bill, this is not what has been observed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533132
Indeed DREMT I doubt you can actually create a radiative imbalance in a free gas. You need to compress it. Heat rises. Heat in the atmosphere is just energy on its way eventually to outerspace. All Nate is doing is cherry picking a narrow view of the processes in the atmosphere and leaving out all the important details. He gets to the edge of that then he waves his hand and declares it as having happened like some 6,000BC witch doctor.
Some 6,000BC witch doctor chiseled a comment in stone: “Heat rises.” All watching the camp fire agreed.
In modern day, knowledgeable thermodynamics practitioners know that work does not rise, so, being on an equal footing, heat also does not rise.
They are what they are.
The Witch Doctor society in here is out in force.
“Actually nate much of your post makes sense”
Good. Now explain to DREMT.
“except that when you get to these points.”
Answered down here Bill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534483
It sure is, Bill.
Nate, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534423
Nate says:
Much of that heat that has entered is deposited at the Earths surface. When it rises into the troposphere it encounters a bottleneck (the reduced OLR). The uppermost layer warms. The next layer below sees a warmer layer above, gets back radiation from it (or net emission upward is reduced if you prefer) and it warms.
—————-
your problem is nate that the 3rd grader experiments demonstrate there is no bottleneck. vaghn pratts in particular measures warming against a physical barrier and the warming does not extend back down to the surface.
“your problem is nate that the 3rd grader experiments demonstrate there is no bottleneck.”
Well you sed that it made sense. I guess no longer.
So you can’t follow the simple logic that if outgoing IR is reduced, and incoming remains the same, then the result is a NET gain of energy? What about that do you find difficult?
Then 1LOT applies. If you think it doesn’t apply, explain why.
Beyond that I cannot help you.
“Dont forget, Bill, this is not what has been observed”
Don’t forget Bill, climate models must account for the history of radiative forcing, feedbacks, and resultant warming of the Earth, and when they do they predict OLR is slowly increasing at present.
This complexity is, naturally, ignored over by some here, in order to create strawmen.
“…and the warming does not extend back down to the surface.”
Without “back-radiation warming”, they’re screwed.
nate will use pretzel logic to continue to insist cold stuff can warm warmer stuff. what he doesn’t calculate is indeed if you put a third object between a cold object and a heated object that is warmer than the cold object and colder than the heated object the heated object will warm up if the third object has insulation value.
if the third object is a pane of glass the temperature of that glass will be half way between the cold object and the heated object.
so what nate wants to do is assign an insulation value to each co2 molecule or virtual surface layer and add it all up. but simple experiments show thats not the case for a gas.
Bill, So you have no answer for my questions above?
Oh well.
No nate I can’t answer that question. You need to see a Board Certified Psychiatrist. I don’t have the expertise to deal with your situation.
“No nate I cant answer that question. You need to see a Board Certified Psychiatrist.”
OK. I’ll remind Bill of his objection.
“there is no bottleneck.”
But prior to you referred to THIS:
“Lets review the basic steps.
1. CO2 rises and as a result the opacity of the upper troposphere increases in the CO2 bands.
2. The effective highest radiating level moves to higher elevations.
3. etc ”
and stated “Actually nate much of it makes sense”
So really my questions for you can be boiled down to this
If you understand that ” the opacity of the upper troposphere increases”,
then why are you unable to see that there is a BOTTLENECK up there?
After all, IR emission to space is the ONLY mechanism for heat transfer from the Earth’s atmosphere.
Increasing IR opacity at the TOA means LESS energy passes through and escapes. That is indeed a BOTTLENECK for the flow of heat out of the atmosphere.
why would there be a bottleneck Nate. Convection does not require a lapse rate. All it requires is some additional energy then it rises like normal to the elevation where it will effectively radiate to space. You seem ignorantly stuck on the idea that CO2 creates some kind of artificial or virtual barrier. Atmospheric heights by temperature fluctuate constantly.
“elevation where it will effectively radiate to space.”
Sure, at the same elevation, with the opacity increase, it will radiate LESS to space.
If you think it will rise to higher elevation, it will be colder up there, and it will thus radiate LESS to space.
Either way this reduced IR emission to space is a bottleneck.
Maybe this helps, after describing the effective radiating level and its rise with increasing CO2, etc, Hansen made this argument:
“The surface temperature resulting from the greenhouse effect is analogous to the depth of water in a leaky bucket with constant inflow rate. If the holes in the bucket are reduced slightly in size, the water depth and water pressure will increase until the flow rate out of the holes again equals the inflow rate.
Analogously, if the atmospheric infrared opacity increases, the temperature of the surface and atmosphere will increase until the emission of radiation from the planet again equals the absorbed solar energy.”
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
Nate says:
elevation where it will effectively radiate to space.
Sure, at the same elevation, with the opacity increase, it will radiate LESS to space.
——————–
OK
Nate says:
If you think it will rise to higher elevation, it will be colder up there, and it will thus radiate LESS to space.
——————–
Ridiculous! Lets say we have no increases in GHG to start. The sun comes up and the surface warms, warming the surface layer which convects and radiates a portion its load to space repeatedly as it rises in the atmosphere. What you end up with is a lapse rate that is not only created by pressure changes but also by the actual movement of hot molecules through the atmosphere under going untold numbers of collisions with other molecules and its like an inverted Bernie Madoff scheme pyramiding up through the atmosphere. Add a little CO2 evenly distributed and the pyramid continues up through the atmosphere warming stuff and rising. It rises until no more cooler molecules are encountered which is when all its excess heat has been radiated to space. Now how does CO2 force a stop to this process? you claim when it moves up further than where it was depleted before that its going to radiate less but thats complete BS because it has to dump the heat the molecules are carrying before it can radiate less.
———————–
Nate says:
Either way this reduced IR emission to space is a bottleneck.
———————–
Either way what? I saw one claim that hot molecules that haven’t dumped their load to space yet are going to radiate less when they move higher. You are confusing the environment with the package. I guess for you the packaging is camo. there is no bottleneck except in your illogical mind and remember the CO2 itself is part of the package as it becomes engulfed in the inverted pyramid of rising heat.
Now if you install a physical barrier to the CO2 and other atmosphere molecules to move up you get a bottle neck. And what is the result. Consult Vaughn Pratt’s results. You get local heating near the ceiling and if any reaches the surface it involves massive negative feedback as the heat will prefer the ceiling to the floor.
Large negative feedback is what Roy calculated as well in a natural environment.
Nate says:
Hansen made this argument:
The surface temperature resulting from the greenhouse effect is analogous to the depth of water in a leaky bucket with constant inflow rate. If the holes in the bucket are reduced slightly in size, the water depth and water pressure will increase until the flow rate out of the holes again equals the inflow rate.
Analogously, if the atmospheric infrared opacity increases, the temperature of the surface and atmosphere will increase until the emission of radiation from the planet again equals the absorbed solar energy.
————————–
Obviously Hansen is as big a nut as you are.
Lets fix the analogy. Water only runs downhill due to gravity. Heated air molecules only run uphill. Paste that into yo daddy’s quote and you might start getting it right. . .but I am not holding my breath.
“Lets fix the analogy. Water only runs downhill due to gravity. Heated air molecules only run uphill. ”
Ha! You are bad at analogies.
“I saw one claim that hot molecules that havent dumped their load to space”
Dumped their load to space?
They can only do so THROUGH the atmosphere above. If the atmosphere above has increased opacity due to the addition of CO2, which you agreed made sense, then they will emit LESS to space.
Is the word ‘opacity’ is meaningless to you?
Look, Bill, you seem to believe that if you work overtime to NOT understand this straightforward phenomena, then that is somehow an argument against it.
It is not. The science is correct, whether you believe it or not.
Nate says:
I saw one claim that hot molecules that havent dumped their load to space
Dumped their load to space?
They can only do so THROUGH the atmosphere above. If the atmosphere above has increased opacity due to the addition of CO2, which you agreed made sense, then they will emit LESS to space.
Is the word opacity is meaningless to you?
Look, Bill, you seem to believe that if you work overtime to NOT understand this straightforward phenomena, then that is somehow an argument against it.
It is not. The science is correct, whether you believe it or not.
————————
Thats a nice emotional appeal Nate. But you are ignoring the science. The point is when a CO2 radiates upward it may only go a short distance before being absorbed but when radiating downwards that path is even shorter. If there were no greenhouse gases then the top of the atmosphere would be as hot as the surface because they would not cool at all. So the science says you may have increased opacity but you also increased emissivity.
I get the idea of Modtran estimating the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 up in the atmosphere but thats where the science ends with some energy in the atmosphere. After that you have Lindzen’s negative feedbacks of emerging atmospheric phenomena, you have Roy’s testing of that showing massive negative feedbacks.
You also have a budget prepared by Kevin Trenberth hat posits massive negative feedbacks via Stefan Boltzmann equations.
yet this is all ignored by special interests that have their own interests at heart and truly have come to believe they are elite enough to pontificate rules for others and rationalize this in the same way the space program was rationalized that it was good for science. Except that the space program actually spent their money on experiments and not propaganda and the diversion of huge amounts of money into actually starting and waging a war against the public. And yeah this propaganda is used to continue to promote warming projections that go way beyond the best science based estimates without giving any consideration to other factors or if Lindzen is right.
And that is in fact where we stand at the moment.
It is not being pursued scientifically, it is instead a pursuit of seizing power over the public and robbing them blind.
This is another gish gallop to nowhere, Bill. Has no point.
Well obviously I can’t make a science point that destroys your theory as you haven’t put together a scientific blueprint of how this ‘claimed’ bottleneck forces the surface.
Demonstrate the effect and only then can I accept it or refute it.
In the meantime all you have been doing is bugling.
You act like I’m making this up. I guess thats yet another dismissive tactic.
Im not. Its standard stuff.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534469
Obviously you don’t understand it. And make every effort to stay ignorant.
“as you havent put together a scientific blueprint of how this claimed bottleneck forces the surface.”
Answer this question, then you will have a chance to understand:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1535634
I answered your question Nate and its on you to prove how and if the atmosphere becomes more insulative with the addition of CO2 and by how much. Otherwise without science on this matter for all we know the energy you believe to be trapped has already exited to space.
But you first have to acknowledge that the 3rd grade model still doesn’t work because for it to work it would have to violate the Stefan Boltzmann law and 2LOT and it would have to make energy out of nothing.
“I answered your question”
Oh? Where? Show us.
Nate says:
I answered your question
Oh? Where? Show us.
—-
”Us” who is ”us”. I replied to you and answered your question in the comments below your question. Check your own link to the question.
Nope. Just keep on lying. Facts are not on your side.
Lets just say you are pretty loose with calling things facts. Facts I agree with. Things claimed to be facts by a propagandist like yourself need not apply.
What fact do we disagree with Nate?
Nate says:
You were wrong, there is a gradient in S&O. You wont admit you were wrong, ever. And refuse to do honest debate.
So we are done here.
==============================
Nate changes goal posts again. He was claiming that transmitting a beam of light through a cloud of gas resulted in a temperature gradient in the gas and claimed that is what Tyndall found in his experiment.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1536688
Then he takes the S&O experiment that has a temperature gradient across solid barriers versus convection and claims thats the same thing.
Nate is a liar whose only purpose is in here to deceive and lie to people. He has zero integrity and you are right we are done.
Bill said there was ‘no temperature gradient’ in the S&O experiment.
Then, after seeing the contrary evidence, he says well ok
” temperature gradient across solid barriers”
There would be ‘no temperature gradient’ if we removed the barriers, he declares.
Post-hoc, without offering any evidence.
He doesnt think he’s moving the goal posts! Projects it onto me.
Bill is such a stand-up guy!
And Bill, Remember that in S&O, they use a long horizontal container of gas, heated on one end.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=99608
Even without a barrier, do you really think the unheated end will be just as hot as the heated end?
Same setup in Tyndall.
"Nate is a liar whose only purpose is in here to deceive and lie to people. He has zero integrity and you are right we are done."
He’s also the biggest hypocrite I have ever encountered. Funny, because he used to claim he hated hypocrisy, in others, above all else. He must really hate himself, then. Explains his belligerent nature, I guess.
I’ll remind DREMT next time he claims he doesnt read or respond to my posts that in fact he does, as here.
But only with personal insults, no science.
…explains his belligerent nature, I guess.
“He must really hate himself, then. ”
Nah. Don’t give up your day job to do psychoanalysis.
I just call out BS when I see it.
If your tendency is to keep returning and repeating the same BS over and over, and it certainly seems to be, then I will call it out for what it is, each time.
And yes, ridicule your ridiculous behavior.
I agree that must be frustrating for you, but the solution is simple, stop posting the same BS again and again.
…his belligerent nature, I guess.
yep a belligerent liar.
If anyone could provide a concise and clear interpretation of Graham’s riff on Ron & Joe’s crap, let them speak now.
And if that someone could also present a “holding” theory that consistently accounts for the various atmosphere Sky Dragon cranks all know and love, that’d be great too.
Gill, perhaps?
Postma’s comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533394
Is just a simple refutation of the “effective emission height” version of the GHE:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533259
Ron Clutz’s comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532532
Is a summary of what you keep referring to as the “holding” theory. Here is why it still works for Venus:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533250
Anyone?
Nobody is interested, Little Willy. The discussion ran its course some time ago. Most have moved on down-thread and few are probably even aware we’re still going. This is where you waste another day of your time and mine trying to get the last word.
Sure Willard 7:49 am, someone is interested as many have published on the subject. DREMT’s 2:02 am quoted arguments all fall apart in the very first words:
“Given that the atmosphere is fixed in depth…”
That is immediately wrong. The earthen atm. is NOT fixed in optical depth.
Physically, the effective emission level corresponds to the optimal trade-off between underlying higher atm. air density (which gives high emissivity) and little overlying atm. air to permit the emitted radiation to escape to deep space as observed by satellite instrumentation.
Postma didn’t say the atmosphere was fixed in optical depth. Immediately, the best Ball4 can do is twist the words of the author.
DREMT 8:27 am agrees Postma didn’t mention atm. optical depth so was immediately wrong about “effective emission height” which depends on optical depth. Thanks.
Maybe if he was saying the "effective emission height" couldn’t change on addition of CO2 you might have a point. That wasn’t what he was saying, though. See option a).
Pupman?
It’s OK, Ball4 is here now, Little Willy. You can go.
DREMT 8:41 am moves on to try muddling thru to “see” option a) argument which again immediately falls apart wherein the author mistakenly assumes: “The atmosphere is fixed in depth…”
Physically, the effective emission level varies corresponding to the optimal trade-off between underlying higher atm. air density (which gives high emissivity) and little overlying atm. air to permit the emitted radiation to escape to deep space as observed by satellite instrumentation.
Ah, Ball4’s gone into a loop again. Best to ignore him when he gets like this.
[JOE] Given that the atmosphere is fixed in depth
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Joe didn’t say the atmosphere was fixed in optical depth.
Postma’s arguments, as usual, are full of holes.
“same lapse rate, emission occurs at higher effective altitude but lower temperature: this therefore doesnt affect the surface temperature, and so the argument here is moot.”
Huh?? Where is the logic?
Emission from a colder highest layer means REDUCED emission. That means an energy imbalance with more input than output, and thus a net gain in anergy for the system. By 1LOT that implies warming in the system.
How that warming is distributed in the system is complex, but in brief, to restore the imbalance there needs to be greater emission from lower atmospheric layers, including the surface, and that implies these layers need to warm.
Yes, Little Willy. “Depth”, as in the actual depth of the atmosphere, a measure of distance, not “optical depth”.
… resulting in the entire 2:02 am quoted argument immediately being mistaken thus falling apart.
How so, Ball4? Don’t forget that emission from a higher level of the atmosphere necessarily involves emission from a greater surface area. So if at level A the temperature is -18 C, then the “effective emission height” raises to level B so that now level B is at -18 C, as B has a greater surface area than A, the total emission (in watts) from B will be greater. Where does the additional energy come from to enable level B to be -18 C?
> Where is the logic?
Gill will explain it shortly, Nate.
Just wait.
DREMT 11:50 am mistakenly forgets that emission from a higher level of the atmosphere necessarily involves emission from lower density air so emitting related reduced energy thus the 2:02 am quoted argument immediately falls apart.
There is no additional energy from changing atm. optical depth since some regions of the atm. are thus warmer, some atm. regions equally cooler.
Maybe a diagram will help:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/01/24/the-emission-height-fallacy/#comment-97432
There is no use to push traffic to DREMT’s sophistry blog in discussing atm. science. DREMT rather needs support from actual observed facts in any linked diagram.
[THE IPCC] An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere
[JOE] Given that the atmosphere is fixed in depth
[B4] Thatmsntfxdtptcldpt
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Obviously Joe isn’t talking about opacity.
Little Willy can’t follow the discussion, as usual.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again.
Wrong, Little Willy.
TomC’s comment:
https://skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html#105369
is a simple refutation of Joe’s usual gloss on real greenhouses.
If you say so, Little Willy…
…but anyway, back to the current discussion…
Here is a description of the “effective emission height” argument:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/what-is-the-best-description-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
“The depth in the atmosphere from which the earth’s heat loss to space takes place is often referred to as the emission height. For simplicity, we can assume that the emission height is where the temperature is 254K in order for the associated black body radiation to match the incoming flow of energy from the sun.
Additionally, as the infrared light which makes up the OLR is subject to more absorp.tion with higher concentrations of greenhouse gases (Beer-Lambert’s law), the mean emission height for the OLR escaping out to space must increase as the atmosphere gets more opaque.”
Note that the argument hinges on the emission height (which they define as the height at which the temperature is 254 K) increasing due to the atmosphere getting more opaque as GHGs are added. So it goes back to what I said earlier. Emission from a higher level of the atmosphere necessarily involves emission from a greater surface area. So if at level A the temperature is 254 K, and then the “effective emission height” raises to level B so that now level B is at 254 K, since B has a greater surface area than A, the total emission (in watts) from B will be greater. Where does the additional energy come from to enable level B to be 254 K? It is a violation of 1LoT.
DREMT demonstrates still doesn’t understand emission at the same temperature (254K) from a higher level of the atmosphere B necessarily involves less emission from lower density air located there than A.
Again, as the atm. optical depth changes, regions of the atm. will be warmer, other atm. regions equally cooler for no change in total thermal energy for no violation of 1LOT or 2LOT.
(Thesis) since B has a greater surface area than A, the total emission (in watts) from B will be greater.
(Antithesis) The energy flow is like the water in a river: it cannot just appear or disappear; it flows from place to place.
(Synthesis) When small river A reaches bigger B, its total flow will be bigger.
Ball4, adding another variable (density) to the equation doesn’t somehow make it less likely that 1LoT is violated. It just makes it more complicated (as is always your intention). How do you figure the effect from the difference in density exactly balances the effect from the difference in surface area, so that the total amount of energy emitted is the same!? What is the likelihood of that being the case!?
Q: ” …so that the total amount of energy emitted is the same!? What is the likelihood of that being the case!?”
A: 100%
Changing atm. optical depth by whatever (or combination of whatevers) does not change the total thermal energy in the atm. system while that process does affect atm. T(z) profile to that conserving energy in the total system.
“the atmosphere necessarily involves emission from a greater surface area.”
An effect which nobody bothered to quantify?
The lapse rate is ~ -6.5 K/km.
Suppose we move the ERF height up 1 Km. The temperature drops 6.5 K. Suppose at the initial height the temp is 255 K. At the new height it will be 248.5 K. The ratio of new/old radiated flux emitted from this height is (248.5/255)^4 = 0.9, a 10% reduction.
How bout the surface area effect?
The Earth radius is ~ 6500 Km. Use this to calculate the initial surface area. A = 4*pi*r^2. We increase by 1 Km.
So new radius 6501 Km. The ratio of new/old surface areas is (6501/6500)^2 =1.0003,
This is a .03% change in area, and emitted flux from this height.
This is negligible compared to 10% change due to temperature.
No Ball4, it is not 100%. You’re just making it up as you go along.
Remember, the “effective emission level” argument is that the emission height (which they define as the height at which the temperature is 254 K) increases due to the atmosphere getting more opaque as GHGs are added. Yes? Are all agreed on what we’re actually discussing?
It’s 100% DREMT; the only energy being created is in DREMT’s imagination. The 1LOT holds.
The troposphere lapse rate profile rotates around a point conserving total system thermal energy under the curve: cooler in the upper regions, warmer in the lower regions as atm. opacity increases.
No, Ball4, the lapse rate does not change.
Here is the “effective emission height” argument once again:
The height of the atmosphere at which the temperature is 254 K rises as a result of adding GHGs, which change the opacity. Since the lapse rate remains fixed, if 254 K is now at a higher level of the atmosphere then the temperature at the surface will be warmer…
…and that is refuted as I have explained.
DREMT, you are so behind in your studies & faulty explanations or attempted refutations that don’t conserve energy. This meteorology was figured out & published over 20 years ago.
The basic dry adiabatic lapse rate doesn’t change (due to simplifying assumptions) but the lapse rate profile does change by rotating about a point as it must to conserve thermal energy in the entire mostly tropospheric atm. system as atm. IR opacity changes.
Thus with increased atm. IR opacity, the 254K effective emission level(z) is higher in our atm.
If the lapse rate profile is rotating around a point then how can the lapse rate not be changing?
“emission height (which they define as the height at which the temperature is 254 K)”
It sees some people are confused about this model of a rising height of emissions.
Are they forgetting that there is a lapse rate? Thus as the elevation of emissions rises, the temperature at which emissions occur drops.
No wonder they don’t get why this model explains the GHE!
Ball4 slips quietly away…
Once again, Gaslighting Graham goes on a loop.
Bill says:
“Willard if you are referring to your voluminous and vacuous back and forth with DREMT. . .I don’t follow that as it is way too boring.“
I doubt many people bother to follow our long back and forths. Usually I’m just trying to teach Little Willy something, and all he’s doing is trying to troll me in the hope that I get fed up with posting here and go elsewhere. He clearly has absolutely no interest in trying to understand. He’ll insist I’m wrong about something, then even when somebody he respects (like Tim Folkerts) comes along and confirms that I’m right, he still carries on. He’s basically just here to try to irritate me into leaving.
