UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2023: +0.69 deg. C

September 4th, 2023 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The 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:

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2022Jan+0.03+0.06-0.00-0.23-0.12+0.68+0.10
2022Feb-0.00+0.01-0.01-0.24-0.04-0.30-0.50
2022Mar+0.15+0.28+0.03-0.07+0.22+0.74+0.02
2022Apr+0.27+0.35+0.18-0.04-0.25+0.45+0.61
2022May+0.17+0.25+0.10+0.01+0.60+0.23+0.20
2022Jun+0.06+0.08+0.05-0.36+0.46+0.33+0.11
2022Jul+0.36+0.37+0.35+0.13+0.84+0.56+0.65
2022Aug+0.28+0.32+0.24-0.03+0.60+0.50-0.00
2022Sep+0.24+0.43+0.06+0.03+0.88+0.69-0.28
2022Oct+0.32+0.43+0.21+0.04+0.16+0.93+0.04
2022Nov+0.17+0.21+0.13-0.16-0.51+0.51-0.56
2022Dec+0.05+0.13-0.03-0.35-0.21+0.80-0.38
2023Jan-0.04+0.05-0.14-0.38+0.12-0.12-0.50
2023Feb+0.08+0.170.00-0.11+0.68-0.24-0.12
2023Mar+0.20+0.24+0.16-0.13-1.44+0.17+0.40
2023Apr+0.18+0.11+0.25-0.03-0.38+0.53+0.21
2023May+0.37+0.30+0.44+0.39+0.57+0.66-0.09
2023June+0.38+0.47+0.29+0.55-0.35+0.45+0.06
2023July+0.64+0.73+0.56+0.87+0.53+0.91+1.43
2023Aug+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


3,922 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2023: +0.69 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Bellman says:

    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.

    • Nick Stokes says:

      Preliminary results from the TempLS surface analysis show very similar; about 0.05S above July, and nearly 0.3C above any previous August.

    • Bindidon says:

      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.

      • Nick Stokes says:

        ” 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

      • Bellman says:

        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.

        • TheFinalNail says:

          Warmest June-July-August globally too, in UAH.

        • Bellman says:

          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.

        • Ivan Jankovic says:

          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..

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

        • Bellman says:

          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.

          • Bellman says:

            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

          • lewis guignard says:

            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.

        • Bindidon says:

          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

    • Bellman says:

      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

      • Clint R says:

        The HTE was real.

        Temps will settle down now that it is gone.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          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.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, you’re not even on the right planet.

          • Willard says:

            Quite right, Pupman.

            One day Tim will return to Vulcan.

            How’s your Ferengi improving?

          • Mark B says:

            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

      • Bindidon says:

        Thanks Bellman, interesting view.

      • WizGeek says:

        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/

    • TheFinalNail says:

      Poor old WUWT recently added the monthly UAH global temperature anomaly record update to its sidebar.

      They may come to regret that…

  2. Walter says:

    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.

    • Richard M says:

      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.

      • Rick Adkisn says:

        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.

      • Walter says:

        “The Hunga-Tunga eruption is clearly the cause.”

        How is it clearly the cause?

        • Bindidon says:

          I never experienced this Richard M guy giving any valuable, consistent proof for any of his claims – be it at WUWT or here.

          • Walter says:

            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.

          • Bindidon says:

            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.

          • Walter says:

            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

          • Bindidon says:

            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.

        • WizGeek says:

          “There ya go again.”

      • Guy Liardet says:

        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’

      • Ian Brown says:

        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.

        • Walter says:

          There have been talks of a Modoki like El Nio developing and those typically favor cold and snowy conditions of North America and Europe.

  3. E. Swanson says:

    Top science publisher withdraws flawed climate study

    https://phys.org/news/2023-08-science-publisher-flawed-climate.html

    • Anon for a reason says:

      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?