Gaslighting Graham has trouble finding his way in the threads.
Perhaps he should loop a little more instead.
Not at all. I was well aware that the comment from Bill was in the sub-thread above this one, but I chose to respond here as the comment related to your trolling.
“If the lapse rate profile is rotating around a point then how can the lapse rate not be changing?”
I even tried to help & give unaccomplished-in-meteorology DREMT a hint: “lapse rate doesn’t change (due to simplifying assumptions).”
Namely it’s assumed in the derivation that the temperature(z) is constant over dz even though the DALR calculation ends up with a lapse in T around 9.8K/km.
Not making that assumption will more accurately calculate for long time amateur meteorologist, DREMt, the exact small deviation from the former T(z) going up the now rotated profile after any planetary atm. IR opacity change.
Sheesh. Yes, I know none of this will stick with DREMT.
So now Ball4 is saying the lapse rate changes…
[B4] Lapse rate doesnt change (due to simplifying assumptions)
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] So now B4 is saying the lapse rate changes…
Exactly, Little Willy. Ball4 is wrong.
While DREMT does not realize that if emission height rises, which it does with increasing CO2, then this
“emission height (which they define as the height at which the temperature is 254 K)”
is no longer accurate, because of the lapse rate!
Oh well, the GHE and AGW can continue to be denied.
Ball4,
Remember, this is from “Real Climate”, so you can safely assume it is the “official” story from the GHE defenders:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/what-is-the-best-description-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
“The depth in the atmosphere from which the earth’s heat loss to space takes place is often referred to as the emission height. For simplicity, we can assume that the emission height is where the temperature is 254K in order for the associated black body radiation to match the incoming flow of energy from the sun.
Additionally, as the infrared light which makes up the OLR is subject to more absorp.tion with higher concentrations of greenhouse gases (Beer-Lambert’s law), the mean emission height for the OLR escaping out to space must increase as the atmosphere gets more opaque.”
If the “effective emission height” is defined as being the height where the temperature is 254 K, and that height is said to increase, then obviously that means the height where the temperature is 254 K has now increased. It doesn’t mean that some undefined “effective emission height” has now increased, and thus the temperature at which “the associated black body radiation [matches] the incoming flow of energy from the Sun” is now somehow lower than 254 K!
Are we agreed on what the “effective emission height” argument actually is?
Exactly, Nate.
Notice how Graham found another fixed point to spin around and emulate his famous La La La I Cant Hear you technique
The official story is found in modern meteorology text books based on 1st principles, DREMT, not on some blog.
What you clip from some blog is in agreement physically, the effective emission level varies corresponding to the optimal trade-off between underlying higher atm. air density (which gives high emissivity) and little overlying atm. air to permit the emitted radiation to escape to deep space as observed by satellite instrumentation.
Ball4, we can’t discuss something unless we can actually agree on what the argument is we’re discussing. I made it clear what the options were. Pick one.
“temperature is 254K in order for the associated black body radiation to match the incoming flow of energy from the sun.”
Duh. In equilibrium! Which we are not.
“Additionally, as the infrared light which makes up the OLR is subject to more absorp.tion with higher concentrations of greenhouse gases (Beer-Lamberts law), the mean emission height for the OLR escaping out to space must increase as the atmosphere gets more opaque.”
Good.
“If the ‘effective emission height’ is defined as being the height where the temperature is 254 K”
Sure, only after a looong time when energy balance is restored.
“and that height is said to increase, then obviously that means the height where the temperature is 254 K has now increased.”
FALSE. It is BAD logic to ASSUME the lapse rate adjusts to cancel the increase in elevation of emissions.
If it did, there would be no energy imbalance and no radiative forcing, which is the entire POINT of this model.
In case the options were somehow not clear, Ball4. Your choice is:
1) The height of the atmosphere at which the temperature is 254 K rises as a result of adding GHGs, which change the opacity. Since the lapse rate remains fixed, if 254 K is now at a higher level of the atmosphere, then the temperature at the surface will be warmer…[this is refuted as I explained further above]:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533731
2) The “effective emission height” is undefined, however as this (whatever it is) increases in height as a result of adding GHGs, which change the opacity, the temperature of the atmosphere at which the associated black body radiation matches the incoming flow of energy from the sun is now at a lower temperature than 254 K (!). Since this means there is now less energy leaving the Earth system than there is arriving, there is now an energy imbalance, and warming ensues…[this is debunked both because it is nonsensical, and also because total OLR has not been observed to reduce]:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533132
> It is BAD logic to ASSUME the lapse rate adjusts to cancel the increase in elevation of emissions.
But it’s FUN Climateball, and FUNNIER economics!
Who said that, Little Willy!? Whoever it was, was attacking a straw man. I never said the lapse rate adjusts. In fact, I have specifically stated several times that it remains fixed.
Gaslighting Graham spins and spins and spins and gaslights again.
False accusations won’t help your cause, Little Willy.
Where’s Ball4 gone? He needs to pick 1) or 2).
Does effective emission height depend on optical depth?
Who knows? We can’t currently agree even on how the “effective emission height” is defined.
From his own cite:
Op. Cit.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham has no clue whatsoever about any of this?
Sure, Little Willy. If we go with what I cited, then option 1) is the correct account of the “effective emission height” argument. If you wish to reject what Real Climate make plain, then I guess you can go with option 2).
“[this is debunked both because it is nonsensical”
Again with the now signature DREMT argument from incredulity. Which is worthless in science.
“and also because total OLR has not been observed to reduce]:”
which is false, because climate models show past reduction in OLR is offset by warming over time and albedo feedbacks. One has to consider the HISTORY of the forcing and the resulting T change HISTORY, as climate models do.
[B4] Effective emission height depends on optical depth.
[GG] Here is a new puzzler for you!
[W] Does effective emission height depend on optical depth?
[GG] Who knows? Here’s my new puzzler!
[RASMUS] Effective emission height depends on optical depth.
[GG] Yeah, sure, but look at my new puzzler!
Well, Little Willy, if you’d been paying attention (and had any clue whatsoever about the physics involved) you would know that Ball4 and I have been discussing this issue on the basis that 1) is the correct version of the “effective emission height” argument. So I ask him to clarify which one he agrees is the correct version merely to test if he can be honest about that, or not.
Gaslighting Graham would REALLY like us to play his little puzzler instead of acknowledging that optical depth indeed matters.
How many has he created over the years to confuse himself?
It’s not a “puzzler” to anyone that has followed this debate, or anyone with a lick of logic.
1) is the correct version of the “effective emission height” argument, and it is refuted here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533731
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham missed:
Op. Cit.
Twisting himself into silly puzzlers looks some much more FUN!
No, I didn’t miss anything. Thanks anyway.
The Real Climate article makes plain that 1) is the correct account of the “effective emission height” argument. Wikipedia, too, helps us out:
“One simplification is to treat all outgoing longwave radiation as being emitted from an altitude where the air temperature equals the overall effective temperature for planetary emissions, T eff.[43] Some authors have referred to this altitude as the effective radiating level (ERL), and suggest that as the CO2 concentration increases, the ERL must rise to maintain the same mass of CO2 above that level.[44]
This approach is less accurate than accounting for variation in radiation wavelength by emission altitude. However, it can be useful in supporting a simplified understanding of the greenhouse effect.[43] For instance, it can be used to explain how the greenhouse effect increases as the concentration of greenhouse gases increase.[45][44][46]
Earth’s overall equivalent emission altitude has been increasing with a trend of 23 m (75 ft)/decade, which is said to be consistent with a global mean surface warming of 0.12 °C (0.22 °F)/decade over the period 1979–2011.”
[THE IPCC] An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere
[JOE] Given that the atmosphere is fixed in depth
[B4] Thatmsntfxdtptcldpt
[GG] Obviously Joe isnt talking about opacity.
[RASMUS] Effective emission height depends on optical depth.
[GG] Well, duh. But now for my puzzler…
Graham is a genius.
Yes Willard, for unknown reasons DREMT has twisted DREMT comments into such a comedy of science errors.
DREMT 3:22 pm was already refuted here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533735
DREMT subsequently has had no successful response.
That’s right, Postma was not referring to “optical depth” when he referred to the “depth” of the atmosphere. Why people keep trying to make something out of nothing is beyond me.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
Op. Cit.
Perhaps Gill could tell us if Joe was simply clarifying that the atmosphere wasn’t infinite and that material additions to a finite quantity is always negligible?
Ah, Little Willy’s many attempts to twist people’s words can be ignored now. Ball4 is back!
OK, Ball4:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534087
1) or 2)? Let’s see if you can be honest, and reply with “1)”.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534071
Gaslighting Graham makes another false accusation to loop his pet puzzler.
If Joe never talks about opacity, how can he refute a claim about opacity?
1) or 2), Ball4?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534071
At 4:06 PM, Ball4 linked to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533735
Where he says:
“DREMT demonstrates still doesn’t understand emission at the same temperature (254K) from a higher level of the atmosphere B necessarily involves less emission from lower density air located there than A.”
So there he is clearly arguing on the basis that 1) is the correct description of the “effective emission height” argument. Why he won’t just admit this is the case when questioned is anyone’s guess.
4:53 pm: 1) is from some blog, go ask those authors.
Physically, the effective emission level varies corresponding to the optimal trade-off between underlying higher atm. air density (which gives high emissivity) and little overlying atm. air to permit the emitted radiation to escape to deep space as observed by satellite instrumentation.
Ah, he returns again.
1) or 2), Ball4?
Go ask those authors that wrote the script.
So evasive. 1) or 2), Ball4?
DREMT can get a response about anything I wrote at 5:03 pm. DREMT can only get answers on what other authors wrote from those guys. Just reread this comment each time DREMT comments again. Out.
Very evasive indeed. 1) or 2), Ball4?
Perhaps Gill could answer that one:
Op. Cit.
When you cheerlead for Graham and Joe, are you denying the Beer-Lambert’s law by any chance, Gill?
…and, if at level A the temperature is 254 K, and then the “effective emission height” raises to level B so that now level B is at 254 K, since B has a greater surface area than A, the total emission (in watts) from B will be greater. Where does the additional energy come from to enable level B to be 254 K? It is a violation of 1LoT.
Gill may have left the building.
It’s a shame, for I was about to ask him about this:
Op. Cit.
Looks to me that there’s no energy created. Perhaps his auditing skillz could be helpful for once.
…if at level A the temperature is 254 K, and then the “effective emission height” raises to level B so that now level B is at 254 K, since B has a greater surface area than A, the total emission (in watts) from B will be greater. Where does the additional energy come from to enable level B to be 254 K? It is a violation of 1LoT.
Ah, Gaslighting Grahams gone into a loop again. Best to ignore him when he gets like this.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”He clearly has absolutely no interest in trying to understand. Hell insist Im wrong about something, then even when somebody he respects (like Tim Folkerts) comes along and confirms that Im right, he still carries on. Hes basically just here to try to irritate me into leaving.”
indeed thats why it is so boring. he adds nothing to the conversation beyond insults. occasionally he will throw something completely from left field thats totally irrelevant like when he argued isometrics determined which axis the moon rotated around.
Gill, Gill,
Riddle me this. When you say:
you do not seem to realize that stratospheric cooling is one of the predictions of the greenhouse theory.
Why do you pretend having read papers you obviously haven’t read?
“if at level A the temperature is 254 K, and then the effective emission height raises to level B so that now level B is at 254 K, since B has a greater surface area than A, the total emission (in watts) from B will be greater.”
Not sure why people are working so hard to misunderstand this model.
Lets review the basic steps.
1. CO2 rises and as a result the opacity of the upper troposphere increases in the CO2 bands.
2. The effective highest radiating level moves to higher elevations.
So far so good.
3. The lapse rate curve is assumed to be initially unchanged.
Now people stop using logic…
4. As a result of (2) and (3) the emissions leave the atmosphere from colder atmosphere, and are thus reduced.
5. As a result of (4) the outgoing flux from the atmosphere is reduced, while the incoming flux is not. Thus there develops and energy imbalance, otherwise know as a RADIATIVE FORCING.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
6. Over a PERIOD OF TIME, decades or more, the forcing results in WARMING of the system, and higher surface T, and higher IR emissions from the surface, and feedbacks such as ice-albedo-feedback, and as a result the entire lapse rate curve shifts to higher T, as the Earth tries to return to energy balance.
It seems that some people erroneously assume that the warming of the atmosphere (6) is supposed to take place BEFORE the forcing (5) occurs.
This obviously makes no sense.
Yes, Bill, it does indeed get very boring. He won’t stop though…ever.
On the subject of the “effective emission height”, argument, we have the two possible interpretations, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534087
1) uses the standard version of the English language, where “effective emission height” (EEH) is defined as meaning something, and then if you say the EEH increases in height, it thus means that what the EEH is defined as increases in height. Standard English. So if the EEH is defined as the level at which the atmosphere is 254 K (the “effective” referring to the “effective temperature” of Earth), then if the EEH increases in height, that means the level at which the atmosphere is 254 K increases in height. No other way for Standard English to work.
2) uses the Special GHE Defender version of the English language, where EEH no longer has any specific meaning. Or rather, those supporting 2) will pay lip service to the idea that the EEH is defined as the level at which the atmosphere is 254 K, but when the EEH increases in height, that definition no longer applies. So, the EEH increases in height, but the temperature of the atmosphere at the new height is lower, and thus the EEH no longer means the level at which the atmosphere is 254 K. So what is actually increasing in height is no longer defined, that is left to the imagination of the reader. That is how the Special GHE Defender version of the English language works.
In either case, both 1) and 2) are thoroughly debunked.
Exactly, Nate. No wonder Gaslighting Graham’s gone into a loop again.
Best to ignore him when he gets like this.
People continue to not make sense of this model, this time with the favorite tactic: semantics.
A definition, taken out of context from equilibrium, is erroneously applied to non-equilibrium.
Then they suggest, erroneously, that the warming of the surface and atmosphere (lapse rate curve shifts higher) is an instantaneous response to added CO2.
But this is a strawman. No one in climate science claims this!
Of course, if DREMTs thinks he can debunk what climate science actually claims, it is here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534339
But he won’t, with the faux excuse that he does read my posts.
Oh well!
…in either case, both 1) and 2) are thoroughly debunked.
… Nate. No wonder Gaslighting Grahams gone into a loop again.
Best to ignore him when he gets like this.
Sadly, Little Willy lacks the capacity to ignore me.
… No wonder Gaslighting Grahams gone into a loop again.
Best to ignore him when he gets like this.
See?
“Yes, Bill, it does indeed get very boring. He wont stop thoughever.”
Willard, the problem is that he can’t ignore us!
From the horse’s mouth:
How Climate Science sees it:
https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld017.htm
“CO2 mixes rapidly in troposphere (in weeks)
-ERL rises to where temperature is lower, less outgoing radiation.
Earth surface and troposphere warm until outgoing radiation from ERL balances incoming (years to centuries)”
Graphical representation of events.
Initial ERL
https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld015.htm
new higher ERL at colder T, after CO2 rise. Reduced emission.
https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld018.htm
then after T rise, and radiative balance restored
https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld019.htm
From up above, Bill sez:
“And your explanation ended without a mechanism to move the energy back to the surface.”
Again, there is a radiative forcing at the top of the troposphere, which reduces the OLR, and there is now more energy entering the atmosphere than leaving.
Much of that heat that has entered is deposited at the Earth’s surface. When it rises into the troposphere it encounters a bottleneck (the reduced OLR). The uppermost layer warms. The next layer below sees a warmer layer above, gets back radiation from it (or net emission upward is reduced if you prefer) and it warms.
All levels of the troposphere warm, and this reduces the ability of the surface to lose heat. It warms.
Nate,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534423
Bill you can see from the Climate Science presentation slides above, graphically, how this works, based on the laws of physics and known properties of the atmosphere.
If you want to critique it, point to a specific part that you object to, and why?
And same goes for this answer to your question, which you have not addressed.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534483
I need specific objections, and rationale for them.
Bill, following your link and reading your comment, and what you quote at the beginning, it looks a lot like there is somebody commenting here who is trying to support 2), from this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534087
That’s odd, because Ball4 was defending 1), and the Real Climate article supports 1), as does the Wikipedia page on the Greenhouse Effect. Wiki says:
“One simplification is to treat all outgoing longwave radiation as being emitted from an altitude where the air temperature equals the overall effective temperature for planetary emissions, T eff.[43] Some authors have referred to this altitude as the effective radiating level (ERL), and suggest that as the CO2 concentration increases, the ERL must rise to maintain the same mass of CO2 above that level.[44]”
So we have the ERL as being an identical concept to the “Effective Emission Height”, EEH. In other words, it is the height in the atmosphere where the temperature is 255 K (Real Climate went with 254 K, but close enough). If this rises, then the level at which the atmosphere is 255 K rises, according to Standard English.
However, in 2), using the Special GHE Defenders version of English, when the ERL rises the temperature at the new height is lower, and thus the ERL is no longer defined as the level in the atmosphere at which the temperature is 255 K. So I guess the question is, Bill, what exactly is rising when they say the ERL is rising? Since it is not what the ERL term has been defined to mean that’s rising.
So what actually is ERL according to the people who support 2), do you know? It logically cannot be the level in the atmosphere at which the temperature is 255 K. So what is it? Is there some third term with a different meaning? If so, why do we need EEH and ERL?
Nate,
It looks like someone is trying to put you in a Procrustean bed.
Pity he will not read:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1533757
Was that that comment Gill approved?
Little Willy hasn’t the faintest idea what’s going on.
Gaslighting Graham is in a tough situation.
He would like to create a you-and-him fight between B4 and Nate, but he has this policy according to which he does not read Nate. So he reads a paragraph Gill quoted, which he then uses as an excuse to recite Joe.
Nobody cares about Joe. Nobody cares about the silly dichotomy he presents. Including Gill.
So Gaslighting Graham goes on a loop again.
Better ignore him.
Postma? No, I’ve not been reciting Postma. Mostly my own arguments, Little Willy. You wouldn’t understand.
” it looks a lot like there is somebody”
Oh the silliness that ensues when he pretends to not be reading my posts, while clearly wanting to respond to them!
DREMT must be agitated because his notions of what the rising ERL model is, according to climate science, has been debunked, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534469
Oh well!
He needs to show whats wrong with the actual model, rather than the strawman version.
“He would like to create a you-and-him fight between B4 and Nate…”
I would like to see people who disagree, but who are on the same “side”, finally argue amongst themselves, as they should…and I also like to point out that GHE Defenders can’t agree amongst themselves because it makes the point that there is no one, coherent theory behind the GHE, in any case. Ball4 was defending 1), whereas Nate, I’m getting the picture, is trying to defend 2).
Since both 1) and 2) are debunked, it’s really no problem for me.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Bill, following your link and reading your comment, and what you quote at the beginning, it looks a lot like there is somebody commenting here who is trying to support 2), from this comment:”
yeah this is basic stuff here. you don’t want tobacco corps doing health science and you dont want government funded institutions doing science on topics leading to big government. anytime you do that you open to being abused.
the problem here is nate’s alleged bottleneck. 3rd grader experiments can’t demonstrate the alleged bottleneck. vaughn pratt shows one, but there still isn’t any surface warming and his bottle neck is created by a physical barrier that blocks the gas from moving beyond it and no such bottleneck has been observed in proportion. that leads me to believe that if there is any bottleneck that is undetected it like the vaughn pratt results implies very strong negative feedback.
so they can point to their mathematical models but the are only incidentally related to science and the bottleneck theory is junk.
and they know its junk. they are just addicted to the money. this kind of addiction is self destructive. they need help and need somebody who cares to intervene.
Exactly, Nate.
Hence why Gill is stuck on his “third grader” loop and his lies about bottle necks and no surface warming. As if he never used an IR gun.
Vaughan sure did:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98462
Wait. Did Gill ask for experimental validation?
Oh, no. That was for his ego.
I guess somebody, somewhere, might be arguing that back-radiation doesn’t exist…nobody here is, though.
” using the Special GHE Defenders version of English, when the ERL rises the temperature at the new height is lower, and thus the ERL is no longer defined as the level in the atmosphere at which the temperature is 255 K. So I guess the question is, Bill, what exactly is rising when they say the ERL is rising? Since it is not what the ERL term has been defined to mean thats rising.”
Strange that people are man-splaining to us about what the ERL model is, and ‘debunking’ it, without knowing what the ERL even is!
If they are curious it is all in here in the notes for the Climate Science slides.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1534469
“The ERL (Emitted Radiation Level), is that level in the atmosphere above which there is sufficiently little greenhouse gas (Water and CO2) that infra red radiation emitted upwards is just able to reach outer space without being absorbed. The greater the concentration of water and CO2, the higher in the atmosphere is the ERL. If there were no greenhouse gases or clouds, the ERL would be at the Earth surface. This simplified model treats the tropopause as effectively the top of the atmosphere, and lumps all wave lengths together. In practice each infra red wavelength has a different ERL.”
And Bill cannot explain his science objections to the model other than his political problems with it:
“and the bottleneck theory is junk. and they know its junk. they are just addicted to the money.”
"3rd grader experiments can’t demonstrate the alleged bottleneck…"
…problems abound with 2).
"So what actually is ERL according to the people who support 2), do you know? It logically cannot be the level in the atmosphere at which the temperature is 255 K. So what is it? Is there some third term with a different meaning? If so, why do we need EEH and ERL?"
Looks like there are no easy answers to these questions. There’s bound to be some third term with a different meaning going around somewhere, because that’s what GHE "science" is all about, having multiple terms with different meanings to supposedly explain the same thing.
Ultimately, if the total OLR were to be reduced by this rise in the EEH/ERL/third random term, we’d have observed it. Since we haven’t, we can safely rule 2) out.
nate i cut my professional teeth in large models with lots of uncertainties. the idea that a mathematical model can be built doesn’t mean that either the inputs, parameters, or logic is correct.
since all i have seen is modtran that estimates based upon experiments the amount of ir absorbed by the atmosphere. what happens next was based upon some 130 year old speculation about what happens next.
That speculation was quashed 120 years ago by experiments. then we had about a 60 year gap and somebody trying to model the atmosphere speculatively modeled it on the basis of a ”bootleneck” theory AKA ”hotspot” theory.
that theory remains today unvalidated with numerous experiments showing any results at best occurring with huge negative feedbacks that makes concern diminish to essentially nothing, except of course those whose jobs and budgets rest upon the original speculation was settled science.
negative feedbacks are model validated by several efforts from Roy here to Lord Moncktons mathematical model and all that remains is a general climate warming occurring over the past 40 years. but 40 years of warming simply isn’t at all convincing as history is filled with natural and extended warming periods.
so if you have anything to add thats not the equivalent of having a tantrum because you are not getting your way woould be welcome.
Willard says:
Its quite correct to say that DLR exists (thats what my IR thermometer measured).
———————-
willard the question isn’t nearly so much as to whether DLR exists or not which in itself is an irrelevant argument.
the question is what does DLR do to a warmer surface. you can argue the gpe but the problem is the blue plate is an uninsulated plate and earths surface is an insulated plate. failures dlr to warm insulated plates have led to questionable experiments manipulating fields of view and zero documentation of inputs are desperate attempts in search of an effect that are completely irrelevant to planetary models.
this should be end of story stuff and for at least 60 years it was. But now a lot of money and power is at stake so the corruption has risen it ugly head out of the swamp.
Like Kerry Emmanuel imploring his friend over a family game of Bridge, gee Richard shouldn’t
gee Richard shouldn’t you set aside your skepticism as clearly this is good for science.
An obvious projection of how Emmanuel dealt with his own skepticism.
Bill goes veers off topic on a gish gallop.
“Ultimately, if the total OLR were to be reduced by this rise in the EEH/ERL/third random term, wed have observed it. Since we havent, we can safely rule 2) out”
People keep knocking down claims that climate science isn’t making. Strawmen.
So if CO2 suddenly jumped up, then OLR would suddenly drop, creating an energy imbalance.
But how bout after?
OLR would then spend the next decades INCREASING, as the Earth warms and increases its emission of IR in order to return to balance.
We know that CO2 did increase in the past, and as a result OLR can be increasing now, partly cancelled by new CO2 additions.
So climate models in fact predict olr should be slowly increasing, while a persistent energy imbalance is maintained.
> the question is what does DLR do to a warmer surface
The question is rather if you really cut your teeth with complex models, Gill. Radiation does what radiation does, and it is a budget thing anyway, something you pretend to know something about.
Perhaps you need to do more isometrics.
Nate says:
So if CO2 suddenly jumped up, then OLR would suddenly drop, creating an energy imbalance.
But how bout after?
OLR would then spend the next decades INCREASING, as the Earth warms and increases its emission of IR in order to return to balance.
——————
of course thats insane. the climate is way to dynamic to remain static for decades. the imbalance is simply an assumption designed to fit the theory thus you can’t use it as evidence of the theory.
the lapse rate is constantly changing as water is entrained into the atmosphere and as it falls out.
all your moaning about how convection stalls and causes surface warming goes down with a big thud in the 3rd grader experiments right along with your acknowledgement of the 3rd grader radiation theory. vaughn pratt discovered local warming occurring at the ceiling but it required a physical convection barrier to accumulate and still really nothing at the surface killing the stalling convection argument right along with the 3rd grader model.
s&o used a fan to prevent bunching up of the heat and still nothing.
Bill asserts:
“of course thats insane. the climate is way to dynamic to remain static for decades”
Of course nobody claimed the climate was static for decades, so this is quite weird.
Nate says:
”So if CO2 suddenly jumped up, then OLR would suddenly drop, creating an energy imbalance. But how bout after? OLR would then spend the next decades INCREASING, as the Earth warms and increases its emission of IR in order to return to balance.”
This is the nonsense I am talking about. Exactly how does the earth spend decades warming from a jump in CO2?
Can’t follow the simple logic?
If the jump was instantaneous, that would be a forcing, a net increase in energy input, thus there would be warming. But even the upper layers of the ocean would take a long time to warm.
But when the surface warmed to a steady state, the IR emission to space would again balance the input.
Nate says:
Cant follow the simple logic?
”If the jump was instantaneous, that would be a forcing, a net increase in energy input, thus there would be warming. But even the upper layers of the ocean would take a long time to warm.
But when the surface warmed to a steady state, the IR emission to space would again balance the input.”
————————–
You claim its a forcing but what is the physical mechanism and response of the system to additional co2. You claim 100% of the effect is at the surface and it takes decades to be realized. And you assume nothing has happened up in the atmosphere during that time. This is the insane rhetoric that cold stuff warms hot stuff and hot stuff doesn’t do jack to cold stuff. Just turn physics upside down on its head and you can make heat come down. But you aren’t convincing anybody. I accused you of assuming a static atmosphere, you deny it then regale me with a dynamic surface argument.
“You claim its a forcing but what is the physical mechanism and response of the system to additional co2.”
Opacity increases, heat transfer to space reduces, as discussed throughout this thread.
Warming of the system results.
“You claim 100% of the effect is at the surface’ And you assume nothing has happened up in the atmosphere during that time.”
No I do not.
Let me ask you this:
Its a very cold day in winter and your home furnace is on full blast, and it is still a little cold in your house.
So you ADD an extra inch of insulation to your attic, on top of the 10 inches that were already there.
What happens to the temperature down below, in your house?
It warms op a bit.
How did that happen? Can you explain how the temperature down below got warmer when all we did was add a bit of extra insulation up in the attic?
Nate says:
”Its a very cold day in winter and your home furnace is on full blast, and it is still a little cold in your house.
So you ADD an extra inch of insulation to your attic, on top of the 10 inches that were already there.”
Well your theory falls apart right there Nate. Gases don’t insulate because of diffusion and convection. Nearly all insulation is a process of producing multiple layers of rigid pockets of air that don’t diffuse and convect energy from pocket to pocket.
Never mind the specifics of the insulation, for now.
The question for you was:
How did the house get warmer?? Can you explain how the temperature down below get warmer when all we did was add a bit of extra insulation up in the attic?
Nate the only two question about all this have been:
1) Does backradiation warm anything.
and
2) Does a cloud of CO2 gas provide an R-value of insulation.
After years of arguing about 1 you now concede it doesn’t warm anything. So you quite belatedly switched to 2) which is where mainstream special interest science went about 46 years ago but continued to promote #1 because it was a beguiling argument and the special interests weren’t interested in actually educating anybody.
This is prima facie evidence of where the interest of government and government funded institutions actually is.
The only thing not clear here is when you actually learned 1 was bunk. Was that before you stopped arguing online in favor of it? Seems to me you continued to argue it until cornered then fled to 2 as an argument.
Now the only thing remaining is for you to provide some evidence that a cloud of free gas provides insulation from upwelling energy via radiation or diffusion/convection.
“After years of arguing about 1 you now concede it doesnt warm anything.”
Still a habitual liar??
Given that you always get caught and just look like a loser, why?
So you can’t/won’t answer my simple question. What are you afraid of?
“2) Does a cloud of CO2 gas provide an R-value of insulation.”
This has been known for 150 y since Tyndall. As you have seen so many times, but still not appreciated, the presence of CO2 can REDUCE heat transfer through a region, because it increases the opacity for IR.
Reducing heat transfer is exactly the purpose of insulation.
Its increase in the upper troposphere increases the opacity of the troposphere (as you agreed!), and therefore reduces the heat transfer from the atmosphere to space. That adds a bottleneck for heat flow from Earth to space, just as adding an insulation to your attic does for your house.
It is not practical to use CO2 in your attic or walls, so it has no assigned R value. If you NEED it have one to believe that it can insulate, then you are willfully missing the point.
Nate says:
2) Does a cloud of CO2 gas provide an R-value of insulation.
This has been known for 150 y since Tyndall. As you have seen so many times, but still not appreciated, the presence of CO2 can REDUCE heat transfer through a region, because it increases the opacity for IR.
———————–
Nate resorts to lies about Tyndalls findings. Desperation has set in.
And yes Tyndall found CO2 reduced IR transfer through a region of CO2 in his lab. But you have lied when you claimed heat transfer was reduced. Tyndall found no such thing. Within earth’s atmosphere IR transfer does not equal heat transfer.
So butt out of here with your lies.
“And yes Tyndall found CO2 reduced IR transfer through a region of CO2 in his lab. But you have lied when you claimed heat transfer was reduced. Tyndall found no such thing.”
Well, given that his detectors could only detect heat flow, you are off your rocker.
Nate says:
”Well, given that his detectors could only detect heat flow, you are off your rocker.”
Heat flow to where Nate? Up, down, sideways? What was his field of view?
S&O gives you a far better documented experimental setup than you are describing here and you reject that. You would reject your retort if you were on the other side.
“Heat flow to where Nate?”
Obviously through the gas under study. If you didn’t know diddly squat about it, why are you claiming you know anything?
Nate Tyndall only discovered that CO2 absorbed energy. What the CO2 did with that energy is at all a part of Tyndall’s discovery.
I had to send a note to NASA on their references to the greenhouse effect on the same topic as this saying that the claim that CO2 absorbs energy isn’t a greenhouse effect so did they have another reference for their website.
Upon which they added references to the IPCC models.
So in this discussion about settled science one would expect to see more. But NASA nor you can provide more.
Witchdoctor’s had to do exactly as the King said too. Or it was off with his head.
You’ve already made clear that you have no idea what Tyndall showed, and cannot comprehend it.
Science is not your thing. That’s ok. Stick to what you know.
Just another example of how you obfuscate Nate.
Tyndall showed the CO2 absorbs light. But everybody already knew that and nobody I know disputes that.
So why did you bring up Tyndall?
Did you want to name drop him to con people into believing that Tyndall proved something relevant to our differences here? Gee I wasn’t aware of that how about you giving us link to that work?
Oh thats right you were lying, name dropping, implying Tyndall proved something we didn’t already know, obfuscated and now you aren’t going to give a single shred of evidence to refute any of the above.
So sad, so embarrassing for you Nate.
As I noted Bill, Tyndall’s detectors could only detect HEAT FLOW.
Yet you just keep up the pretense that you know something about this.
So this has become quite boring.
Nate everybody knows that CO2 absorbs radiation.
So it is refreshing for you to completely relate how you think the GHE occurs. You, NASA, IPCC all go no further than where you just went. Yes CO2 absorbs IR and so does the far more powerful water vapor that Tyndall attributed to the major cause of the GHE.
But thats where the science ends. Beyond that its simply a mathematical playground of dreaming up ways the GHE varies and we have absolutely no idea how that is beyond the science you brought forth. So as I have said GHGs are a necessary ingredient to the GHE but not necessarily a sufficient ingredient. And the real puzzle is to understand exactly how the GHE is created and how it varies.
Bill Hunter says:
Nate says:
2) Does a cloud of CO2 gas provide an R-value of insulation.
This has been known for 150 y since Tyndall. As you have seen so many times, but still not appreciated, the presence of CO2 can REDUCE heat transfer through a region, because it increases the opacity for IR.
——————–
What Tyndall showed in his experiment is less light in a straight line. He polished his copper tube to cause more light to reach the end of the tube via reflection because when he painted the inside of the tube with lamp black a lot less radiation made it to the end of the tube because the heat was being absorbed into the copper and radiating into the room and missing his measuring instruments. Tyndall understood that but apparently Nate missed out on that information.
As I explained reflective foil on a ceiling has no significant effect in keeping a room warm on a cold wintry night. Why? because heat is moved to the foil from the room and then that heat conducts through the foil with essentially zero resistance as the foil is incapable of converting the heat in the foil to effective radiation back to the floor. And as shown in single pane greenhouse and window experiments zero insulating effect results.
What this shows is an insulating effect cannot be achieved by backradiation or reflection.
So you are guilty of arguing here for a single path of heat travel when multiple paths are available.
Per Trenberth/Kielh only 26w/m2 of radiation absorbed by the atmosphere makes it to space. Yet the atmosphere radiates 195w/m2 to space to balance the radiation budget. So solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere plus convected/diffused heat from the physical movement of atmosphere molecules accounts for the 169w/m2 not accounted for by surface radiation.
that is a sensitivity factor of .133 which is a whole lot different than your claimed 3.0, like an exaggeration of 2,250%
since all this convection and atmospheric solar capture is all part of negative feedback.
Its important you defend the 3rd grader radiation theory because if you don’t you have to apply a 3.0 sensitivity to ozone atmospheric capture using the Manabe Wetherald theory as well. Of course claiming that CO2 controls water vapor is another scientific leap of faith required to not do that. . .except obviously the UN isn’t completely on board with at least among their ozone scientists.
Its easy for auditors to see all the inconsistencies. Its beyond me why you don’t. Maybe your mom dropped you on your head as a child.
I don’t know what you are trying to prove here, Bill. If it is still about Tyndall didnt show that CO2 reduced heat transfer, then it is waste of time, because he clearly DID show that.
The gas in his tube was exposed to a heat source on one side. On the other side was a detector of heat flux. When he filled the tube with CO2 or other GHG, LESS heat transferred through the tube to the heat flux detector.
So when you said “And yes Tyndall found CO2 reduced IR transfer through a region of CO2 in his lab. But you have lied when you claimed heat transfer was reduced.”
This was FALSE. Now quit doubling down and acknowledge that your were wrong.
Nate says:
”I dont know what you are trying to prove here, Bill. If it is still about Tyndall didnt show that CO2 reduced heat transfer, then it is waste of time, because he clearly DID show that.”
———————
Stop obfuscating Nate. Tyndall showed that CO2 scattered the heat transfer by causing it to hit the tube walls and be absorbed there. He demonstrated that by using both lamp black and polished walls. The reduction was far greater with the lamp black walls compared with the polished walls. But even polished surfaces absorb radiation just not as much. So he didn’t show a reduction in heat transfer he showed EM goes a lot of different ways and not necessarily in a straight line when a gas capable of absorbing the EM gets in the way.
“Tyndall showed that CO2 scattered the heat transfer by causing it to hit the tube walls and be absorbed there.”
Scatter? This is a new one!
Wrong. CO2 abs.orbs the IR, it doesnt scatter it. And in doing so it reduces the amount that gets through and exits the end of the tube. Whatever losses happen at the walls, happen equally with nitrogen and CO2.
There is also a T gradient through the gas down the tube, just as there is one in the atmosphere, which is called the lapse rate.
Because there is a T gradient, when CO2 near the cool end of the tube emits IR, it is emitted from colder gas, and thus it emits LESS.
This is exactly what happens in the atmosphere, as discussed in this thread. And as a result less is emitted at the TOA.
Nate says:
Tyndall showed that CO2 scattered the heat transfer by causing it to hit the tube walls and be absorbed there.
Scatter? This is a new one!
Wrong. CO2 abs.orbs the IR, it doesnt scatter it. And in doing so it reduces the amount that gets through and exits the end of the tube. Whatever losses happen at the walls, happen equally with nitrogen and CO2.
——————
So whats the difference in result Nate if it absorbs and reemits it in a scatter pattern or if it glances off. You end up with the same result.
Nate says:
There is also a T gradient through the gas down the tube, just as there is one in the atmosphere, which is called the lapse rate.
———————
The pressure doesn’t change going down the tube Nate. But we saw no such temperature gradient in the S&O experiment.
It makes sense that a narrow beam of light in a narrow tube might manage to restrict convection but thats not applicable to the atmosphere or a greenhouse.
Did Tyndall actually measure a temperature gradient Nate? I am sure that unlike you Tyndall was enough of a scientist to not claim stuff he hadn’t measured.
Nate says:
”Because there is a T gradient, when CO2 near the cool end of the tube emits IR, it is emitted from colder gas, and thus it emits LESS.”
—————-
Well once again a real scientist would actually measure this temperature gradient before making the claim. We can agree that energy is lost throughout the length of the tube though.
The CO2 will emit less due to losing heat to the walls. Tyndall documented this comparing the results of the polished pipe to the pipe whose walls were painted with lamp black. And yes I have no doubt the CO2 in the tube is a lot colder than the heat source.
But before making stuff up to throw out here as propaganda be sure to provide a link to the evidence where Tyndall documented your claims.
Nate says:
This is exactly what happens in the atmosphere, as discussed in this thread. And as a result less is emitted at the TOA.
——————-
Wrong, you have to get the above right first then you can explain where the atmosphere loses heat in traveling up to TOA? Where does it go?
Are you sure you aren’t a Chinese military operative attempting to undermine the US? You sure act like one.
Bill asserts something. Nate shows it’s wrong.
Bill moves the goal posts, asserts something else. Nate show’s it wrong.
It is whack-o-mole.
This pattern repeats forever.
Bill:
” But we saw no such temperature gradient in the S&O experiment.”
T gradient observed in S&O
https://html.scirp.org/file/5-4700841×14.png
And BTW, they also observe a reduction of heat transfer through CO2.
https://html.scirp.org/file/5-4700841×16.png
Reminder, they are using a heat flux detector (thermopile) and detect a reduction of heat flux exiting the front of their tube (as Tyndall did), and interpreting that as a reduction in IR (just as Tyndall did).
Now go ahead and howl into the wind as much as you want that IR reduction is not a heat flow reduction.
You will be wrong again.
Nate says:
Bill moves the goal posts, asserts something else. Nate shows it wrong.
Bill:
But we saw no such temperature gradient in the S&O experiment.
T gradient observed in S&O
https://html.scirp.org/file/5-470084114.png
————————–
That link is not an indicator of a temperature gradient through a material (by distance through the material). It is merely a warming curve (by time) that the two compartments warmed up under variously being filled with CO2 and air and show no difference whatsoever.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nate says:
”And BTW, they also observe a reduction of heat transfer through CO2.
https://html.scirp.org/file/5-470084116.png”
————————————
No Nate what you see is a reduction in radiation through the CO2 the convection in the CO2 is not measured.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nate says:
Now go ahead and howl into the wind as much as you want that IR reduction is not a heat flow reduction.
You will be wrong again.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Show me the proof of that Nate. You yelling at the top of your lungs about is completely and absolutely unconvincing.
“Show me proof.”
No proof is ever good enough for you. In this case you pretend these things havent already been discussed and agreed upon.
As you already know,
Tyndall used thermopiles. S&O used thermopiles.
As you are already supposed to know, thermopiles measure HEAT FLUX.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Differential_Temperature_Thermopile.png
In Tyndall’s experiment, he found that certain gases, such as CO2, reduced the transmitted IR, which he detected as a reduced HEAT FLUX.
See:
https://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/2023/09/04/tyndall-1/
“That link is not an indicator of a temperature gradient through a material (by distance through the material). It is merely a warming curve (by time) that the two compartments warmed up under variously being filled with CO2 and air and show no difference whatsoever.”
Oh, I thought you could correctly interpret a simple graph. My mistake.
The graph shows the FRONT of the box has a final temperature of ~ 30 C. The BACK of the box reaches a final temperature of ~ 48 C.
That means there is a BACK to FRONT temperature gradient.
Get it?
Nate says:
The graph shows the FRONT of the box has a final temperature of ~ 30 C. The BACK of the box reaches a final temperature of ~ 48 C.
That means there is a BACK to FRONT temperature gradient.
———————
The front of the box and the back of the box are separated by a physical barrier preventing additional heat in the back compartment to mix with the gases in the front compartment. Take out that physical barrier like with Woods and Pratts experiments and you have no temperature gradient getting warmer back toward the surface.
You were wrong, there is a gradient in S&O. You won’t admit you were wrong, ever. And refuse to do honest debate.
So we are done here.
You want to keep discussing something with me?
Answer my question that you never answered.
The question for you was:
How did the house get warmer?? Can you explain how the temperature down below get warmer when all we did was add a bit of extra insulation up in the attic?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537392
Why is DREMT reading and responding to my posts to Bill, for Bill, when he constantly claims he doesnt read or respond to my posts?
Well, of course, we all know that is a charade.
Still, pretty strange.
And my response to DREMT (err Bill) is that indeed Bill was wrong when he stated:
Bill:
“But we saw no such temperature gradient in the S&O experiment.”
Then I showed him the T gradient observed in S&O
https://html.scirp.org/file/5-470084114.png
But he won’t admit it he was wrong, about this, and many other things.
And needless to say I asked him this question that he never answered but lied and said he did answer.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537436
When i asked him where is his answer, there was no answer there.
For some reason, he refuses to answer what should be a straight forward, yet informative, question.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537392
“Nate is a liar whose only purpose is in here to deceive and lie to people. He has zero integrity and you are right we are done.”
Funny how everyone who talks to Nate for a long period of time comes to the same conclusions about him. I’m amazed Bill has lasted as long as he has. He must have the patience of a saint.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Funny how everyone who talks to Nate for a long period of time comes to the same conclusions about him. Im amazed Bill has lasted as long as he has. He must have the patience of a saint.”
Yep in this case Nate lied about Tyndall finding a temperature gradient in the gas in his experimental pipe.
I pointed out nobody found a temperature gradient (through the gas) in the many greenhouse and box experiments and defied him to provide evidence that Tyndall found Nate’s alleged temperature gradient.
So you just need to look at the subsequent posts to see how he backed down and tried to shift the blame.
Thats fine. He need not respond to me again. Nate is a congenital liar. I have no interest in debating a liar.
“everyone who talks to Nate for a long period of time comes to the same conclusions about him.”
Yes indeed, the science deniers learn that he doesn’t give their BS a free pass.
We can see here how frustrating that is for the regular peddlers of BS, DREMT and Bill.
And notice how Bill’s TEAM excuses his habitual lying.
It’s is OK apparently, because its for a noble cause:
Owning the Libs!
"He need not respond to me again. Nate is a congenital liar. I have no interest in debating a liar."