      • E. Swanson says:

        Some Anon guy wrote:

        If you read other sources apparently it was only a single nondisclosed reviewer who wanted the article cancelled,

        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.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Swanson wanted a source, he got it. Not sure why Little Willy felt the need to respond.

        • Willard says:

          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.

          • Anon for a reason says:

            @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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Not sure why Little Willy felt the need to respond again.

          • Willard says:

            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?

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …sure why Little Willy felt the need to respond again.

          • Willard says:

            Is Graham’s lastwordism a form of censorship, Nate?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No.

          • Willard says:

            Thank you, Nate.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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?

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I see Nate has commented again. I bet he was cowardly bullying.

          • Nate says:

            ” 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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Another response, probably containing more cowardly bullying and false accusations.

          • Willard says:

            Indeed, Nate.

            Graham specializes in playing victim.

            I wonder if he thinks his sadfishing works.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I am indeed the victim of an extended character assassination attempt by yourself and others.

          • Willard says:

            Graham soldiers on, and his victim bullying continues.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            See?

        • Anon for a reason says:

          @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.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Anon without reason wrote:

            So do I take it that you do prefer research that supports only your view?

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Eric,

            You might like:

            https://pubpeer.com/publications/516C947FCF110B57BBFEFE4D57AAD8

            Some interesting comments over there.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson dodges Anon’s questions.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham fails to acknowledge that they’re not real questions.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Points to respond to, then. Swanson avoided them like the plague.

          • Willard says:

            Points our current visitor haven’t answered themselves.

            So much easier to hide behind Junior.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Everything I say and do, you have a problem with. Nobody but you knows why.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.

            And he still dodges the commitment he’s asked to make.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Falsely accusing me of gaslighting is just more personal abuse.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, it was not abusive, Little Willy. Swanson evaded any point Anon made, by talking about his experiences writing a paper.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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?

          • Willard says:

            No idea why you’d criticize Junior’s scientific shenanigans, Gill, but that’s welcome.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You said he made no point. You now acknowledge he made three.

          • Willard says:

            Stating falsehoods and mind probing don’t points make.

            Gaslighting Graham condones this kind of abuse.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Huh?

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Falsely accusing me of gaslighting is just even more personal abuse.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            He made three points, which Swanson dodged completely.

          • Willard says:

            Graham seems to be gaslighting again.

            Why is he playing you-and-him fights all the time?

            The current thread speaks for itself.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, your reliance on personal abuse speaks for itself.

          • Willard says:

            Graham is also harassing Eric, which is abusive.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The only person being harassed is me.

          • Willard says:

            “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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If you say so, Little Willy.

          • Willard says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy continues speaking in his own private language, that only he understands.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham continues to gaslight:

            https://philpapers.org/rec/WALCID

          • Bill Hunter says:

            What are you braying about Willy?

          • Willard says:

            Commitment, Gill.

            Something you may never be able to understand.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            So who did you marry Willard?

          • Willard says:

            Your mom, Gill.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Oh so you are into necrophilia! What gender is that? Ash buster?

          • Willard says:

            I hought you were talking about marriage, Gill.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard says:

            ”I hought you were talking about marriage, Gill.”

            Apparently your marriage is celibate.

    • barry says:

      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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Articles get retracted, but not usually due to pressure from the media.

        • barry says:

          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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.”

          • Nate says:

            ‘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”

          • barry says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I wasn’t quoting “commentary” I was quoting a simple relaying of the facts of the case. Unless you dispute it?

          • barry says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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?

      • Willard says:

        It’s actually an editorial decision based on pressure from the editor, but it’s not like contrarians care about truth anyway.

        • Willard says:

          > from the editor

          from the publisher, that is.

          As if contrarians like Junior were really raising concerns about media pressure through they sub stacks.

      • Hl. Drones says:

        Articles also get updated and (re)published in other journals.

        https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2023.2239807

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “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.“

      • Willard says:

        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

  4. E. Swanson says:

    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.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Swanson, please stop trolling.