Oh, he’ll keep responding to you, Bill. Because now he knows he can get the last word. Which is all he ever really wants, in any discussion. Of course, he’ll project that fault onto others.
Nate says:
everyone who talks to Nate for a long period of time comes to the same conclusions about him.
Yes indeed, the science deniers learn that he doesnt give their BS a free pass.
We can see here how frustrating that is for the regular peddlers of BS, DREMT and Bill.
And notice how Bills TEAM excuses his habitual lying.
Its is OK apparently, because its for a noble cause:
Owning the Libs!
————————————–
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537392
“Because now he knows he can get the last word”
Hilarious.
Both DREMT and Bill are the leaders in the field of Last Wording in this blog!
In the case of Bill, if I end a discussion with him, he will try to continue it, or butt-in to bait me in another thread.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537745
re T gradients.
…of course, he’ll project that fault onto others.
Speaking of Last Wording, here is Bill, expertly trying to bait me in his Last Word, with last digs, false accusations and ad hom grenades.
“Yep in this case Nate lied about Tyndall finding a temperature gradient in the gas in his experimental pipe.
I pointed out nobody found a temperature gradient (through the gas) in the many greenhouse and box experiments and defied him to provide evidence that Tyndall found Nates alleged temperature gradient.
So you just need to look at the subsequent posts to see how he backed down and tried to shift the blame.
Thats fine. He need not respond to me again. Nate is a congenital liar. I have no interest in debating a liar.”
Tee hee hee.
…course, he’ll project that fault onto others.
“Oh, hell keep responding to you, Bill. Because now he knows he can get the last word.”
Bill claims he is done discussing with me.
“Thats fine. He need not respond to me again. Nate is a congenital liar. I have no interest in debating a liar.”
But he can’t help himself!
So he hilariously tries to bait me into starting up again in a different discussion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537795
“One cannot just lie and do like Nate does and claim that Tyndall found a heat gradient within the CO2 in his polished pipe experiment.”
…he’ll project that fault onto others.
Its the bullies who so often play the victim card….
…project that fault onto others.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
hell project that fault onto others.
———————————-
You are absolutely correct.
Nate claims that Tyndall found a heat gradient in the gas in his experimental tube. He has no evidence of that.
Then he will lie and try to extrapolate his first lie to a second lie that that will cause the heat source to warm.
then between the two lies he will try to claim that this has to be true for 1LOT to be true. He just ignores that the reflective walls of the copper tube still absorbs heat by both radiation and conduction and he has to know it also must then pass that heat by convection and radiation elsewhere than Tyndall’s IR sensor.
So he manufactured a third lie claiming that if Tyndall had used oxygen the heat gradient would not exist and that both oxygen and CO2 would lose heat to the walls of the pipe. . .ignoring the fact that even a polished copper pipe will also absorb some radiation.
These are all things that Tyndall did not find nor claim.
But Nate continues to claim Tyndall made these findings. Thats just another lie.
Tyndall’s boiling water should have turned to steam according to Nate or blow up the container it was in. No such findings were reported by Tyndall.
Nate claims S&O found a heat gradient through the CO2 in their experiment. Another lie. We know why there is a difference in the temperature of the compartments and that is fully due to dual physical convection barriers in the experiment.
This is an effect well known to be a property of convection barriers as demonstrated in literally billions of dual glazed windows.
S&O and RW Woods, and Vaughn Pratt all showed making the barriers opaque to IR has no effect on the heated surfaces warming the experiment, and Nate knows that.
Yet he continues to lie that it does.
“Nate claims S&O found a heat gradient through the CO2 in their experiment. Another lie.”
Bill, I showed you the data. You continue to misrepresent things. Why?
Now again, they have a long horizontal box of gas, heated on one end. With a middle plastic barrier, a T gradient is OBSERVED. The heated end is hotter.
Now again, I ask you, if the barrier was absent, why would you think the unheated end would come to the same T as the heated end?
The heated end is insulated from the room. The unheated end is exposed to room temperature through thin plastic.
Nobody with experience in the real world, or any basic understanding of heat transfer would think that it makes sense for the unheated end to be as warm as the heated end.
And let’s be clear, the unheated end receives all its heating from the distant heated end, and without a T gradient between the two, no convective heat flow can occur.
Nate says:
Bill, I showed you the data. You continue to misrepresent things. Why?
Now again, they have a long horizontal box of gas, heated on one end. With a middle plastic barrier, a T gradient is OBSERVED. The heated end is hotter.
—————————
Well to be clear we are only talking about the S&O experiment and a difference in temperature between the two different compartments that we know to be due to an IR transparent rigid plastic barrier between the two compartment and that this occurs both with CO2 and alternatively air in the compartments.
Obviously!
But how does that support your claim about Tyndall’s pipe having a temperature gradient inside the rocksalt plugged pipe? Answer is obviously it does not. And anybody who isn’t totally ignorant should easily see that.
and since you aren’t totally ignorant that makes you a liar.
“But how does that support your claim about Tyndalls pipe having a temperature gradient inside the rocksalt plugged pipe? Answer is obviously it does not. And anybody who isnt totally ignorant should easily see that.”
Well, address my question about S&O, if barrier removed. How do you KNOW as you claimed that there would be no gradient.
Experience of most people says near the heater in a space is warmer. One side of a room has a radiator, the other side a window to cold outdoors. Most people who are feeling cold move to the heated side.
That is similar to the S&O setup,as well as Tyndall’s.
Nate says:
”Well, address my question about S&O, if barrier removed. How do you KNOW as you claimed that there would be no gradient.”
—————
we know it because of window technology, Woods, and Pratt. And for S&O we know its not a type of gas.
Nate says:
Experience of most people says near the heater in a space is warmer. One side of a room has a radiator, the other side a window to cold outdoors. Most people who are feeling cold move to the heated side.
That is similar to the S&O setup,as well as Tyndalls.
————–
As I have been telling you that is a consistent outcome in all the experiments. Heat diffuses. With Tyndall the heat conducted out of the walls of the pipe, receiving that heat both by conduction and diffusion by radiation.
With S&O and the insulated walls preventing heat from going out the side actually delivered it all to the end of the box but S&O only measured the radiation coming out of the box. Its not clear to me how far away from the end of the pipe Tyndall had his thermocouple but any distance at all would allow convection to carry heat away. So all that Tyndall measured was an absence of radiation in one particular direction and all he proved was that CO2 absorbed radiant energy. Its only you and maybe NASA that decided he discovered more. but thats only because they knew he didn’t prove what you claim he proved and decided to lie about it.
“With S&O and the insulated walls….”
I don’t see anything rebutting what we all have experienced:
In a space with a heater on one side, and a window to a colder environment on the other side, there is a T gradient.
I don’t seen anything sensible here to support your claim that there would be NO gradient in S&O, without the barrier.
Experiments that are vertical, will not behave the same. Since, again, we all know that in a space with heater, convection will tend to make it warmer at the ceiling.
Tyndall again uses a horizontal tube radiatively heated on one end through the salt window. He tests with vacuum and air that doesn’t abs.orb. So heat flow through the sides is (mostly) accounted for.
Only with an abs.orbing gas does he see a dramtic change in heat transfer through.
With the abs.orbing gas, it will be heated on the end with the radiant heat source. And it will be cooled on the end where it can radiate to the cool room.
Thus there would be a T gradient, just as with S&O, and the atmosphere with it lapse rate.
“Its only you and maybe NASA that decided he discovered more.”
And Tyndall, and all the physics that came following his work.
Basically anyone that doesnt deny that there such a thing as radiant heat transfer, like you are doing.
Nate says:
I dont see anything rebutting what we all have experienced:
In a space with a heater on one side, and a window to a colder environment on the other side, there is a T gradient.
I dont seen anything sensible here to support your claim that there would be NO gradient in S&O, without the barrier.
—————————-
What you just said is completely contradictory. Perhaps you need to do some experiments for yourself to find the truth.
Remove the roof of a greenhouse and you no longer have a greenhouse. Leave the roof on and and switch it back and forth between IR opaque glass and IR transparent glass and you don’t change anything.
Remove the center divider in S&O and you have no temperature gradient within the box. Remove both the center divider and the divider at the end of the box and you have no temperature gradient between the heating plate and the IR sensor.
Nate says:
Tyndall again uses a horizontal tube radiatively heated on one end through the salt window. He tests with vacuum and air that doesnt abs.orb. So heat flow through the sides is (mostly) accounted for.
Only with an abs.orbing gas does he see a dramtic change in heat transfer through.
With the abs.orbing gas, it will be heated on the end with the radiant heat source. And it will be cooled on the end where it can radiate to the cool room.
——————
But the convection and diffusion will ensure both ends are the same temperature.
You seem fascinated by seeing a light get diffused and can’t seem to come to grips with why.
Nate says:
” ”Its only you and maybe NASA that decided he discovered more.”
And Tyndall, and all the physics that came following his work.”
————————–
Indeed! I pointed out to the NASA website group that was managing the Greenhouse Effect website that just referencing Tyndall left the solution undiscovered. they acknowledged my comment like you just did above and added references to the computer models.
But the problem with the computer models is they haven’t been statistically validated yet. Which actually is the correct state of current climate science.
“Remove the roof of a greenhouse …”
Different vertical experiment, different result, a red herring.
You offer no evidence to support your claim that in HORIZONTAL tubes heated on one end, such as S&O or Tyndall, there would be no temperature gradient.
All you offer is a bunch of ad-homs directed at the messenger.
Real world experience, basic common sense and established physics provide strong evidence that in a space heated on one side and exposed to cold its other side, will have a T gradient across it.
You offer no experience, common sense, or physics to contradict this.
Real world experience, basic common sense and established physics provide strong evidence that there is such a thing as radiative heat transfer, involving the transport of IR energy from one place to another.
Your ongoing denial of this makes no sense, and just suggest a penchant for being contrary that overwhelms actual intellectual effort.
Nate says:
Remove the roof of a greenhouse
Different vertical experiment, different result, a red herring.
You offer no evidence to support your claim that in HORIZONTAL tubes heated on one end, such as S&O or Tyndall, there would be no temperature gradient.
——————-
Unfortunately for your position Nate the only experiment we care about is the vertical one.
But I am sure that S&O wasn’t ignorant enough to believe CO2 can set up unique heat gradients after seeing the results of their experiment.
One should especially note that CO2 couldn’t do it any different than air could do it.
the only effect they noted was you could use an IR thermometer to measure the actual temperature of the CO2 when they couldn’t do that with air in the box even though the temperature of the air was the same as the CO2. Go figure Nate.
“Unfortunately for your position Nate the only experiment we care about is the vertical one.”
False. Just an admission that you cannot support your assertions about the S&O and Tyndall horizontal experiments.
Nate returns to his lying ways having nothing to dispute the support I gave to the S&O results.
Take your grievance parade somewhere else.
there we go the real Nate shows up.
A card carrying member of the International Elitist Socialist Party who proclaims ‘shutup’ we have the power over what you do and what you aspire to and need not have to explain to peons why.
Goodbye Bill.
Thats the general idea Nate.
Its worthless discussing something with somebody who has a political position on the matter and lacks a straight story of why.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1539353
I called it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1537777
Apparently not ‘projecting’ after all.
…that fault onto others.
Is someone who is not supposed to ever be reading my posts, reading my posts, and also stalking me???
Bizzare.
…fault onto others.
Nate you have your tail tucked way up between your legs.
We be done here. When and if you determine which of the two different theories you espouse in here re: CAGW and are ready to explain why; then that will be a good time to bring the topic up again.
It seems to me, it’s:
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
Until such time, as it drops to +0.13 C per decade. Or it stays at +0.14 C/decade for few more years. Or it up to +0.15 C/decade.
I tend to think it will drop down to +0.13 within a year.
But I don’t know why we had this upward bump in last two months. But it seems if bump continues there is greater chance of discerning what caused it, therefore it might “better” if the bump continues for many months. And it’s “possible” to there more emission by humans of some kind of greenhouse gas { a lot more CO2} or something else.
But it could be the eruption, and if eruption has long term effect, that could change things, we might decide to monitor this kind of thing instead of by chance seeing it from orbit. And it seems quite unlikely this is something which happened only once.
Plus there could be other ways to get a lot water into the high atmosphere, other than via volcanic eruption.
I’m no expert on ENSO but do check on the ENSO wrap up at BOM from time to time. This particular El Nino event looks slightly odd to me in that the sea surface temps are elevated but the other indicators don’t appear to have joined in. Winds haven’t weakened as expected and OLR has remained neutral. Happy to be educated on that.
Perhaps unusual for the strongest El Nina’s, but for the typical El Nina that doesn’t happen until Sep-Oct, or even Nov.
thanks Antonin – I didn’t know that.
Damn – looks like I invented the possessive plural (as opposed to the legitimate plural possessive).
This is a well known phenomenon in a warming world. The ENSO region has actually cooled slightly since 1979 while the broader SST profile has warmed significantly. This causes La Ninas and El Ninos as measured by ONI to appear amplified and attenuated respectively wrt to the backdrop of the global temperature. A new metric has been developed to address this. The JJA ONI was 1.1 while the RONI was only 0.6. So according to the RONI this only a weak El Nino so we aren’t really expecting the global circulation pattern to change much…at least yet.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/RONI.ascii.txt
Pretty sure the ENSO regions have not cooled. Are you are aware that the 30-year baseline for the ENSO regions is updated every 5 years to remove the warming signal?
The ENSO 3.4 region SST trend is -0.044 C/decade since 1979. That is nearly 0.2 C of cooling through 2022. Over the same period the global SST trend is +0.112 C/decade which is about 0.5 C of warming.
Yes. I’m aware that the ONI baseline is updated every 5 years. And while this has removed the warming signal in the past more recently it has worked to remove the cooling signal.
Look closely. The 1991-2020 baseline is only warmer than 1981-2010 and 1986-2015 5 months out of the year. But the other 7 months it is actually the same or cooler. Overall though it is cooler albeit only slightly.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
Pretty sure that reflects only the negative PDO of the past 25 years, and the resulting tendency for more La Ninas and fewer El Ninos. The months where the latest 30-year period is noticeably higher are the months where El Nino and La Nina tend to be weak or non-existent, ie. April to July. A similar bunching seems associated with the previous negative PDO, though we also have a non-greenhouse signal there, ie. the aerosol-induced cooling between the 40s and 70s.
It could be transient. But at least over the period of the UAH dataset the divergence between raw ENSO and global SSTs is now 0.7 C. If we were to create a GONI metric where the G stands for globally-adjusted then our current GONI would only be 0.4 even though the ONI is 1.1. It is similar to the RONI value except RONI is only tropical-adjusted.
Lee, this EN currently leans toward a “Modoki”. (Loose translation is “phony”.)
We’ll see, as conditions could change.
lee…if you want to get really educated, stay away from BoM. They are rabid alarmists who follow NOAA and GISS.
There is no indication the current heat waves are associated with El Nino. I’ll give Clint credit for likely identifying the real cause, the Hunga Tonga eruption that dumped massive amounts of water vapour into the stratosphere.
The WV has likely disrupted the natural jet stream, which is causing strange weather phenomena.
Lee
One point that is often overlooked in this discussion of the currently developing El Nino is that after the last strong La Nina (2010-2012) it took over two years for ENSO to make a clear transition from the La Nina/neutral status on the El Nino status, which could not start before March/April 2015:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
Now if we compare how much stronger the current La Nina was compared to 2010-2012 (black line versus red line)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
why then should we think that a powerful El Nino is on the rise so soon?
*
Moreover, I saved a few pictures from the NOAA ENSO forecast page
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
and everyone can see that the current Nino forecast for November 2023 was considerably weakened compared to that published end of April:
https://i.postimg.cc/J0RVn33M/nino34-Mon300423.png
0.5 forecasting difference on the MEI index:that’s a lot!
*
By the way: don’t get impressed by simple-minded ignoramuses telling you thinks like
” … if you want to get really educated, stay away from BoM. They are rabid alarmists who follow NOAA and GISS. “
Apos…
” 0.5 forecasting difference on the MEI index:thats a lot! ”
should read
” 0.5 forecasting difference on the NCEP Nino3+4 index:thats a lot! ”
because the two differ by a lot as well.
It may be interesting to note that the 0.69 C anomaly is associated with a 4m lagged ONI of only 0.2. As a point of comparison the 0.71 C anomaly for 2016/02 is associated with a 4m lagged ONI of 2.4.
The effect of ENSO on UAH TLT is about 0.14 * ONI. So the current 0.69 C anomaly has a 0.14 * 0.2 = 0.03 C contribution from ENSO while the 0.71 C from 2016/02 had a 0.14 * 2.4 = 0.34 C contribution. That means from 2016/02 to 2023/08 non-ENSO warming agents have contributed 0.34 – 0.03 = 0.31 C in just 7.5 years.
Has the NOAA STAR dataset also shown record anomolies for July and August?
Sounds good to me.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
cloudier nights in Arct/Aus? less cloudy days?
tempting to try to correlate regional anomalies to the shortwave CERES trends since 2000 (no, I’m not linking the study again)
could probably be done with a global cloud cover database with at least hourly sampling, with estimated energy balance effects included (day albedo, night insulation)
sadly, still no support for ECS>2 scenario modelers here unless the anomaly roughly doubles the Aug values
the rest of us can just be grateful that cloud cover appears to have prevented hundreds of thousands of excess winter deaths over the past couple decades
and we can all be proud we’ve amused future historians by spending tens of trillions in a counterproductive but providentially futile attempt to cool the planet
Something is wrong – https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
What exactly is wrong?
Glenn Martin
Like Antonin Qwerty, I ask you:
What exactly is wrong?
It gave a 403 error. I see that it is fixed now.
There was no 403 error when I commented earlier. I still ask, what exactly is wrong? It looks exactly as I would expect.
Strange things happen sometimes!
HTTP 403 is ‘Access denied’; I only experience it when trying to download some pages directly from Spencer’s site, e.g.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/
when using tools like ‘wget’ in UNIX.
Only comment section pages can be downloaded that way, e.g.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comments
Wokeism is Puritanical
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpj0EtNVOgM
The reactionary mind only presents itself as transgressive whence it mostly reinforces the status quo:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_6M_KHEr5aA
Moyhu’s tempLSmesh global monthly anomaly dataset shows a similar August rise to UAH.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
+0.69 degrees !
The cookers here must be nearly cooked by now!
But, like the proverbial frog in a beaker, they refuse to admit it.
There are some new people here wanting info on the bogus GHE. There are also some long-time commenters still confused. It’s time for some more science:
1. Earth is NOT a mythical sphere, so it is meaningless to compare it to one. The “33K” is nonsense, as is the bogus “240 W/m^2”.
2. Earth’s energy balance can NOT be studied by using flux. Flux does NOT balance. Trying to use flux allows cultists to arrive at any figure they like.
3. CO2’s 15μ photon has so little energy it cannot raise Earth’s average surface temperature, even if it were somehow absorbed. And it doesn’t matter how many such photons are involved. They all have the same frequency. Frequencies do NOT add. And, there are no lasers in the atmosphere!
There’s a lot more, but that should be enough reality to start.
Happy to answer questions from responsible adults. Children will be largely ignored.
Clint R
YOU: “2. Earths energy balance can NOT be studied by using flux. Flux does NOT balance. Trying to use flux allows cultists to arrive at any figure they like.”
If the area remains the same in incoming and outgoing flux they must balance to keep a steady state temperature. If the incoming flux exceeds the outgoing the temperature will increase. If the incoming flux is less than the outgoing flux the temperature will decrease.
Flux definition you use is Watts/m^2….Watts is joules/second so watts in and watts our are equivalent to energy received and lost. With the same area the fluxes must balance to maintain a steady state temperture. You are trying to confuse yourself on this issue. All the cases you bring up to prove fluxes don’t add require to change incoming area and outgoing area but regardless the incoming watts equal the outgoing watts in a steady state condition.
You are just twisted up in bad logic and poor quality thinking.
Wrong Norman. Earth emission is based on emissivity and temperature of the area considered. Throwing a bunch of estimates in the pot ain’t science.
Strike 1
Clint R
I think that blah blah garbage could be one of the most illogical posts you have made yet
It is too illogical to process. What estimates? Fluxes are measured values from instruments. Sorry I forgot Cult minded people do not accept evidence.
But for the record:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_64f7eb2450576.png
Measured values for radiant fluxes. Not that you will understand any of this, not that you care. You are a single minded cultist, possibly programmed by the fanatic Joseph Postma. With cult minded people like you. You are programmed to attack any who question your ignorant posts (like the 3 claims you posted), repeat the mantra over and over and over, reject all counter evidence.
Yes you are a programmed cultist and will continue on and on with your mindless mantras that have been programmed into your limited brain.
You’re out, Norman.
Sorry, but rules are rules.
Clint R
Your 1) is false because the 33 K is derived from the surface average temperature and the amount of outgoing IR measured by satellite (and yes researchers are quite aware of the Inverse Square Law and consider it in there measurements).
How many more false and misleading and poorly thought out posts are you planning on generating to deceive ignorant people?
Wrong Norman, the 33K comes from comparing Earth’s 288K with an imaginary sphere’s 255K.
Strike 2
Clint R
I gave you vast amounts of evidence on this and you were too ignorant to understand it. Strike against your low IQ and lack of reasoning ability. Your problem not mine.
Clint R
Do I need to provide you with the evidence again? You will reject it anyway as you are not intelligent enough to understand it. Last time around you thought the researchers forgot about Inverse Square Law. I gave you evidence you point was wrong and poorly thought out. It did not change. You are not science minded (follow the evidence). You are cult minded (I believe it true so it is, damn the evidence that shows my distorted believe is wrong…just like any Flat-Earther out there. Endless evidence and logic is given to prove them wrong but it does not change the cult mind.)
A cult mind like yours is not capable of being scientific and following evidence.
You struck out Norman.
Sorry.
Norman says:
”Your 1) is false because the 33 K is derived from the surface average temperature and the amount of outgoing IR measured by satellite.”
Well if you believe that then you would probably believe the roofing salesman that will tell you they will install a tin roof that will reflect 70% of the solar heat and keep your home a nice cool 65F on those days that the outside temp goes up to 104 degrees.
Clint R
Your number 3 is correct but only ignorants would claim CO2 warms the surface. The standard explanation for the GHE from scientists, not bloggers, is that CO2 acts like a blanket. It reduces the amount of heat lost by the surface, but it does NOT increase the surface heat. The insulating properties of GHG allow the solar input to drive the surface to a higher temperature because one of the surface heat loss mechanisms is reduced.
It is similar to the temp inside a car being considerably warmer than the outside temperature. Heat transfer mechanisms are reduced so with the same solar input the temperature is higher. Simple to understand but you won’t be able to understand any of it. Your mind is too deep into a deluded cult mentality of false and ignorant skeptics. Not the real deal just a puffs of air passing by.
Wrong Norman, NASA states: The level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been rising consistently for decades and traps extra heat near Earth’s surface, causing temperatures to rise.
Strike 3
Clint R
Only you strike out with some poor thinking an lack of knowledge on the subject.
It would be the same as saying an extra blanket reduces the rate of heat loss for a person so they stay warmer.
Again it is like the car in the sun. It is warmer than outside because inside the car heat transfer has been reduced so the same solar input increases the temperature.
I think NASA assumes you might be an thoughtful person. I am sure they cannot grasp how little thought process many people have. You lack intelligence and reasoning ability all you know how to do is attack what you can’t understand. You do it over and over, kind of like Swenson. Just repeat things over an over and hope people can’t see how ignorant you are. Good luck with that, I believe at least 80% of the posters think you are not very informed and just post garbage. In your own mind you are a genius. In reality you are just a dunce that lashes out at humans smarter than they can imagine.
You struck out, Norman.
Game over.
No amount of endless blah-blah will help. Better luck next time.
Only children and uneducated adults believe that our Moon can’t spin just because it shows us always the same face.
*
Instead of hopelessly trying to appear as a big teacher, better try to explain us the HTE on the basis of UAH’s monthly grid data for the Lower Stratosphere:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1neBUEWdw_3FZYQzLlUMCt3_5o6JDQwd_/view
Until now, you gave us all you are able to: nothing.
Bindi, you’re sure obsessed with this issue.
You should use your obsession to learn, rather than just repeating the same nonsense over and over.
Are you unable to do the ball-on-a-string experiment?
ENSO forecasts at 06/09/2023. Usual caveats apply.
ENSO Alert System Status: El Niño Advisory
El Niño conditions are observed.
Equatorial sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are above average across the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. The tropical Pacific atmospheric anomalies are consistent with El Niño. El Niño is anticipated to continue through the Northern Hemisphere winter (with greater than a 95% chance through December 2023-February 2024).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
El Niño conditions have persisted in the equatorial Pacific since boreal spring.
The warm subsurface water volume in the central and eastern part of equatorial Pacific has maintained warm SST in NINO.3 region. JMA's seasonal ensemble prediction system predicts that the subsurface water volume in the central and eastern part will be warmer and increase SSTs in the eastern part, and the NINO.3 SST will be above normal during the prediction period. In conclusion, it is likely that El Niño conditions will continue until boreal winter (90%)
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
The Bureau's El Niño Alert continues, with El Niño development likely during spring. When El Niño Alert criteria have been met in the past, an El Niño event has developed around 70% of the time.
Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical Pacific are exceeding El Niño thresholds and have continued to warm slightly over the last fortnight. Climate models indicate further warming of the central to eastern Pacific is likely, with SSTs remaining above El Niño thresholds until at least early 2024.
The 90-day Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is presently just below El Niño thresholds, while trade winds and Pacific cloudiness have not yet demonstrated sustained El Niño patterns. Overall, atmospheric indicators suggest the Pacific Ocean and atmosphere are not yet consistently reinforcing each other, as occurs during El Niño events. El Niño typically suppresses spring rainfall in eastern Australia.
The latest weekly Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) index is +1.05 °C. This is the second week it has been above the positive IOD threshold of +0.40 °C. However, before an IOD event is declared, several more weeks of the IOD index above the positive IOD threshold are required. Climate models suggest a positive IOD is likely for spring. A positive IOD typically decreases spring rainfall for central and south-east Australia and can increase the drying influence of El Niño.
The Madden–Julian Oscillation (MJO) is currently weak or indiscernible. Most surveyed models forecast a strengthening pulse to move over the Maritime Continent or Western Pacific in the coming days. If this pulse moves into the Western Pacific and remains relatively strong it may assist El Niño development by weakening trade winds.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
bellman…”The long term trend is what matters. Its fun to look at the individual record but thats all it is, just a bit of fun.
But there is a problem, that a lot who want to reject the idea of any warming will claim that if a record hasnt been broken for a few years, its proof there is no warming. But as soon as records are broken will insist that this has nothing to do with warming, but is down to one of natural causes”.
***
I have not seen anyone on Roy’s site who thinks there has been no warming, we skeptics here are arguing over the cause of it. This summer in Canada has been unusual since it began in May on the West Coast.
I presume you have all the answers as to the cause but unfortunately you cannot prove any of it scientifically.
The long term trend for UAH reveals controversy. It began in 1979 as a negative anomaly due to cooling from volcanic aerosols and that cooling persisted for 20 years till a major El Nino in 1998 drove anomalies into the positive range by about 1C.
Within a year, the warming spurt had ended and we were back in the negative anomaly range briefly, till some other force caused a 0.2C sudden warming, moving the anomalies permanently into the positive range, on average. The IPCC announced in 2013 that no significant warming had occurred over 15 years between 1998 and 2012. That translated to a flat trend which the IPCC ingenuously labeled a pause.
NOAA, the cheaters that they are, could not live with that flat trend stuff so they went back and redid the SST to show a slight trend. Then in 2014, they claimed it the warmest year ever but one had to look at the fine print to see their claim was a probability based on a 48% likelihood. UAH shows 2014 as a very ordinary year.
That is the mentality of you alarmists, that 15 years with no warming is a pause. However, that 15 year flat trend is a good portion of the overall trend which really began with the 1998 EN. Prior to that, we were recovering from cooling.
We cannot trust the surface recorded by NOAA because it has been seriously fudged. I have no question about the claim of warming since 1850 but I also recognize that in 1850, we were 1C to 2C cooler due to the Little Ice Age. Therefore, re-warming since 1850 was expected. To me it is a natural re-warming but to you alarmists it is caused by a trace gas.
Problem is, you can’t prove it. Not one person on this blog has been able to prove the warming is due to that trace gas. In fact, not one person has proved scientifically that the greenhouse effect exists, or its offspring, anthropogenic warming. The theories supporting both are just plain unscientific.
Until this summer, we were essentially back to the flat trend. Yes, the trend had been flat since the 2016 El Nino drove global temps back to the 1C range.
> Not one person on this blog has been able to prove the warming is due to that trace gas.
C’mon, Bordo.
This has been proven to you time and time again.
You’re just behaving like Mike Flynn now.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Stephen P Anderson
YOU: “Classical Thermodynamics? Youre a hoot, Tim. The planets climate system is way more complex than an insulation blanket, and CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Also, CO2 follows temperature on both short and long, time scales. You have it back asswards.”
Here is an article for you to read. How good skeptics think and look at data. You are far too political believing all the lies of the extreme right (they make up lots of garbage to feed the cult…break out and be an open thinker….Left thinking is not all evil or good, nor is Right thinking all good with no evil. Some ideas in each have some valid points. You only look through a distorted lens).
Here is a good skeptic.
https://rpubs.com/iaw4/co2temp-400ky
From Link:
“Anyone who understands basic data analysis should understand this plot is misleading as far as establishing a (causal) link from CO2 to temperature is concerned. Indeed, the only point of my analysis is to plead not to use this graph any longer. This plotted relationship is a misleading and classic example of a spurious relation. A classic example is the association between ice cream sales and murders. Both are higher in summer, and the two plots between ice-cream sales and murder would look just like two plots of CO2 and temperature above.
There are better ways to analyze the CO2, temperature, and solar data, shown below. These better ways address the facts that the graph misleads with respect to two problems:
Could a third variable such as trends, volcanos, solar radiation, or anything else have caused (co-)variation in both CO2 and temperature?
Is CO2 causing warming or is warming causing CO2, or are both causing one another?
The remedy to the first problem is to work in changes of variables, not in levels of variables. The remedy to the second problem is to work with lead-lag associations. I am not the first to have noticed that temperature changes can also anticipate CO2 changes. However, some climate-change critics have jumped to the equally incorrect conclusion that such feedback effects then reject the hypothesis that CO2 drives temperature. Feedbacks are not mutually exclusive with respect to the hypothesis of interest, which is whether CO2 changes anticipate temperature changes. Section 3 below analyzes the two data series to disentangle both directions below.”
norman…don’t know upon which basis you claim this guy as a skeptic. His only climate reference in the bibliography is Stefan Rahmstorf, an uber climate alarmist.
I don’t see where he is commenting on the current claim that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. He is taking on the record over the past 400,000 years and questioning the proxy inferences.
I communicated with Rahmstorf briefly at one time and found him to be somewhat dogmatic. When I pointed out that the IPCC had scrapped Mann’s hockey stick, he retorted that it is still there in the IPCC literature. He offered a reference and I was surprised it was still there albeit redrawn so as to be totally different than Mann’s offering. To save face, it appears the IPCC redrew the stick using their own interpretation, with error margins so great it could mean anything.
The point is, Rahmstorf did not point out the graph had been redrawn so he was being somewhat obtuse.
He was the first scientist I came across who claimed the 2nd law is not contradicted by the notion that heat can be transferred via back-radiation from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface. From him, I got my first exposure to an undefined balance of energy, which if positive, supports the alarmist theory that back-radiation can warm the surface.
Rahmstorf did not try to explain the dubious balance of energy, which turned out to be anti-science. What they have done is compare back-radiation to surface radiation and claim that since surface radiation is slightly higher, based on the Trenberth-Kiehle energy budget diagram, then the 2nd law is not contradicted.
That too is anti-science. The 2nd law indicates only a direction for heat transfer, by its own means, and specifies that heat cannot, by its own means, be transferred cold to hot. It has absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation, therefore comparing EM fluxes has nothing to do with heat transfer, or its direction.
Norman,
I’m a mathematician and chemist. I believe in logic. That’s why I don’t believe in AGW. I’ve seen AGW falsified with math and logic. Now, you, on the other hand, are a propagandist.
Which fields of mathematical theory have you contributed to?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
tim f…”For CO2, there IS a clear physics reason why it should cause warming. Scientist have spent a lot of time and effort and money (maybe too much) predicting how CO2 should impact the climate. And usually those predictions are pretty close (if a little high)”.
***
Oddly enough, Tim, neither you nor your learned scientists can provide a scientific reason for CO2 as a trace gas causing significant warming in the atmosphere. In fact, science proves the opposite.
G&T provide a calculation for heat diffusion due to a doubling of CO2. Diffusion means a warmed CO2 is diffusing heat into the 2500 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen that surround it. G&T calculated a 0.06C warming contributed by CO2 due to CO2 molecules absorbing surface radiation and diffusing that heat into the air.
The Ideal Gas Law gives an almost identical warming which is based on the molecular mass density of CO2, which is trivial compared to the nearly 99% mass density of N2/O2. The density of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.04% of the entire mass of the atmosphere. but it’s molecular mass increases that figure slightly to about 0.06%. That is the temperature increase due to CO2 calculated by G&T using an entirely different method.
So, the science makes it clear that that a trace gas like CO2 can contribute no more than an insignificant amount of heat to the atmosphere. Meantime, your learned scientists have pulled a number out of a hat, claiming that CO2 has a warming factor of 9% to 25%, depending on the amount of water vapour.
That’s partly why models run so hot, they have a totally incorrect heating factor for CO2 programmed into them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEJ4hJds_40
SpaceX is READY! How Starship will launch for the second time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQboHROM5X0
Starship Launch Pads Are Built DIFFERENTLY
And:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAByFR8LK5s
The Real Reason China Will Win The Space Race!
I watched- and didn’t see how China could win the Space Race.
Though not sure, how anyone wins the space race.
I would be happy if China could build a lunar base-
which might discourage NASA to build lunar base.
But if a Starship is parked on the lunar surface, I would be happy to call it, a lunar base. Though you could call it, a lunar hotel.
I think of the Moon as gateway to the solar system and it could be
a gateway sooner- or later. Sooner, if it has mineable water.
China’s plans of making a robotic lunar base, make me like NASA’s gateway station- and I am not generally, very fond of it.
I think NASA should explore the lunar polar regions {both South and North] and then go to Mars. Not because I am overly fond of exploring Mars, but mostly because NASA has wanted to do this for a long time.
So, NASA should look for mineable water on the Moon, and then look for mineable water on Mars.
There is lots of things to do on the Moon and lots of things to do on Mars. NASA could make bases on the Moon and could explore caves on the Moon. But I would rather NASA make bases and explore caves on Mars.
It is claimed that Mars is most habitable world, other than Earth, but is it?
It seems if you have a potentially habitable world, you should explore it.
I think Mercury could be as habitable as Mars- but Mercury is very hard to get to- though it has the shortest path to it from Earth. A hohmann is 105 days to Mercury from Earth, but it requires a massive vector change in order to orbit it or to land on it. And it doesn’t have atmosphere to use, to brake with- unlike Mars [or Venus].
Musk plans to get to Mars in 6 months which likewise uses a lot delta-v, but he plans on using the Mars atmosphere in order to brake {thereby allowing one not to need as much rocket power]. Otherwise one can get to Mars in about 7 month without needing a lot of rocket power {delta-v}.
But if you make rocket fuel in space, you can have more rocket power.
Which is the point of water on the Moon- you can make lunar water into rocket fuel.
[And also, it’s been long thought than Mercury could have a lot of water in it’s polar regions.]
So, are the Chinese going to make lunar rocket fuel- and how much will they charge for the lunar rocket fuel?
There is no sense to having base on the Moon unless one can get cheap enough, rocket fuel.
Musk seems to be not very interested in the Moon.
This kind of makes some sense. Because basically the Starship could deliver cheap Earth rocket fuel to Low Earth orbit.
And if he do this, one doesn’t really need mineable lunar water to make rocket fuel {low earth orbit is 1/2 way to anywhere. If LEO rocket fuel is cheap enough, you could then have cheaper lunar base.
So, are Chinese going to buy Musk’s rocket fuel in LEO to make lunar base more economical? And/or make cheap enough lunar rocket fuel at southern lunar polar region so as to have lunar base which makes economic sense?
Anyhow, a main reason no one is currently mining lunar water, is because they don’t know where there is mineable lunar water. And reason no one in living on Mars is because no one knows if it’s actually, a habitable planet {or which places on Mars are most or closest to being habitable}.
China’s Galactic Energy Startup Takes on SpaceX with First Sea Launch
Story by Brendan Cole 14h
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/chinas-galactic-energy-startup-takes-on-spacex-with-first-sea-launch/ar-AA1ghp68?fbclid=IwAR10CSzKz9kSPD3kU59HVyjk6rM4Jp1-oxmukL08HaH5pHO2RLNhODIlrrY
I should shorten that:
https://tinyurl.com/26u7scc2
Linked from instapudit
“Galactic Energy has carried out the first sea-based rocket launch by a private Chinese company, just two days after Elon Musk boasted that his firm SpaceX was sending far more rockets into space than China.
Chinese media touted Tuesday’s launch of the sea-borne variant of the CERES 1 carrier rocket from a modified submersible ship in the Yellow Sea, off the coast of East China’s Shandong province.
The launch meant that the CERES 1 became the third Chinese rocket model, and the first produced by a private company, able to make lift-off both on land and at sea.
Galactic Energy was founded in early 2018 by former workers of the state-owned China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT). In November 2020, it became the second private Chinese launch firm to place a satellite in orbit.
Tuesday saw Galactic Energy’s ninth consecutive successful orbital launch, which Chinese media said surpassed the country’s other private competitors.”
And link below it, on Instapudit:
Chinese scientist proposes solar system-wide resource utilization roadmap
Andrew Jones September 4, 2023
{now they are talking:–)}
“HELSINKI Chinese space scientists have outlined a tentative roadmap for establishing a space resources utilization network stretching into the outer reaches of the solar system.”
https://spacenews.com/chinese-scientist-proposes-solar-system-wide-resource-utilization-roadmap/
…
“Tiangong Kaiwu would require massive resource infrastructure including supply stations, transportation routes, mining and processing stations. It would also demand a focus on access to space, the ability to make low-cost returns to Earth, breakthroughs in key technology”
No, no, you want a return to Venus orbit.
Posting issues…please don’t change the channel.
tim f…”no matter how complex and chaotic the climate system is, there is nothing in the 2nd Law that prevents CO2 from helping warm the surface, even when the CO2 is cooler than the surface”.
***
Nothing in the 2nd law you say. How about this..heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body.
How about the entropy equation covering the 2nd law?
S = integral dq/T
When integrated, it gives the total amount of heat transferred at temperature T. T can be held constant using a constant temperature heat bath as the heat source.
There are restrictions on the equation, namely that it can only be positive or zero. It is zero for reversible processes and positive for irreversible processes. It is positive when heat is given off in an irreversible process and the law it covers, the 2nd law, tells us heat can only be transferred in a reversible process from a hotter object to a cooler environment. Otherwise, heat would be transferred into the object.
If your claim held, that heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a hotter surface, then entropy could be negative, and that is a no-no, much like its counter.part per.petual motion.
Of course, you might be claiming CO2 as a blanket but blankets don’t keep a surface warm, they simply slow the rate of cooling. They can only be claimed to keep a surface warmer than it would be without the blanket. So, let’s check your reasoning.
All that CO2 can do in the atmosphere is absorb infrared energy emitted by the surface. How is that comparable to the action of a blanket, which slows the rate of heat dissipation by trapping air molecules? Even the New Age space blankets, lined with a metallic coating trap heat mainly by conduction and convection. The IR trapped is incidental since radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures.
Therefore, CO2 is absorbing about 7% of surface radiation, and radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation, so where does the idea come from that CO2 is acting as a blanket to trap heat?
Gordo’s mind is locked into his usual incorrest physics, writing:
How many times do we need to tell you that CO2 also EMITS thermal IR radiation? Each molecule emits in a random direction, but for each layer, some goes upward and some goes downward. The rest is absorbed by other CO2 molecules within the layer. The warming due to GHGs is the result of these effects, along with the pressure broadening of the emission lines at higher pressures near the surface compared with that found higher up.
Gordo continues with his bad physics:
Perhaps Gordo has noticed by now that the temperatures near the Tropopause are much colder than over most of the Earth surface. The emissions to deep space from these higher altitudes are what cools the top of the convection cycle that moves energy from the surface to these altitudes. Ultimately, the energy from the Sun which enters the atmosphere must exit the Earth as thermal IR, as that’s the only mode of heat transport which can provide your so-called “dissipation”.
swannie…”[GR]All that CO2 can do in the atmosphere is absorb infrared energy emitted by the surface.
[swannie]How many times do we need to tell you that CO2 also EMITS thermal IR radiation?
***
I was talking about CO2 as an alleged blanket. Do try to pay attention, Swannie.
—
“[GR]The IR trapped is incidental since radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures.
[Swannie]Perhaps Gordo has noticed by now that the temperatures near the Tropopause are much colder than over most of the Earth surface. The emissions to deep space from these higher altitudes are what cools the top of the convection cycle that moves energy from the surface to these altitudes.
***
Here, I am talking about surface IT being trapped by a trace gas. I am trying to point out the obvious that the surface cools 250 times better by conduction/convection directly to the atmosphere whereas any radiation it emits is inefficient at cooling the surface.
The whole point of the exercise is based on claims that CO2 traps heat. That is, it acts like a blanket. I have claimed there is no surface heat to trap since it was dissipated when the radiation was created. In fact, most of the heat was dissipated by conduction/convection via air molecules in contact with the surface.
The colder, much thinner upper atmosphere helps dissipate surface heat before it reaches space. Ergo, there should not be a whole lot to radiate away. That’s why our planet is warmer, not due to a fictitious GHE but due to heat being dissipated within the system and radiation being too slow to dissipate the remaining heat.
Gordo’s completely wrong, as usual. For example, he wrote:
Essentially all the energy from the Sun must exit the Earth, else it’s temperature would climb without limit. Ultimately, only EM radiation can provide that pathway and the GHG’s are an essential part of that process. Above the Troposphere. there’s almost no water vapor, so CO2 and other gases do the job. Gordo insists on ignoring the entirety of these processes, demanding that only the surface transfer be considered. Gordo still can’t comprehend that there’s no “dissipation within the system”, there’s just heat transfer from one part to another as the energy flows outward to eventually exit as IR to space.
How is it possible to be so uneducated to believe that energy can ‘dissipate’?
Energy can be transformed but never can dissipate in the sense it would ‘disappear’.
Some continue to have trouble with the concept of thermal radiation. The basic concept of heat transfer (yes, heat) by thermal radiation is a very simple concept as it pertains to solid surfaces. It becomes extremely complex in the atmosphere especially when other heat transfer effects are considered. Heat energy is converted to radiant energy and radiant energy is converted to heat energy by this process. The problem is that each individual molecule has a role, so global effects become difficult to model.
I do not agree with the terms “greenhouse effect” and “heat trapping gases”, but those are terms we are stuck with. The fact is that “active” gases in the atmosphere can emit and absorb radiant energy. That is all they can do. Primary heat transfer is by the kinetic theory of gases and the zeroth law. The further complexity is the different spectra of different gases.
Nonetheless, the net effect is higher temperature at the surface and lower temperature as altitude increases. This effect works along with changes in pressure with altitude. The theory is correct and the “experiment” of observing the effect of humidity in different regions proves the theory is correct. Now the question is, in what way does CO2 contribute that?