      • E. Swanson says:

        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”.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Swanson, please stop trolling.

  5. tim wells says:

    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.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Perhaps you’d care to point out who here claims “the end of the world is nigh”.

    • Bellman says:

      First decent week for a long time, if you regard most of June, or a fair bit of August as a long time ago.

    • Matt Dalby says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        > Since when was 85F a threat to life

        It’s the humidity, Matt:

        Human heat stress risk depends on both temperature and humidity, and is indicated using wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT). WBGT above 32C is defined as extreme risk. At this level, vulnerable members of the population, and those with physical, outdoor jobs are at greater risk of adverse health effects. The map shows areas where a WBGT greater than 32C occurs for more than 10 days per year at 4C global warming, in the ensemble mean of models from the 5th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). The bar chart shows the global total number of people exposed at this level for the present day, 2C and 4C global warming, in relation to present-day population.

        https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-impacts/global-impacts-of-climate-change—projections

        • E. Swanson says:

          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.

          • Anon for a reason says:

            @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.

          • Willard says:

            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:

            More than 60,000 people died as a result of record-breaking temperatures in Europe last summer, a study has found, raising concerns about multiple countries lack of preparation for extreme heat fueled by climate change.

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  6. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      So that tiny band is now “the Pacific” and cancels out all the warming you’ve shown elsewhere? Who would have guessed.

      • Bindidon says:

        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!

      • Richard M says:

        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.

        • TheFinalNail says:

          There will always be some excuse for you, won’t there, Richard M? Rather than face reality.

          • Richard M says:

            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.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Antonin, please stop trolling.

  7. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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

  8. Eben says:

    Allarminsts are having a field day

    • gbaikie says:

      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. “

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      That word looks vaguely familiar. Which language is it from?

    • Mr J Johnson says:

      Would you not be having a field day if it was showing record low temperatures?

  9. Bjrn ke Bostrm says:

    A new El Nio, what else?

  10. CAD says:

    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.

  11. CO2isLife says:

    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.

    • Nate says:

      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.

    • Drewski says:

      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.

      • Richard M says:

        The Hunga-Tonga eruption was quite different. It sent massive amounts of water vapor into the upper atmosphere.

        • bdgwx says:

          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.

          • Bindidon says:

            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.

          • 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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Oh so you are into necrophilia! What gender is that? Ash buster?

      • CO2isLife says:

        Hunga-Tonga eruption was quite different.

        Richard M beat me to the punch.

    • barry says:

      ‘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.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      barry, please stop trolling.

  12. Clint R says:

    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!

  13. gbaikie says:

    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.

    • gbaikie says:

      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}?

  14. Dennis says:

    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?

  15. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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

  16. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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

  17. Silly Monkey says:

    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.

  18. Entropic man says:

    0.69C.

    So July’s 0.64C wasn’t a fluke.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      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?

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

        • Anon for a reason says:

          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.

          • Entropic man says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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/

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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.

          • Walter says:

            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?

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Walter,

            “The only reason it’s warming is because it’s warming”.
            That’s the essence of your comment.

          • bdgwx says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

        • Clint R says:

          Ent conveniently forgets about the HTE.

          He’s too busy making up things to tout his cult beliefs, like claiming passenger jets fly backward.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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.

          • Clint R says:

            Ant, if will agree to not comment here for 60 days, I’ll like you to the mechanism for the HTE.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.”

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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?

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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?

          • Clint R says:

            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

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            You mean you’re promising not to speak to me?
            Celebrations are in order.

      • Richard M says:

        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.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          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.

          • Richard M says:

            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.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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.

    • Geoff Sherrington says:

      EM,
      Why would a fluke in a natural event relate to a man-made unrelated concept like a month? Geoff S

      • Anon for a reason says:

        @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.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          Conversely, some people will invoke randomness to deny a pattern which does exist.

          • Anon for a reason says:

            @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.