I realize now that I need a better conclusion. CO2 does contribute to the effect from water vapor. They work in the same way except with different spectra. The question is not whether there is an effect, the question is, what is the magnitude of that effect? As if there is not enough complexity, there exist the possibility that the effect of CO2 varies with changes in humidity due to the way the two gases interact.
They used to talk about Carbonic acid.
Somewhat lately:
Unravelling the Mysteries of Carbonic Acid
By Lynn Yarris
June 16, 2015
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/06/16/unravelling-the-mysteries-of-carbonic-acid/
Would you explain what you mean by “the way the two gases interact”.
What way is this?
For once I agree with AQ, what is the meaning?
The inferred interaction would seem to be the one by which CO2 of a colder temperature radiates energy back to the Earth, warming the surface to a higher temperature than it is warmed by solar energy. That allegedly releases more water vapour which warms the atmosphere more.
Is that what you are getting at?
There is nothing to agree or disagree with.
I wasn’t making a statement. I was asking a legitimate question, on the assumption that he might know something I don’t, but also keeping in mind that he might have been overstating his understanding.
I understand that the concept of others possibly knowing more than you is a foreign one for you.
It is funny how people who do not understand leave out the word that explains what they do not understand. That word was “possibility”. For those playing along with the home game, that means I do not have a specific reference to cite.
The big talking point is that CO2 fills the gap in the spectrum for water vapor. Nonetheless, there are frequencies where the two gases both interact. The interaction between gases is part of the overall effect, so that does add an extra layer of complexity.
My point is that in the tropics where humidity commonly reaches 4% by volume (not by weight) and sometimes 5%, the amount of CO2 has much less significance than in a very dry climate where CO2 might dominate.
Any one photon is absorbed by only one molecule. So no, regarding the effect under discussion, they do not interact.
Interesting that you felt the need to refer to “people who do understand” in the same sentence where you admit to not understanding. You try to keep it civil and these comments still come out.
It seems to me that there is a distinction between people arguing an agenda, and people who are interested in the science. I stated that there was a possibility, and why that word “possibility” represented the misunderstanding that you had about my statement. You have now replied with an irrelevant comment to the question about spectra. I am interested in the science and not supporting an agenda.
My interest is only in the science. What do you believe my agenda is?
tim s…”Some continue to have trouble with the concept of thermal radiation. The basic concept of heat transfer (yes, heat) by thermal radiation is a very simple concept as it pertains to solid surfaces”.
***
It is indeed simple. Heat can never, by its own means, be transferred from colder GHGs in the atmosphere to a warmer surface, especially a surface that warmed them in the first place. Such a recycling of heat to increase the temperature of the surface would constitute perpetual motion and contradict the 2nd law.
“Such a recycling of heat to increase the temperature of the surface would constitute perpetual motion and contradict the 2nd law. ”
You are hooked on the phrase “by its own means”. It distorts your thinking.
Reducing the rate of heat loss from the planet by increasing GHGs increases the equilibrium temperature of the surface until increased radiation loss to space restores the balance. The whole process is 2LOT compliant.
Work is done at each stage in the process as energy is converted between latent heat, sensible heat and EMR. At each stage some energy is lost as waste heat. The total entropy of the Earth and the surrounding universe continues to increase. No perpetual motion necessary.
Wrong Ent. “Reducing the heat loss” is due to the insulation of N2 and O2. CO2 emits to space. Add more CO2 — more emission to space.
You’ve got it all backward. Passenger jets fly forward, NOT backward.
You’re a mess.
Atmospheric CO2 emits in all directions. Add more CO2 and it emits more in all directions, including groundward.
Here comes barry, trying to protect his cult beliefs. Did you bring your “view factors” with you barry?
More CO2 would emit more to space and to the surface. That going to space is lost. That going to the 288K surface can NOT raise the temperature.
Have you called anyone a “lying dog” today?
Gordon, you passed on this question once before. If the hot gas is not receiving anything back from the cold gas, how does it know the temperature of the cold gas? How does it know how much heat (yes, heat) to transfer?
Why do we have heat waves in North America and Europe? When the solar wind weakens, the speed of the jet stream current at high latitudes also weakens. The jet stream descends in the eastern Pacific and Atlantic, forming meanders. The curves over North America and Europe form stable highs with warm air from the south. Water vapor in these highs remains gaseous and reduces the vertical temperature gradient. The surface warms up so much that the temperature drop is not strong at night.
It is the jet stream in the tropopause that creates the major highs and lows.
https://i.ibb.co/HF6WgTh/hgt300.png
In the current solar cycle, the solar wind is rippling. A brief increase in speed is followed by a sharp decrease.
https://i.ibb.co/5v56ThP/plot-image.png
A quick aside. I talk about time a fair amount but not to go off topic. I am merely trying to emphasize the lack of precision in science even by science gods like Einstein. I am ultimately (on this blog) hoping to reveal the lack of precision in climate science of the alarmist type by comparing and contrasting it with other forms of science in which the same errors are committed.
The following link is to a Feynman lecture on time and distance. I found his talk to be fairly good but like other scientists he seems to suggest that time is an entity that can be measured. For example, he states…”What really matters anyway is not how we define time, but how we measure it”. That suggests there is such a phenomenon to measure.
He goes on…
“We can just say that we base our definition of time on the repetition of some apparently periodic event.
Fortunately, we all share one clockthe earth. For a long time the rotational period of the earth has been taken as the basic standard of time”.
It’s not just a standard, Richard, it is the definition of time itself. There is no other time anywhere in the universe.
It appears Einstein was not aware that time is simply a human definition. It has no physical existence and exists only as a mental construct in the human mind.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_05.html
Feynman essentially admits he does not know what time is other than a definition. Einstein claims time is the hands on a clock. At least Feynman knew time is based on the Earth’s rotational period, which is relatively constant and cannot change no matter how fast an object moves..
My point is this. These are two of the acknowledged greatest scientists of all time and neither can explain what time is. Yet we have a massive number of scientists convinced that time is real and can change with velocity. They are so convinced of this lie that they are willing to re-define gravity based on it.
Same with climate science. we currently have a massive number of scientists willing to lie through their teeth about global warming/climate change. Perhaps lie is too strong a word, maybe most of them are simply not smart enough to see through the deceit.
Were you lying when you claimed the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow, or were you simply not smart enough to understand the real cause?
” It appears Einstein was not aware that time is simply a human definition. It has no physical existence and exists only as a mental construct in the human mind. ”
Robertson the absolute ignoramus trying to teach the blog about time.
Amazing.
Even Swenson aka Mike Flynn understands that time is not a constant thing, but lacks the courage to contradict Robertson’s perennial imbecility.
*
Einstein is right, Robertson, especially when he calculates the deflection of light rays by huge masses.
But you are too uneducated to understand what Newton amazingly wrote about it in his treatise ‘Opticks’: you are not even educated enough to understand, let alone accept, what Newton wrote about the lunar spin.
For years, instead of showing the necessary humility, you arrogantly tried to falsify what he wrote until it fit your pathologically egocentric narrative.
What a poor guy you are, Robertson!
This is the season the Polar Vortex should be packing its bags for the trip north. But, it remains on the job.
Max wind speeds this morning are still over 250mph, and the vortex remains well organized. That tells us the HTE backed up a lot of thermal energy that needs to be evacuated. It seems the PV understands that.
The Hunga-Tonga eruption provided us with some useful information. We saw how a REAL “forcing” is easily identifiable. There’s no need for exhaustive blah-blah (inventive interpretation) like we get with the CO2 nonsense. The evidence of the HTE is clearly seen in the UAH results.
Now, it will be interesting to watch how Earth cools itself, after the HTE disruption. Science and reality always win.
Morning brain stimulation: If the HT eruption were not just a one-time event, but continued full time, what would Earth’s resulting equilibrium surface temperature be?
I propose that eating M&Ms causes back pain.
Today I have a bad back, and yesterday I did indeed eat M&Ms yesterday for the first time in a year.
Proposition proved.
That is the essence of your “argument”, except you didn’t make the proposition until after you got your back pain.
(True story BTW, except for the proposition.)
” The evidence of the HTE is clearly seen in the UAH results. ”
Show us EXACTLY what you mean.
It’s called “science”, Bindi.
People that understand the basics can examine data and figure out what is happening.
Science involves EXPLAINING. You are dealing with mere assertions. That is not science. You wouldn’t know science if it sat on your face.
I can explain it to you Ant, but I can’t understand it for you.
Maybe if you grow up and learn some basic science?
Antonio Qwerty
Agree with your correct assessment of Clint R. He is a cult programmed sap. He never supplies any evidence for his assertions. He believes nitrogen gas reflects IR but will never supply evidence. I find he is too programmed to rationally discuss science ideas.
Norman, you have so little knowledge of science you wouldn’t know evidence from soggy bread.
You reject the simple ball-on-a-string, yet you invent square orbits!
Well I certainly can’t understand what you choose not to explain.
And you can’t explain what doesn’t exist.
Surely you would want to explain just to illustrate that YOU understand, regardless of whether I understand.
Correct Ant, you can’t understand.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1530544
As your “science” by assertion continues.
And how exactly do you believe your link supports your assertion that I don’t understand?
What you don’t understand Ant, is that I no longer waste time with brain-dead cultists posing as anonymous tr0lls.
Grow up and learn some respect for both science and reality.
What you mean to say is that you don’t know how to deal with questions from people who refuse to accept your mere assertions at face value, and ignoring someone is the simplest means of avoiding those difficult questions.
What I mean to say Ant, is what I say. You’re misrepresenting my words, as usual.
That’s why I no longer choose to waste time with you and your ilk. You have NO interest in science or reality.
Grow up and learn some respect for both science and reality.
(You will get this same comment every time you tr0ll me.)
How many times will you continue to waste time replying in order to assert you don’t waste time?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1531827
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532000
As usual, Clint R has no idea how to answer a simple question other than simply dodging.
The reason: he doesn’t know how to answer the question to someone who is technically familiar with the data of the four atmospheric layers observed by UAH.
And he of course isn’t.
Bindi, you don’t even know what the Polar Vortex is. You have to look it up, but still can’t understand it. You can’t understand ANY science.
Done the simple ball-on-a-string experiment yet?
“The evidence of the HTE is clearly seen in the UAH results.”
I have the same basic question as others. In the year before the HT eruption, temperature anomalies were hovering around 0.2 C. In the year after the HT eruption, temperature anomalies were STILL hovering around 0.2 C. No signal at all.
There is a dramatic increase in the last couple months, a year and a half after the eruption. To call this ‘clear evidence’, you would need to both
1) explain why a 1.5 year delay should be expected in polar vortex changes.
2) explain how you know the recent rise is not due to El Nino (or just random fluctuations in temperature.)
Even with your history of perverting reality Folkerts, those are responsible questions. So, I will answer:
1) There was no delay. The effect on the PV was random and sporadic as the atmospheric waves moved around the planet.
2) Of course El Niño was also a player. I never said differently.
“The effect on the PV was random and sporadic as the atmospheric waves moved around the planet.”
This only muddies your claim.
* you saw ‘clear evidence’ that was ‘random and sporadic’?
* you saw evidence about the PV in UAH data that tracks temperature, not the PV or ‘atmospheric waves’.?
* the UAH data shows no clear changes after the eruption, even in stratosphere. (Although other data sets do show effects, like https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/cold-anomaly-stratosphere-polar-vortex-volcanic-cooling-winter-influence-fa/)
* The UAH data DOES show a clear change in the stratosphere following El Chichn and Pinatubo.
I don’t doubt there were changes in the PV. I don’t doubt they were important to the climate. You just have not shown the evidence.
I answered your two concerns, Folkerts. Now you’re just throwing more crap against the wall. So obviously you have no interest in learning.
Here is the reality:
1. The HT volcano occurred.
2. The PV was affected.
3. The effects are shown in UAH results.
4. The UAH effects were even predictable.
You’ve got a lot of denying to do. Better get started.
grammie pup, the NOAA STAR TLS for the Southern Hemisphere doesn’t show any warming from the HT-HH eruption. One can see a short cooling blip at the end of 2022, but it’s back to normal since.
You have nothing to prove your mindless assertions, as usual.
Child, the TLS wouldn’t show warming..
Grow up, stop imitating the worthless one, and learn some science. Or, remain an immature,,ignorant tr0ll.
Your choice.
As expected, not reply of substance from grammie clone. Just more grade school insults in his ongoing attempts to gain recognition. His anti-physics rants don’t prove anything without analysis to support them. For example, where is the data which shows his HT-HH warming before this summer?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
RSS agrees.
htlatest-ice-and-temperaturetps://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/-data.html
Do you happen to know where the actual RSS data page is? I haven’t been able to find it.
Here it is (all variants including ol’ 3.3)
https://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/
What you look for probably is
https://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v04_0.txt
Thanks for that.
Interesting that RSS does not include 70-90S or 82.5-90N?
Any idea why that is. Even if a satellite can’t cover the poles, it’s coverage should at least be symmetric.
Antonin Qwerty
De nada!
But here:
” Even if a satellite cant cover the poles, its coverage should at least be symmetric. ”
I can’t agree.
RSS’ restriction difference is 100 % correct because the two polar regions differ by a lot in surface altitude.
The higher the altitude, the lower the accuracy of the atmospheric sounding above it.
And you would wonder when having a look at UAH’s grid data for revision 5.6 (deprecated since 2015, stopped in 2017) which we still can find in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/
In that grid, the poles’ lower troposphere really was sounded from +-60 – +-90.
Revision 6.0 stops at 82.5 above both poles.
I would have thought the higher the altitude the better the reading, as the higher surface is closer to the mean altitude of the reading.
But I’m only musing out loud.
From the Mears/Wentz 2017 describing the data set:
“In the final product, data south of 70S are excluded because the high altitude of the Antarctic continent causes the TLT product to contain too much surface emission for it to be a useful representation of atmospheric temperature.”
A Satellite-Derived Lower-Tropospheric Atmospheric Temperature Dataset Using an Optimized Adjustment for Diurnal Effects
RSS masks the Himalayan Plateau, the Andes, and part of the Rockies in the TLT data set for the same reason.
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html
The higher altitude TMT and TTT data products are symmetrical 82.5S – 82.5N as per your expectation.
Several cultists have been trying to insult me over the HTE. As usual, they’re even making false accusations. Their purpose, of course, is to pervert reality. (Not to mention any names, but Ant, Norman, and Bindi might have been in the room…). The HTE is just one more nail-in-the-coffin for the bogus GHE nonsense.
Let’s see if they can find where this quote came from:
Sounds like my description of how the HTE raised temperatures, huh?
That’s why this is so much fun.
If you disappear for 60 days I will gladly solve your riddle, Pupman.
Thanks for imitating me, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.
That’s a first strike, Pupman.
Right, because all those Trump imitators are flattering Trump.
It’s always funny when people believe that stock sayings which are used as a replacement for independent thinking actually capture a universal truth.
Little Willy, Antonin, please stop trolling.
I have some questions for the scientists commenting on Dr. Spencer’s web site. We now see that the lower troposphere is in a warming phase.
Is this anything alarming? Is this something that requires us to rip out natural gas stoves from kitchens?
I know some here will consider that flippant. But the larger point is what kind of government policy should be enacted due to our warming earth?
I think Freeman Dyson had it right when he suggested money would be better spent on adaption, such as building dikes for vulnerable coastal cities.
What do y’all think?
I agree. What effect does a person have on a jetstream? None.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_sh_f00.png
I’ve always thought humans are nothing more than a pimple on a gnat’s ass concerning the earth’s climate.
I think we all know that we are in an Ice Age.
In an Ice Age, one has more temperature extremes, this is largely
due to drier air {global}. And more than 1/3 of Earth’s land area is
deserts.
I live in a desert, I like deserts. If you want global cooling, you want more deserts.
I will point out the obvious, that 15 C air temperature is a cold temperature, but in an Ice Age one can get much colder air temperature. So, also if live say closer to polar regions say 45 degree or higher, and you like more -50 C air temperatures days, that’s another factor, which could make you want global cooling.
I have argued for a long time that we should all bow down to our lucky stars on high and be grateful that we are living in this mild interglacial period. If we were living in the more “normal” glacial period, life would be much more difficult for us all, by far!
Difficult in what sense.
Our sea level would be 4 meter higher. But they would have been 4 meter higher thousands of years ago. Or as far as now, they could be dropping- and maybe only 2 meters higher.
Does dropping Sea level count as more difficult?
Russia could be growing a lot grain, and it’s people would less miserably, cold.
It could be world superpower {without it’s nukes}.
China is now, has average temperature of 8 C. Would be bad, if it was 12 C? It might not be a totalitarian govt. Lot’s of happy Chinese people. And no reason to torture North Korea. And perhaps, Tibet could be a free country.
The natural gas issue is a perfect example of incompetence. It causes more gas to be burned, not less. A typical furnace or hot water heater is about 85% efficient based on a 350 F flue gas temp. Electricity production from a natural gas burning power plant is a maximum of 43% efficient because the turbine requires high pressure steam. It is a similar issue with electric cars. They effectively burn natural gas at the power plant.
The power plant issue require more explanation. The furnace is very efficient making the high pressure and temp steam because the feed water is preheated by the flue gas. The problem comes at the turbine which only removes pressure and heat from the steam. Low pressure steam is left at the exhaust of the turbine. It can be used for low grade heat at some other location, and that is Cogeneration. The typical power plant has no use for that waste heat and actually condenses the steam at the exit of the turbine with cooling tower water to produce clean boiler feed water from the steam. The condensation actually creates a partial vacuum in the turbine exhaust and increases the turbine efficiency.
Without actually studying the issue, it just seemed intuitively obvious to me that a natural gas stove is more energy efficient than an electric stove. The nat gas burn energy goes directly into the pot or pan. A turbine is an indirect way of transferring energy to your stove pan.
It’s also the cheapest way to sniff methane.
Kids love it!
Actually, the stove is even more efficient if the flame directly contacts the pan. The other interesting fact is that radiant heat from the products of combustion is the primary mode of heat transfer other than the direct flame impingement. Try blowing a heat gun on a pan to boil water. Hot gas heat transfer is very poor. Steam condensation and radiant heat are much more effective in the gas phase.
Natural gas is cheapest to make electrical power, and we are so dumb we make electrical from solar panels and wind mills and burn wood to generate electrical power {claiming it reduces CO2 emission when it doesn’t].
Anyway there is energy loss converting the power from natural gas to electrical power and it’s cheap to pipe natural gas to places which can use a gas stove. And politicians are still working on taxing natural gas more- some have been quite successful.
Solar wind
speed: 433.4 km/sec
density: 6.58 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 121
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 143 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.18×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
“Sunspot AR3421 is crackling with M-class solar flares. ”
It’s grown quite a bit.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The latest contrarian crowd pleaser from Soon et al (2023) is just the latest repetition of the old it was the sun wot done it trope[1] that Willie Soon and his colleagues have been pushing for decades. There is literally nothing new under the sun.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/as-soon-as-possible/
dup…
wee willy…please refrain from posting climate hysteria from realclimate. As uber-climate alarmists they have always hated Willie Soon, who knows what he is talking about.
Willie has a vast amount of experience in astrophysics, and in case that goes over someone’s head, the Sun is a star and astrophysics is basely a study of stars. There is really nothing much else out there to study.
Realclimate on the other hand is run by Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician, and Michael Mann, a geologist. One of their luminaries, William Connolley is a computer programmer. His claim to fame was being an editor on Wikipedia and ensuring that skep.tics were shown the door.
C’mon, Bordo.
Our Stoatness isn’t part of Gavin’s since a decade or so.
You’ll have to work a little more for your riffin’ of talking points.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The Grand Solar Fizzle chart updated
https://i.postimg.cc/6q8LRcBr/184-n.jpg
Now stick Zharkova’s prediction on the graph.
When I look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_25#Predictions
I think we shouldn’t blame Zharkova for that and leave her out alone in the cold rain.
Conversely, we are still far for any proof that McIntosh/Leamon and UCAR had it right:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2023.1050523/full
Ooops, text crunching:
” Conversely, we are still far for… ”
should read
” Conversely, we are still far away from… “
–https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_25#Predictions
I think we shouldnt blame Zharkova for that and leave her out alone in the cold rain.–
“Widely varying predictions regarding the strength of cycle 25 ranged from very weak with suggestions of slow slide in to a Maunder minimum like state to a weak cycle similar to previous cycle 24[7] and even a strong cycle. Upton and Hathaway predicted that the weakness of cycle 25 would make it part of the Modern Gleissberg Minimum.”
All are predicting weak 25 max. Only Zharkova is predicting 26.
25 by itself is not Grand Min- you have include 26 to call it a grand Min.
We should definitely blame Zharkova for including only the previous four cycles in making her analysis. Why four? Why only cycles that define the downward trend? Base a prediction solely on a downward trend and, surprise surprise, you get a continuation of the downward trend.
Antonin Qwerty
I agree!
I was considering only the maxima.
Anyway, if I understand McIntosh/Leamon correctly, we can learn that cycle predictions based on even many single cycles aren’t worth the paper they were written on – unless the 22 year Hale cycles are considered in addition.
Until there is a proper scientific understanding of solar cycles and their causes, I believe any prediction which happens to be close is just a fluke. At least most predictors concede that though with massive tolerances in their predictions … except Zharkova.
Goes sideways a couple months, then it drops.
Solar wind
speed: 424.6 km/sec
density: 5.28 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 121
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 143 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.18×10^10 W Warm
Updated 05 Sep 2023
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
“Sunspot AR3421 is crackling with M-class solar flares.”
“FARSIDE SOLAR ACTIVITY: Two spectacular CMEs billowed away from the farside of the sun on Sept. 5th: movie. The source was farside sunspot AR3413, which has become hyperactive only days after turning away from Earth.”
Solar wind
speed: 359.0 km/sec
density: 3.34 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 131
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 147 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.07×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.2% Low
“Sunspots AR3421 and AR3422 pose a threat for Earth-directed”
Both of these have grown quite a bit. But they are weird looking,
I will call it, shotgun spots. See what happens.
Some data about the 2023 fires in Canada
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DWKEJlWlfk-vVx2qV0DLvY_pnDx0uurW/view
Source of fire data
https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/report/graphs#gr1
-> Data burned by province
test
The 3.6 year enso cycle strikes again! Look at the timing its perfect. Sorry my fellow believers of the cycle, this is not part of volcanic warming. Thats nonsense. Volcanos cool, if anything. This is a normal 1/3rd harmonic wave of the 11 year solar cycle. The solar cycle works its magic thru enso with 42, 11, 3.6, 2.2 cycles. On the other hand, Until the AMO drops (about 60yr cycle), we are going to continue to wait for the real long term cooling to begin. This summer seemed a lot like 1960 here in Michigan which had 0 91 deg days. We had 0 days above 90 this year. Only 2 days reaching 90. We are currently adding to the longest stretch ever without a 91 deg day at metro airport with a real chance to add hundreds of days to the record. Note 1960 was a peak AMO year after which there was 14 years of cooling. Or has the changes in the magnetic field disrupted the cycle? Is there a link to the ozone hole opening up again as it did before the last spell of serious cooling? If the Beaufort gyre doesnt start discharging soon thats my guess on the why. (Magnetic field changes)
scott r…”This summer seemed a lot like 1960 here in Michigan which had 0 91 deg days”.
***
That’s what I have been trying to tell anyone who will listen. We have experienced this heat in the recent past and I don’t imagine we will never experience it again. The difference today is that people are freaking over it rather than simply coping.
No, the difference is that those days are coming much more frequently.
AND the temperature at a particular location at a particular moment in time is hardly the primary issue. The main issue is how the warming is affecting global circulation patterns and other systems which were previously in long-term equilibrium, and shifting them towards new equilibrium states with undesirable consequences.
For example the gradual encroachment of sea water into the water table of the agricultural land of the Ganges Delta, which will likely eventually result in large-scale migration.
More frequently not a chance. We were getting far more heat waves 80 years ago, and even recently how is it that since 1988 we have not had summer warming? And why are we setting cold side records like over year without reaching 91? If the cold was caused by volatility, these cold side records that take a year to set would not be possible.
Who is “we”? Are you another Yank who believes your 2% of the globe is the whole world?
“World” Series anyone?
Antonin Qwerty
” Who is ‘we’? Are you another Yank who believes your 2% of the globe is the whole world? ”
‘What is good for Uncle Sam is good for you’ is really the major problem in such discussions.
*
” ‘World’ Series anyone? ”
I think that Continental Europe (from Portugal till Finland and Western Russia, and from Ireland till Ukraine and Greece) might be a better choice when compared to Northern CONUS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1POGZQ7ZJ6di9OWov6aTk-wbm4_LXOMIq/view
I’ll write a bit more tomorrow (~ UTC 10) at thread’s end.
Scott R, a typical volcano provides cooling. That is well accepted. But the Hunga-Tonga was NOT your grandmother’s volcano. It was completely underwater, and its blast threw enormous amounts of water and water vapor even into the stratosphere. All of that caused a disruption to the Polar Vortex, which resulted in reducing Earth’s cooling. I was somewhat able to predict UAH monthly values just by watching the performance of the PV.
tim s…” Hot gas heat transfer is very poor. Steam condensation and radiant heat are much more effective in the gas phase”.
***
Then I guess we’d better stop using acetylene torches to weld metal and use heat guns. Duh???
Your statement is exactly the opposite of reality. Recently we had a discussion on Shula’s Pirani gauge, which prove without a doubt that heat transfer via conduction and convection in gases is 260 times more efficient than by radiation alone.
Your statement is about the same as a famous Governor claiming that propane burns hotter than kerosene (jet fuel). The propane torch achieves its high temperature by concentrating the flame size and shape with a premix of the fuel with air. A blow torch using kerosene can achieve the same effect by pressurizing the fuel source. In both cases, the maximum heat requires direct contact with the flame.
You obviously have no experience or knowledge of acetylene welding. The high flame temperature is achieved by using pure oxygen to reduce the amount of nitrogen, that would dilute the combustion gases and reduce the flame temperature. The welder must adjust the oxygen to achieve the optimal flame shape.
Wait a minute, did someone say combustion gases? Yes, those are present as well to provide radiant heating, but the most intense heat once again is by direct impingement with the flame, so the combustion reaction occurs directly on the surface being heated.
This is fundamental information. Anyone with any knowledge of furnaces or other combustion processes knows that direct flame impingement can overheat and damage the tubes or other heat transfer surfaces. Once again, I am more than happy to provide the necessary educational knowledge. How you use it is up to you.
Happy posting!
I have seen some red-herring arguments in my day but you seem to excel at them.
You are arguing essentially that the flame from an acetylene torch is not hot. Doesn’t matter how you try to talk around it, your initial claim was that a combustible gas is not as hot as a radiation source.
You have focused on acetylene as a gas and tried to make it look as if it is not hot when ignited. You have claimed it needs oxygen and needs to be focused. The point is, the combined gases are still a combustible gas, and can reach very high temperatures that the radiation from an equivalent source could never reach.
If you have ever worked with an acetyilene torch, you’d know that you turn on the acetylene first and spark it, which produces a dull yellowish flame with soot emanating from it, then you crank on the oxygen till you get the desired blue flame with the smaller, inner bluer flame. You are not focusing anything, the tip is fixed, and the cutting/melting edge of the inner blue flame is produced by the oxygen/acetylene mix. You adjust the flame by varying the amount of acetylene and oxygen.
Ergo, gases transfer heat much better than pure radiation. The gas transfers heat to the working surface and I’d like to see you find a radiation source that comes close for heating effect.
The temperature of the Sun varies from about 15 million C at its core to about 5000 C at the surface. We can only guestimate the surface heat by measuring radiation as a colour temperature. However, the heat transfer in the Sun, which is a super-heated gas, is far hotter than the surface atmosphere, which is largely radiation.
Try harder! You have not convinced anyone, and you are not being very amusing either. Flame impingement is needed to melt steel and weld with a torch. Try boiling water with a heat gun. Report back with your results. 🙂
Just noting that I am having trouble posting right now, in case anyone is experiencing the same. Posts are simply disappearing.
Aside from your very few blind, gullible followers, no one will blame this blog for making your self-centered nonsense ‘simply disappear’.
The following is a novel approach to measuring the increase in atmospheric temperature due to CO2 and earth IR radiance. It covers a time span of 62 years (1959 to 2020) the start year of Mauna Loa Observatory measurements.
The approach uses accepted measurements and standard formulae.
The approach employs:
-A graph representing a satellite measurement of earth IR radiance taken by Mars Surveyor in Nov 1996.(Google: Xylene power ltd mars surveyor earth radiance graph)
-The average earth Irradiance is taken as 230 watts per square meter.
-The earths average atmospheric pressure of 14.29 psi (weighted average of 14.7 psi at sea level and 13.29 psi at average land elevation of 2755 feet)
-Transfer of energy from CO2 to O2, N2, and Ar based on weighted molecular weights. (0.000605)
-Determining by year the watt hours transferred (24 hours per dayX356 days per year)
-Converting to BTUs (watt hours X 3.4126)
-As the energy transfer from CO2 is continuous the temperature change is the sum of each year from 1959 through 2020
PROCESS:
-From the earth radiance graph the area of the CO2 V notch is compared to the total area under the graph. It is 9.6%.
-The watts absorbed per square meter = 230X.o96 or 22.1 watts
-The energy transfer to O2, N2, and Ar = 22.1X.000605 or 0.01337 watts.
-Annual watt hours = 0.01337X24X365 =117.13 watt hours.
-Watt hours converted to BTUs = 117.13X3.428 or 399.73 BTUs.
-Using 1996 as a reference year the watts transferred from CO2 for all other years is a ratio to the annual Mauna Loa reported CO2 levels. (1959 315.98ppm 2020 414.24ppm)
-The annual BTUs were calculated for all years and summed to 24,737.8 BTUs.
-The weight of one square meter of atmosphere =14.29X1550 or 22,149.5 lbs per square meter.
-The temperature added to the atmosphere over 62 years = 24,737.8 BTUX0.24/22,149.5 lbs
Or 0.263 deg F
Or 0.146 deg C
CONCLUSION
The amount of temperature added to the global temperature rise cannot be greater than the UAH measurement of 0.13 deg C per decade.
The 62 year measurement of 0.146 degree C or 0.024 degree C per decade is well within reason and supported by the above calculations.
Questionis there any way a contribution from CO2 of 0.024 degrees C per decade,
influence climate change in any way?
Hurricane Jova is major hurricane, Cat 4, and forecasted to remain Cat 4 until Friday morning, and then weaken a lot and quickly- be tropical storm by Saturday.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/hurricane-jova-intensifies-to-category-4-in-pacific/
https://www.vvdailypress.com/story/weather/hurricane/2023/09/07/many-eyes-on-hurricane-jova-brewing-off-baja-california/70783234007/
–Jova was a tropical storm on Tuesday, however, it underwent a remarkable rapid intensification due in part to warm sea-surface temperatures, the NWS said.
Hurricane Jova appears to have tied 2015s Hurricane Patricia in being an eastern Pacific hurricane that was the fastest to go from Category 1 to 5 intensity, doing so in 18 hours, the weather service reported.–
It seems weaker now. and forecasted to be weaker, sooner- on before Saturday 5 pm.
Atlantic has Lee threatening islands, but nothing going US mainland.
In terms landfall it’s normal or weak season so far. Though there was some panic in California and Florida. California having excuse of rarely getting close to a Hurricane.
Still a big loop of jet stream over central Europe with warm air from the south.
https://i.ibb.co/0Fgnk9L/hgt300.webp
I woke up this morning thinking about the Faustian bargain.
You remember. The industrial expansion after WW2 reduced surface insolation by increasing albedo. This masked the increased warming effect of CO2 and paused the rise in temperature.
In the 1970s serious attempts were made to reduce air pollution, albedo decreased and warming resumed.
Has anyone got recent albedo data? Has there been a recent reduction which might explain the jump in temperatures?
There’s a time series here:
https://albedo.physics.helsinki.fi/
Using methods from this paper:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsen.2022.790723/full
Thank you. Low, but not unusual for this time of year.
Scratch low albedo as the proximal cause of the unusual temperatures.
So it would seem.
I posted some thoughts here about a potential HTE connection, but this isn’t something I’ve seen yet from anyone plausibly qualified to evaluate the hypothesis.
Thanks for linking to your comment, Mark B. I had missed it.
In any discussion about the HTE, you can safely ignore both cooling and radiative warming from water vapor. The warming was due to the disruption of the Polar Vortex. The PV has been healthy now for weeks, so I believe the HTE may be over. We’ll see….
The polar vortex always weakens in the NH summer. Nothing to see there. But funny how many deniers are claiming that a weakening of the polar vortex will lead to a new ice age (the new invention now there is no Maunder-like minimum). I suppose its effect is whatever you want it to be.
mark…I would expect nothing else from Dessler, an alarmist hack who would be confused by a real science event.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/
Thank you.
The article claims the atmosphere is trapping heat, an old-wives tale, dating back to 1850.
What heat is being trapped?
What heat? The measure of the avg. constituent KE in the near surface global atm. has been ~33K higher ever since 1850 than without the earthen GHE. That would indicate so is the measure of the total constituent KE in the near surface global atm. higher than without the earthen GHE.
It’s funny how often ‘skeptics’ insult Dr Spencer in the various ways they deride the GHE. So now Roy is a purveyor of old wives tales about atmospheric heating….
Says an electrics guy to an atmospheric scientist.
Ball4, barry, please stop trolling.
The July (+0.64 deg. C) and August (+0.69 deg. C) departures have increased the entire TLT slope to +0.14 C/decade.
Exegesis:
This is simply the reason that global temperatures lag CO2 concentrations by about 30 years.
You really don’t need to be so extravagantly verbose in stating such a simple fact. The theatre is thataway.
“…global temperatures lag CO2 concentrations by about 30 years.”
References?
Preferably peer reviewed.
Look at Hanson’s paper, Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study. Section 2.3. It has a timescale longer than 30 years.
I just wasted 20 minuted looking up something you were perfectly capable of googling yourself. And who knows why I was looking it up given that it is EXACTLY the situation you described. Except that you seem to believe it is all being stored away to be released later in one big bang, instead of it simply being an ongoing lagged response.
The assertion that global temperatures lag carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations by a specific and fixed amount of 30 years is not supported by the consensus within the field of climate science.
The relationship between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures is more intricate. Variable Lag Time, Feedback Mechanisms, Time Scales, and Proxy Data are just a few of the key points to consider.
I just wasted 2 minutes typing this reply to your comment.
Did you not see “ABOUT”?
The actual figure was not the main point.
The main point which you have ignored is that everything you say is laced with overstated theatrics.
“The main point which you have ignored is that everything you say is laced with overstated theatrics.”
No, I am perfectly aware that your problem is not with the message but rather, the messenger.
I can’t help it if you find my rhetorical style objectionable. That, as I see it, is your problem not mine.
P.s.: Now, go f&%k yourself.
Wow – talks like a denier. That language only lowers your standing here while having no effect on me.
Wow, you continue to spam my post!
What part of go f&%k yourself, did you not understand?
If I am “spamming” your post then you are spamming Dr Spencer’s blog.
Heads up – using that language on me GUARANTEES that I will continue to reply. Bullies can’t be permitted to win.
“Bullies cant be permitted to win.”
Once again:
I can’t help it if you find my rhetorical style objectionable. That, as I see it, is your problem not mine.
Now, go f&%k yourself.
And now apparently you believe writing in bold makes your statement stronger.
You also apparently believe that comment is an example of “rhetorical style”.
Although there is a wide range on this value the consilience of evidence suggests that the e-fold time of the Earth energy imbalance (EEI) is about 30 years give or take. Recently though Hansen et al. 2022 – Global Warming in the Pipeline argue that it could be as high 100 years. The slower the response the more warming is expected to occur.
BTW…Considering that the EEI is still increasing suggests that higher e-fold times are a real possibility.
bdgwx, you should know that the “EEI” is bogus. They’ve cobbled together a bunch of estimates, assumptions, guesses and pure nonsense, to support their imagination.
They don’t even have the basic physics correct!
Lag is one of the things you can check for yourself.
Print out a graph of your preferred global annual surface temperature dataset since 1880.This is GISTEMP.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:2024/every
Find your preferred data on CO2 concentration since 1880.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/met-office-atmospheric-co2-now-hitting-50-higher-than-pre-industrial-levels/
To calculate the equilibrium forcing due to a change in CO2 concentration use the CO2 forcing formula ∆f=5.35ln(C/Co)
∆f is the forcing due to increased CO2 in W/m^2
Co is the initial CO2 concentration 278ppm.
C is the CO2 concentration at your chosen date.
To convert this to temperature change multiply by climate sensitivity, 3.0(?)and divide by the warming effect 3.8W/m^2/C
The formula becomes ∆T=5.35ln(C/Co)3/3.8
Plot the temperatures onto the temperature graph. Use 1880 and anomaly -0.2C as your origin.
The horizontal distance between the two curves with reference to the 2023 GISTEMP is the current lag.
The 2022 global annual anomaly for GISS was 0.89
This is equivalent to a temperature change of 1.09C since 1880.
The CO2 concentration which give ∆T=1.09 is 370ppm, which was reached in the late 1990s.
That puts the lag at about 25 years.
Just the usual cult nonsense from Ent.
That nonsense equation (“forcing formula”)has no connection to REAL science. It has no derivation from the laws of physics. It was conjured up by Arrhenius, based on his belief that CO2 could “heat the planet”.
Ent knows his cult nonsense well. He can also make up more nonsense, if needed. He uses his belief that passenger jets fly backward to support the cult’s mistake that Moon spins. Poor Norman follows behind with his “square orbits”.
That’s why this is. so much fun.
However, we know from data that CO2 lags temperature, not the other.
Stephen Anderson
The data tells us that CO2 sometimes lags temperature and sometimes temperature lags CO2.
At present temperature is lagging CO2. Different workers estimate different lags.
As you see, my own back-of-the-envelope estimate is that temperature currently lags CO2 by about 25 years.
@EntropicMan, that formula I take it is based on pure CO2 in a dry atmosphere at s a level. The atmosphere is a bit more complicated with clouds, pressure, turbulence and sadly pollution.
How would you take into account the real world?
Like many such relationships you can derive it from first principles.
https://www.worldstormcentral.co/globalwarmingeqn/globalwarmingeqn.html
Anyone clicking on Ent’s scam site better have updated virus protection.
Even if you do, you will find NO derivation of the bogus equation.
ark…does your TLT included the 18 years of flat trend between 1998 and 2015 and the flat trend from 2016 to present?
I mean, that must be some slope when half of it is flat and the beginning 1/3rds is a recovery from cooling.
Read paragraph 2 of Dr. Spencer’s headline post.
Robertson
” … and the beginning 1/3rds is a recovery from cooling. ”
You are such an opinionated alzheimered ignoramus.
I explained so many times to you that your ‘recovery from cooling’ has only to do with the baseline calculated out of the current reference period (1991-2020).
Using e.g. UAH’s first reference period (1979-1998) of course leads to a completely different baseline, and hence to a completely different ‘recovery from cooling’.
I posted a graph showing this difference years ago.
Why do you keep so uneducated, Robertson?
Wrong again, Mr. Klown….the recovery trend is still there in 2010 based on a baseline of 1979 – 1998.
Note how 2010 spiked at 0.72C, hotter than today.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100208131826/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-72-deg-c/
What’s a baseline, Bordo?
Once more, the typical Robertson nonsense:
” ark… does your TLT included the 18 years of flat trend between 1998 and 2015 and the flat trend from 2016 to present?
I mean, that must be some slope when half of it is flat and the beginning 1/3rds is a recovery from cooling. ”
*
I tried to explain to Robertson that his ‘recovery from cooling’ is an arbitrary illusion due to the reference period chosen, but he is so opinionated that it didn’t help.
Is it so difficult to understand?
Here are three representations of UAH’s LT Globe data in anomaly form, based on three different 20-year long reference periods:
– 1979-1998
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rn5BXUqcoXWEz7kVFmh35cIEILZnEaO9/view
– 1989-2008
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y0ehopus1OSImNHsTXV7pEr4zja3wYqR/view
– 1999-2018
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sLvoNtuCoe-61-12QFhMXEXHn25pu4Em/view
Robertson always tries to discredit the charts above as ‘unsupported’ or even ‘faked’, though being himself absolutely unable to produce a graph out of simplest UAH anomaly series!
*
Most delicious is, in his reply
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/#comment-1532453
the wonderful statement about Roy Spencer LT anomaly report in 2010:
” Note how 2010 spiked at 0.72C, hotter than today. ”
When you read such nonsense, you understand that Robertson still did not grasp the relation between reference periods, their baselines and the anomalies generated with respect to these out of absolute data.
*
And you understand even better that such a person never can have been an engineer, and that he constructed his engineering vita a posteriori from scratch.
Not one of my former engineer colleagues would lack understanding of such simple technical details like explained above.
And finally, anyone who believes the nonsense this ignorant and unteachable guy endlessly posts about COVID, Einstein, time, GPS, the rotation of the moon, etc. etc. etc. deserves it all because it’s all along the same lines as what he posts about UAH data which lacks any technical evidence.
Oh… wrong place for the stuff above.
Arkady Ivanovich
” The July (+0.64 deg. C) and August (+0.69 deg. C) departures have increased the entire TLT slope to +0.14 C/decade. ”
Sometimes I agree to what you write, but… this above is, so to speak, the inverse of Robertson’s anti-alarmism, and is sheer nonsense.
The reason for this increase from 0.13 to 0.14 C/decade occurred several times in the recent past and is due to the fact that the UAH team apparently refuses to publish its trend data with more than these laughable two decimal places.
No one – you hopefully included – would write one line about that if the trends were displayed with three digits after the decimal point:
2023 8 0.136
2023 7 0.135
2023 6 0.134
2023 5 0.134
2023 4 0.133
2023 3 0.134
2023 2 0.134
2023 1 0.134
That’s just plain silly.
Not forgetting it was up to 0.138 in late 2020.
And it has been all over the place in the past. Ten years ago it was 0.11, but 20 years ago it was 0.15.
Correct, but that was output generated by a completely different revision.
Gordon Robertson
You might find this of interest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66654108
ent…I am surprised that anyone finds brown lawns unusual in the Vancouver area. When I was a kid, my dad would let the lawn go brown every summer, reasoning it would rebound in the autumn when rain returned. As a kid, I remember the grass on local parks turning brown and going through July and August without a drop of rain.
Of course, we have many more people living in the area since then and water consumption has sky-rocketed due to things that were not common place when I was a kid, like multiple showers in every home, swimming pools, car washes, etc.
As the article points out, since June, we have been under water restrictions. We were only allowed to water a lawn once a week on a prescribed day depending on your address being odd or even. On August 6th, all lawn watering was prohibited, even once a week. We are allowed to hand water plants and flowers.
BTW…we have three watersheds in local mountain from which we draw water. A pet peeve of mine are the people who manage them. Year after year they fail to predict correctly the amount of water we’ll need and prevent the reservoirs from filling to capacity in the off-season.
The amount of heat in the tropical Pacific is clearly declining.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202309.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202309.gif
You really are desperate to get your La Nina back, aren’t you.
declining?
Not really.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
From the same source … Pacific equatorial surface temperatures have been high and are predicted to remain high months into the future.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#overview-section=Sea-surface
Much as that is probably true, the BOM’s forecast has been consistently high compared to outcomes. Not saying their forecast can’t ultimately turn out to be correct, but they are certainly an outlier. It’s probably safer to look at the mean of the 7 climate models at the end of the page (looking ahead to Dec/Jan).
There is growing evidence that Palmowski does not even understand the exact signification of the Tropical Pacific ocean analysis pictures he repeatedly posts.
“Ice cubes dont boil water.”
Clint famously repeats this claim. Let me present a simple (conceptually) situation where ‘ice cubes boil water’. Then at least people will have a starting point to assess the claim.