          • Walter says:

            I agree with Anon. Are people really trying to associate this spike with CO2?

          • Entropic man says:

            ” 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 ?.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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.

          • Clint R says:

            The “spike” was caused by the El Niño and the HTE, acting together.

            https://postimg.cc/8FFtpjZF

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  19. Antonin Qwerty says:

    Dr Spencer,

    You might want to update the “Latest Global Temp. Anomaly” from July to August.

  20. Don says:

    There is a loooong post at Judith Currys site about the warmth this summer.

  21. Tim S says:

    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?

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      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?

      • Tim S says:

        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

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          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.

        • bobdroege says:

          Give it until the end of the week, we should have the third major hurricane in the Atlantic by then.

          • Tim S says:

            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.

  22. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      What you are describing is PRECISELY El Nino.

      Why do you have such difficulty in uttering those words?

      • studentb says:

        Maybe it is “ren” come back to haunt us?

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          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.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Antonin, please stop trolling.

  23. Antonin Qwerty says:

    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?

    • Entropic man says:

      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.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        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.)

        • Entropic man says:

          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.

  24. Anon for a reason says:

    @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.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      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.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Antonin, please stop trolling.

  25. Antonin Qwerty says:

    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.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      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.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Antonin, please stop trolling.

  26. bdgwx says:

    I show the Monckton pause starting in 2015/02 and shortening to 103 months.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Not sure why you engage with that inbred’s nonsense.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      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.

      • Anon for a reason says:

        @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.

        • bdgwx says:

          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.

          • Anon for a reason says:

            @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

          • bdgwx says:

            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.

          • Bindidon says:

            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

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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?

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “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).

          • Clint R says:

            “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)

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            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.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            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 S says:

            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.

          • 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.

            “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!

          • Clint R says:

            “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 Folkerts says:

            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).

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            Tim,
            The surface warms the atmosphere. 0.04% of the atmosphere doesn’t warm the surface.

          • Stephen P Anderson says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • 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.”

            I see that nobody has rebutted this accurate statement with loads of experimental support.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 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”

            Sure, Tim…and to prevent radiative losses requires reflectivity, and not absorp.tion/emission, in the insulator.

          • Nate says:

            “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!

          • Bindidon says:

            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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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”.)

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No idea. Can an atmosphere without GHGs radiatively cool more or less efficiently than one with GHGs?

          • Willard says:

            Which atmosphere without greenhouse gases could someone interested in that question look at?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Correct answers are “1” and “less”.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The correct answers are still “1” and “less”, unless anyone can explain how those answers could possibly be wrong?

          • Willard says:

            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…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I have already given the answer, twice.

          • Willard says:

            Perhaps “no” isn’t an answer to Q.

            After all, it would not help support C since it would be equivalent to it…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The answer to Q is “less”. For the third time.

          • Willard says:

            “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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Is Graham srsly trying to assert C without supporting it?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes. It requires no support, as it is (or should be) self-evident.

          • Willard says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            An atmosphere without GHGs cannot radiatively cool very efficiently. If anyone disagrees, let them speak now.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Another personal remark. If you can’t debate the science, don’t bother commenting.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham is playing scientific shenanigans.

            This is self-evident.

            Prove me wrong.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yet another personal remark. If you can’t debate the science, don’t bother commenting.

          • Willard says:

            Why would anyone debate a claim that is self-evidently false?

            Certainly not Graham!

            Hence his constant whining.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            So we can safely conclude that Gaslighting Graham has no response for the questions he has been asked.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I haven’t been asked any questions, Little Willy.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Thank you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I have never claimed anything of the sort.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:

            GHGs dont radiatively insulate. The N2/O2 doesnt radiatively insulate. The N2/O2 is the planetary insulation, however, because it holds onto the heat better than the GHGs, because it is not so radiatively active as GHGs. It delays the cooling by orders of magnitude more than GHGs can.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1495714

            I suppose it depends on what “of the sort” means.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            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.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • 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.