A container of water is put into orbit around the sun, far from any planet or other large object. The orbit is designed so that the water will be 99 C — almost but not quite boiling. At 99 C, the absorbed radiation from the sun balances the emitted radiation from the container.
Now construct a shell of ‘ice cubes’ at 0 C some distance from the container. Leave an opening so sunlight still gets in. This changes the radiation balance. Some might say the ice provides radiation to the container; some might say the container radiates less effectively now. The description doesn’t matter — the change in radiation balance matters. With the container inside the 0 C surroundings (as opposed to -270 C surroundings), the sunlight will be sufficient to boil the water.
It is clear that the addition of the ice cubes led to the water boiling. The radiation from the ice cubes, in conjunction with the radiation from the sun, caused the water to boil.
Granted, the sun is needed. You can’t get rid of the sun and use ONLY radiation from ice to boil water. But no one ever claimed such a thing. No one claims you can focus/add/combine radiation ONLY from ice to boil water.
In simpler terms:
https://youtu.be/i0Frx_bPsT8?feature=shared
Tim could have added container of water at 1bar.
tim…maybe one day you will move out of your mental fantasy world of thought experiments and supply us with actual evidence that ice cubes can boil water on our planet.
Funny you say that right after I did, Bordo.
C’mon, watch the video.
A “demonstration of vapor pressure” does not add insight to the physical means by which the earthen GHE works Willard.
The problem is wee willy that the entire discussion on this blog has been about climate conditions in our native world and not about laboratory tricks in which pressure is manipulated to make water bubble.
Boiling water is a reference to water being heated to 100C at standard pressure. We know that climbers on Everest can get water to bubble at 1/3rd the pressure of sea level but they all complain about it being lukewarm.
Boiling hot should be restricted to water heated to 100C because otherwise the word boiling makes no sense. Would you call boiling water something you could pour on your skin without it scalding you?
C’mon, Bordo.
Your problem is that you got NOTHING.
Dr. Spencer already did that with our own atm., surface water in Alabama, and icy cirrus arriving in view of that water at night.
Proper, replicable experiments such as Dr. Spencer’s are the gold standard Gordon. They proved added radiation from ice can raise the temperature of 1bar surface water as Tim properly theorizes. So Clint R has been proven wrong by real, documented experiments for many years – added ice cubes can boil water as Tim comments.
I like to point out that the cult believes ice cubes can boil water. I get falsely accused of not telling the truth. One of the dedicated cultists even called me a “lying dog”.
So thanks Folkerts, for promoting the false idea that ice cubes can boil water. You can use tricks, but ice cubes, WITH NO TRICKS, can not boil water. Of course most brain-dead cult idi0ts will not understand the tricks. The cult will continue to believe that ice cubes can boil water because that supports their beliefs that the sky can heat the surface.
I always happy to be proven right, again.
Happy Clint R you have been long proven wrong by Dr. Spencer’s proper, replicable experiments and also proven wrong by the 2LOT. You can’t possibly win against those dogs or even Tim’s proper comment 10:01 am.
But pls keep trying Clint R, it is great entertainment reading Clint’s latest physics gaffes.
b4…the 2nd law backs Clint’s claim that ice cubes can’t boil water. It is somewhat ironic that someone who does not understand the 2nd law would argue against Clint’s good logic.
Gordon, no it doesn’t, since in reality 2LOT supports ice cubes can boil water as that process increases universe entropy with dQ/T being positive in the process & real experiments right on this blog demonstrate that. Try to study thermodynamics a little deeper Gordon: dQ/T must be positive for all real processes.
Added ice cubes can boil water as Tim describes since in Tim’s process dQ/T is positive.
b4…”in reality 2LOT supports ice cubes can boil water as that process increases universe entropy with dQ/T being positive in the process…”
***
Clausius stated the 2nd law and entropy as…
1)Heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body.
2)entropy is the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat at temperature,T. He quantified that as S = integral dq/T.
How can you pervert those two clear statements into your claims about ice cubes boiling water? To increase universal entropy you need to increase the heat in the universe, all at a constant temperature.
Rather than advising me to study thermodynamics, perhaps you could study basic science so you’ll have an inkling of what I am trying to convey to you from Clausius. The claim that ice cubes can warm a hotter substance goes against all energy transfer in science.
Expecting ice cubes to warm water, especially to the boiling point, is like expecting a river in a lake to flow uphill, or a boulder to raise itself onto a cliff.
Gordon, YOU, an obvious unaccomplished rookie in thermodynamics incorrectly wrote 6:22 pm, not Clausius.
Clausius wrote to the effect of 1) a measure of the total constituent KE in a body can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. That does NOT prevent added ice from raising the temperature of water when a measure of the total constituent KE in the water INCREASES as Dr. Spencer showed you experimentally years ago.
It is just no use for Gordon to continue denying the results of those experiments, Gordon’s time would be better spent studying & learning their details.
and, 2) entropy of the universe must increase in any real process.
Tim’s added ice cubes make dQ/T positive thus the process described by Tim is in accord with 2LOT raising universe entropy.
Here entropy eqn. as Clausius defined is the sum of infinitesimal quantities of energy transferred by virtue of a temperature difference changing object temperature T(t) over a certain time thus increasing a measure of the total constituent KE in a body.
EMR is NOT heat!
Fascinating.
Clint says: “So thanks Folkerts, for promoting the false idea that ice cubes can boil water. You can use tricks, but ice cubes, WITH NO TRICKS, can not boil water. ”
When in fact I had just said: “You cant get rid of the sun and use ONLY radiation from ice to boil water. But no one ever claimed such a thing. No one claims you can focus/add/combine radiation ONLY from ice to boil water.”
Clint is claiming exactly the same thing I just did, except he thinks he is disagreeing with me. Ice cubes (T=0C) alone ‘with no tricks’ cannot boil water (T=100C). Yep. Radiation from surroundings with temperature T(cold).
So now that we agree, how about ice cubes + sunlight (or ice cubes + an electric heater)? Does the temperature of the surroundings matter? Will a heated object in a 0 C room reach a different, warmer temperature than an identical heated object in a -270 C room? Is this true even when the rooms are evacuated?
If guy like Folkerts and Ball4 could stop their stoopid ice cube stories… that would be a great enhancement.
Such irrelevant stuff persistently leads to not only an intentional misrepresentation of what they write – that’s their private problem.
It leads also to discrediting and denigrating of the whole discussion by the Pseudo-Skepticals, what is NOT their private problem.
But it seems that this situation isn’t about to change as long as Folkerts and Ball4 will continue on their egomaniacal ice cube line, what makes people like Clint R, Robertson and others very happy.
Thanks a lot, guys.
Bindidon, understanding the basic physics of added ice cube radiation discussion is important to accomplish in atm. science as has same thermal effect on surface water as added high icy cirrus cloud at night. Dr. Spencer even made the effort to document this effect experimentally.
Ball4 continues to misrepresent Dr. Spencer, in an effort to promote his own nonsense. Spencer has NEVER said that ice cubes can boil water. Ball4, like Folkerts, has no credibility so has to try to hide behind Spencer.
Ball4
Not very unsurprisingly, you are too opinionated to understand even a bit of what I wrote.
The reason is simple: you do not really appear as a contradictor of people like Clint R, Robertson and a few others.
You rather behave as their pendant at right-angles, what is completely different.
Hi Roy,
I wrote you an email a couple of weeks ago with some questions, but it bounced, I used the email address provided on your site.
I have been analyzing the Data files exported from the Climate Change Institute Re-Analyzer Web-Site
I am extremely skeptical about the accuracy and the purpose and presentation of that NOAA data.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
In analyzing some of that NOAA Data, I am beginning to see things that from my limited perspective (Data) does not add up.
In analyzing the NOAA data from 1979 (the First year the Data is available) I stumbled onto something that I would rate as a Red Flag. To use the preferred NOAA terminology, I discovered an Anomaly between the Reported World Temperature and the Average of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres Temperatures.
I am not a Scientist, but I worked for 25 Years in Data management. So, I have crunched a lot of data in my time, and passed a lot of BPA and Postal Audits where they rip your data apart, to see if it all adds up to what you claim, like Magazine Circulation numbers, which determines what you can charge for Advertising. I think that Climate Change Institute, should be Audited in the same fashion, to see if what they claim stands up to Scrutiny.
I would like to send you that email which has graphs to illustrate what I am talking about and would like to get some Expert opinion on.
Can you provide ma an alternate email address?
Also, on the Temp data (UAH) that you do provide, does the Satellite Data not cover the Antarctic Area?
Thanks,
Frits Buningh
Columbia, MD
(1) The University of Maine is not NOAA.
(2) I have previously entered all the data from Climate Reanalyzer. There is NO discrepancy between global temps and the average of NH and SH temps. They are the same for every day since 1979, to within the plus/minus 0.01 you get from rounding.
(3) I note that you have stopped short of suggesting that the UAH data get audited. Why is that?
I think people are underestimating the power of the Beaufort gyre. Its like a coiled spring right now ready to go at any time. There is no stopping it. The longer it goes the tighter the spring will get and the more epic the temperature will crash when it does. In the mean time we just will continue to enjoy the normal short term cycles and argue with each other as they hit peaks and troughs. We are only talking about a fraction of a degree here on a global scale right now. No need to panic. On the other hand, locally, temps could plunge by 7-8 deg F if the gyre discharges. Thats the real danger. Not global warming due to a fraction of a fraction of a trace gas thats for sure.
scott…there are two major currents in the Arctic Ocean, the Beaufort gyre and the transpolar drift. The latter is responsible for dumping Arctic ice into the North Atlantic, making it almost impossible to measure how climate is affecting Arctic ice. What is it the gyre is doing in your estimation?
Between the two, Arctic ice extent is unpredictable. It moves around and in doing do, large masses of ice pile on top of each other thrusting the ice vertically at the intersecions. That cannot be measured by a satellite. Therefore the ice is always expanding and contracting, making it virtually impossible to estimate its extent from satellites.
Another wishful prediction of imminent plunges to colder temps. These become more frequent when we get months of hot anomalies, and positively cacophonous in a record hot year.
barry..I seriously hope we don’t have to endure another Little Ice Age. From what I read it caused misery in people’s lives, even though it prompted the Dutch to invent ice skating.
Try reading some stories of Arctic explorers between 1600 and 1850 to see what they had to endure while exploring the Arctic in summer. Read about the Ross expedition to Antarctica circa 1850 or what Shackleton’s crew endured in the early 1900s.
If you think I am hoping for one, you have me pegged incorrectly. I am hoping we can carry on with current temperatures. Even if it did cool, the alarmists would claim it came due to their reductions in CO2.
Sorry my comments are not going where they are supposed to go. I can see we are still having the same old issues on this blog.
Can you elaborate? I have never experienced issues where my posts have gone where they were not intended to go.
I have noticed when posting from a smart phone web browser that comments will be placed at the end of all comments instead of the replied comment unless “desktop” view is clicked “on”.
You are posting from a smartphone, aren’t you?
I don’t, use my good ol’ desktop all the time, and have never the problems you (and a few other guys ‘n dolls) endlessly complain about.
I seem to remember Bindigolina had some posting problems
Was that when he left in a huff then re-appeared as his girlfriend?
Aaaah the dachshund is here again, and ‘seems to remember, oh la la… and his anti GHE anti Global Warming friend-in-denial Robertson is happy to jump in with his usual lies.
And neither the dumb dachshund nor the dumber Robertson ever understood that this Pangolina vs Bindidon story is only due to me having posted a comment on my lady Roses’s notebook. Her pseudonym ‘Pangolina’ was automatically inserted by an autofill add-on.
What a bunch of idi-o-ts.
As water from melting sea ice in the south feeds the Humboldt Current, El Nino will weaken further in November.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
As so often, Palmowski tells us a lot of nonsense.
Despite an unusual sea ice loss during the summer, we are now at the end of the winter, and Antarctic’s sea ice extent is pretty good recovering:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
The sea ice in the south most continue to grow through September and will begin to slowly decline in October.
https://i.ibb.co/QM6nR9X/S-iqr-timeseries.png
The Humboldt current, occupying the upper ocean, flows equatorward carrying fresh, cold Sub-Antarctic surface water northward, along the outskirts of the subtropical gyre. The main flow of the current veers offshore in southern Peru, as a weaker limb continues to flow equatorward.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Humboldt_current.jpg
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/maps/gfs_pacific-sat_sst_d1.png
Even on a bad day, Ren’s posts are heads and shoulders above the drivel posted by Binny van der Klown.
Robertson
Once again you look like a toro in the Spanish corrida who sees the red muleta and immediately rushes towards it without even thinking for a tenth of a second.
Look at sentence 1:
” As water from melting sea ice in the south feeds the Humboldt Current… ”
and at sentence 2:
” The sea ice in the south most continue to grow through September and will begin to slowly decline in October. ”
*
Well, Robertson dumbie: if you don’t understand that Palmowski wrote in (2) the exact inverse of (1), then… you’d better visit a psychiatrist before it’s too late.
Has it not occurred to your addled brain that Ren was talking about different things?
Which things were those Gordon?
And perhaps you could explain why melting Antarctic sea ice doesn’t weaken EVERY El Nino by November if this is a real mechanism. It’s clear you also have no idea what he is saying.
No Robertson, Palmowski didn’t.
Your problem is that
– he is an opinionated coolista like you;
– you are simple-minded and trivial enough to think I’m an alarmist.
And that’s the reason why you imagine anything to give him right over me, regardless how dumb this lets you appear.
Actually, I believe Ren qualified that this would occur in November. Melting typically starts September and accelerates in October. So essentially he is correct.
billy bob
Sorry, I’m afraid you did not quite follow the discussion.
Simply forget it.
billy bob (2)
What remains relevant for us is this (updated yesterday):
https://tinyurl.com/2p8sw8zp
Thanks Bindidon,
Ren said, As water from melting sea ice in the south feeds the Humboldt Current, El Nino will weaken further in November.
And further says,
The sea ice in the south most continue to grow through September and will begin to slowly decline in October.
You show me a graph where melting sea ice occurs October, implying what Ren said. Please enlighten me on what I am missing?
billy bob
Thanks for the convenient reply.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
has nothing in common with the major source driving El Nino: it is only a small factor of a whole.
ren is a coolista: if the nino1+2 SST area would incidentally have shown some warming, he wouldn’t have written his comment.
I rely on other sources, e.g.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
which as opposed to usual observing instances like NCEP ironically contains nino1+2, but… in addition, a considerable amount of other sources.
I agree: I’m getting sad of both coolistas and those who think I’m an warmista or alarmist.
Ah, no problem, just thought I was missing something. The Nino 1.2 has decreased about 53% for the month of November in the past 73 years of available data. So it may be a weak association, but would be interesting if there was a second variable that may better explain.
You have always seemed like a data analyst to me. More of a matter of fact kind, like Ren. I always thought of myself as a warmista, but for different reasons not related to CO2. We are currently in an ice age and I believe this is number 7 in the last 3 billion years. And as the sun has gotten warmer, the ice age length has gotten shorter. I think it is safe to say that we will get out of this, though it may not be a straight line. I would not be surprised is we went into a cold cycle but dont expect it to last as long as the little ice age.
Clarification, that is 54% of the November months, not the index. 39 out of 73.
“I think it is safe to say that we will get out of this,”
Not sure we want to ‘get out of’ the climate we have had for all of human civilization’s existence.
Nate says – Not sure we want to get out of the climate we have had for all of human civilizations existence.
Are you suggesting climate has not changed during human civilizations? What is this blog for? I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Finding evidence of forests under melting glaciers, ocean deposits and wave erosional patterns far above current sea level, humans living on the Bearing Strait land bridge, multiple civilizations ceasing to exist due to drought, etc.
Anyway, it is not a question of what we want. The evidence suggests it will happen, to say otherwise would make you a denier. We have choices though, we can 1) scare our children into thinking the world is going to burn in hell and the only way to stop it is to destroy every factory, disable every vehicle and kill every human being, then and only then will climate cease to change and we can live (or die) in harmonious poverty (sarcasm to emphasize the futility of attacking fossil fuels). 2) We can develop and implement ideas that mitigate the impact of natural climate cycles. 3) We can adapt to the changing climate. I hope we do the last 2.
You’re forgetting a range of possibilities, e.g.:
(4) We listen to contrarian megaphones are we do nothing.
(5) We listen to reactionary forces and reverse course.
(6) We pay lips service to what we could do and only pick the lowest and the lukewarmest hanging fruits.
The list goes on and on.
“I think it is safe to say that we will get out of this, though it may not be a straight line. I would not be surprised is we went into a cold cycle but dont expect it to last as long as the little ice age.”
Well, my point is that human civilization has been all during the Holocene, but as you say is part of an ice age.
Not sure it is desirable to ‘get out of’ the climate we have had, which allowed human civilization to flourish.
We understand glacial cycles well enough to know that glaciation is not expected for thousands of years.
Nate,
I agree, most people move to their preferred climate region. Many cannot do that, but still people in general probably prefer for things to not change. My point is that climates always do change, it just takes time.
On your point about glaciation, I also agree due to the planet cycles. Also, with the sun burning hotter and hotter with the conversion of hydrogen to helium, it may be safe to say that glacial periods will eventually cease to exist in our far distant future. And probably a bit further than that, ice ages will cease to exist as well.
But again my point is humans can adapt (we have flourished in various climates) and/or find a way to change albedo to reduce solar insolation. It is inefficient to attack CO2 expecting that will solve the problem (some may say a warmer planet is not a problem). However, fossil fuels left to themselves will eventally be replaced anyway by alternative energy sources. We are using it faster than can be replaced and will drive cost up. The free market will force the issue, and interfering with it is inefficient.
We are living in interesting times.
“However, fossil fuels left to themselves will eventally be replaced anyway by alternative energy sources”
That seems to be happening already. Polluting coal is not running out anytime soon, but the market is removing it.
Save it to use to avoid a future glacial phase?
Another hurricane west of Mexico will effectively lower surface temperatures in the Nino 1.2 region.
https://i.ibb.co/qkwMWpv/mimictpw-epac-latest.gif
https://i.ibb.co/xmp1J2k/goes18-ir-11-E-202309071435.gif
Heavy Snow In Atigun Pass Through Thursday, and 6 inches of snow above 3000 ft in the Alaska Range through Thursday…
yes…winter in that part of the world seems to begin September 1st. It’s summer on August 31st then it is suddenly winter next day.
That’s why I find it so funny that alarmists claim Arctic ice is melting. It’s not melting now and their one month of summer just ended.
Robertson is not only dumb; he is also a gullible believer of anything showing ‘cold’.
Here is your ‘heavy snow in Atigun Pass’, Robertson:
https://snoflo.org/report/snow/alaska/atigun-pass/
How is it possible to be so ridiculous to wonder about a few inches of snow in September at 68 degree latitude and 1400 meter altitude?
*
” That’s why I find it so funny that alarmists claim Arctic ice is melting. ”
Only denial specialists write such nonsense.
https://i.postimg.cc/L6fV5w7j/Arctic-sea-ice-absol-monthly.png
Arctic sea ice peaks every year in March.
1979: 16.33 Mkm^2
2023: 14.44 Mkm^2
Source
https://tinyurl.com/MASIE-monthly
You don’t know anything, Robertson: all you are able to is to boast with your uneducated guessing.
aq…”Trump imitators are flattering Trump.
Its always funny when people believe that stock sayings which are used as a replacement for independent thinking actually cap.ture a universal truth”.
***
What you fail to grasp is that certain politicians are required at certain times. In a context of ever-increasing political correctness, Trump was the right man to counter it. I had nothing in common with the guy till he started calling out NATO freeloaders like Canada for not paying their fair share. As a Canadian, I find it embarrassing that we could not defend ourselves without the US bailing us out.
Trouble posting…
At the same time, Trump could talk to a guy like Putin whereas someone like Hillary Clinton was crippled by a stoopid cold war mentality. The worst thing that could have happened to the US was having Clinton as president. I have little doubt that Trump could have ended the Ukrainian war by now.
In WWII, Churchill was the right man for the job in the UK. Immediately following the war, he was voted out of office. Brits knew inherently he was the wrong man for rebuilding the UK from the economic devastation it had encountered.
Apparently you don’t know what a stock saying is.
And not sure what you think is special about two criminals being able to talk to each other.
The fact that you regard Putin and Trump as criminals is an indication of your need to follow authority figures at the expense of thinking for yourself.
I don’t think either will win contests for forthrightness but neither qualify as being criminals. If they did, most politicians would be in jail and those politicians quietly manipulating voters behind the scene would be criminals.
The current court activity aimed at Trump is nothing more than an effort by disgusting Democrats to prevent him from running again.
They’ve committed crimes, therefore they are criminals. End of story.
So you don’t favor the principles of the right of any person charged with an offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
Straw man, Ken.
The presumption of innocence means that the state cannot sentence and lock you up for a crime without due process.
It does not mean that you are innocent.
The relevant authorities have decided that there is sufficient prima facie evidence against Trump and his associates to bring them to trial.
That is where their guilt or innocence will be determined.
Ken
Do you believe in the same principle with regard to all the innuendo against notable people regarding supposed illicit connections to Epstein? Or with regard to unfounded rumours based on guesswork about his murder and who might be responsible?
AQ
Yes
AQ
What are the facts? Again and again and again what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what the stars foretell, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable verdict of history what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
~ Heinlein
The charges he faces are quite real. He did indeed have a stockpile of government documents that he tried to keep from the government for more than a year, he certainly seems to have attempted to illegally overturn the results of the 2020 election while he was still president (the call to Brad Raffensburger is a signal piece of evidence), and he is on the record inviting a mob to the Capitol on January 6, sending them to the Capitol building where they stormed past police and stopped the certification of the election, and then did nothing for a few hours while that was happening.
In any other country a leader that did that would already have been tried, unless that leader had been successful in such efforts, in which case we would write off the government.
But in the US, the rich and powerful seem to get all the breaks for as long as possible, and Donald Trump even more than most.