            So without GNG (no radiative cooling of the atmosphere) the atmosphere near the surface would indeed to COOLER than it is now.

          • Willard says:

            [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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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?

          • Willard says:

            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

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “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).

          • 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.

            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.

          • Clint R says:

            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….

          • Willard says:

            Second strike, Pupman:

            Graham agrees with that figure.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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?

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham fails to respond to the question while asserting a falsity.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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?

          • 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.

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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

          • Willard says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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).

          • Willard says:

            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:

            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. This causes a radiative forcing, an imbalance that can only be compensated for by an increase of the temperature of the surface-troposphere system. This is called the enhanced greenhouse effect.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-1389643

            ?

          • Ball4 says:

            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”.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            [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

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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”.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.”

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            (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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            [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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            [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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.”

          • Willard says:

            “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.

          • Nate says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, I have nothing against that experiment – there is no need for me to.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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”.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, Little Willy, Mercury doesn’t even really have an atmosphere.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “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.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham still dodges the questions.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            “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.”

          • Willard says:

            > 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

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.”

          • Willard says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            > 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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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!

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Willard says:

            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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            “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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy’s critique of the comment from Clutz has got lost in the post.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • 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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That GHGs absorb (and emit) IR radiation is not in dispute. What’s wrong with you? You’re like a broken record.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • 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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Perhaps you should at least try to get my position right yourself before discussing it with others, Little Willy?

          • Nate says:

            Habitual liar Bill sez:

            “you just did.”

            Then offers NO QUOTES of me saying any such thing!

          • Willard says:

            Perhaps Gaslighting Graham could stop his silly motte-and-baileys and lookup what happens when we increase the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere?

          • 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 can’t see why these situations are completely different, then you are hopelessly lost.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate obviously you can’t tell the difference as you didn’t answer the question nor even attempted to do so.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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

          • Nate says:

            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!

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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

          • Nate says:

            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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …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

          • Willard says:

            Both Gill and Graham fail to answer questions.

          • Nate says:

            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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy flatly lies, arriving promptly for another full day’s trolling.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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)

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            And so Gaslighting Graham shows he really has no clue.

            Let’s give him a hint:

            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.

            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.

          • Willard says:

            > is meant a phenomenon

            *to explain*, that is.

            Roy’s form is eating words again.

            Time to clear the cache and reset the browser.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “they are different but..”

            Just stop there, Bill. There is no fix for your bad example.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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:

            > 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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            We’re just getting further and further off-topic.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Res ipsa loquitur.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Gill, Gill,

            This is an Arby’s.

            And you still haven’t answered my questions.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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/

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That is in no way a response to the arguments made in the article I posted. Did you even bother to read it?

          • Willard says:

            Graham gently gaslights again.

            In no way can he cite Vaughan, Ron, Kristian, and Joe in the same exchange and understand any of this.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.“

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The theory that you have no idea, and will continue to obfuscate.

          • Willard says:

            Gill still evades a question.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, you never answer any questions.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            > theory which was developed in the 1960s

            How about some receipts, Gill?

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Well indeed Nate you have been spending virtually all your time here in avoiding taking a position on anything.

            Why is that?

            Seems refreshing.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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?

          • Willard says:

            Gill, Gill,

            One paper isn’t a theory, and that paper was about sensitivity.

            Are you sure you read it?

          • Nate says:

            “here in avoiding taking a position on anything”

            My position is that your recent posts are about nothing worth discussing.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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?

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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?

          • Bill Hunter 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.

            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.

          • Willard says:

            How do you know that something is vacuous if you do not follow it, Gill?

            Auditors these days.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • 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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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!

          • Willard says:

            > 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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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

          • Nate says:

            ” 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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            [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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy gets tremendously upset if anyone should dare agree with me.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It’s nice to occasionally receive something other than a relentless stream of negative energy, false accusations, misrepresentations, outright lies and insults, I suppose.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham loops and loops again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Another false accusation.

          • Willard says:

            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:

            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.

            Op. Cit.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            And?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            They are what they are.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            The Witch Doctor society in here is out in force.

          • Nate says:

            “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

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It sure is, Bill.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “…and the warming does not extend back down to the surface.”

            Without “back-radiation warming”, they’re screwed.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            Bill, So you have no answer for my questions above?

            Oh well.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • 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.

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “Lets fix the analogy. Water only runs downhill due to gravity. Heated air molecules only run uphill. ”

            Ha! You are bad at analogies.

          • 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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            This is another gish gallop to nowhere, Bill. Has no point.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “I answered your question”

            Oh? Where? Show us.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            Nope. Just keep on lying. Facts are not on your side.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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!

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …explains his belligerent nature, I guess.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …his belligerent nature, I guess.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            yep a belligerent liar.

        • Willard says:

          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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Postma didn’t say the atmosphere was fixed in optical depth. Immediately, the best Ball4 can do is twist the words of the author.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It’s OK, Ball4 is here now, Little Willy. You can go.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ah, Ball4’s gone into a loop again. Best to ignore him when he gets like this.

          • Willard says:

            [JOE] Given that the atmosphere is fixed in depth

            [GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Joe didn’t say the atmosphere was fixed in optical depth.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, Little Willy. “Depth”, as in the actual depth of the atmosphere, a measure of distance, not “optical depth”.

          • Ball4 says:

            … resulting in the entire 2:02 am quoted argument immediately being mistaken thus falling apart.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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?

          • Willard says:

            > Where is the logic?

            Gill will explain it shortly, Nate.

            Just wait.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            [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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy can’t follow the discussion, as usual.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Wrong, Little Willy.

          • Willard says:

            TomC’s comment:

            https://skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html#105369

            is a simple refutation of Joe’s usual gloss on real greenhouses.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Ball4 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.

            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.

          • Willard says:

            (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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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!?

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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?

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If the lapse rate profile is rotating around a point then how can the lapse rate not be changing?

          • Nate says:

            “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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4 slips quietly away…

          • Willard says:

            Once again, Gaslighting Graham goes on a loop.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham has trouble finding his way in the threads.

            Perhaps he should loop a little more instead.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So now Ball4 is saying the lapse rate changes…

          • Willard says:

            [B4] Lapse rate doesnt change (due to simplifying assumptions)

            [GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] So now B4 is saying the lapse rate changes…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Exactly, Little Willy. Ball4 is wrong.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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?

          • Willard says:

            Exactly, Nate.

            Notice how Graham found another fixed point to spin around and emulate his famous La La La I Cant Hear you technique

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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

          • Willard says:

            > 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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham spins and spins and spins and gaslights again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            False accusations won’t help your cause, Little Willy.

            Where’s Ball4 gone? He needs to pick 1) or 2).

          • Willard says:

            Does effective emission height depend on optical depth?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Who knows? We can’t currently agree even on how the “effective emission height” is defined.

          • Willard says:

            From his own cite:

            With an increased greenhouse effect, the optical depth increases. Hence, one would expect that earths heat loss (also known as the outgoing longwave radiation, OLR) becomes more diffuse and less similar to the temperature pattern at the surface.

            […]

            The depth in the atmosphere from which the earths 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 [a-word] 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.

            Op. Cit.

            Perhaps Gaslighting Graham has no clue whatsoever about any of this?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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).

          • Nate says:

            “[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.

          • Willard says:

            [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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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

          • Willard says:

            Perhaps Gaslighting Graham missed:

            [T]he energy flow from the surface to the emission height must be the same as the total OLR emitted back to space, and if increased [A-WORD] inhibits the radiative flow between earths surface and the emission height, then it must be compensated by other means.

            Op. Cit.

            Twisting himself into silly puzzlers looks some much more FUN!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.”

          • Willard says:

            [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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:

            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.

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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)”.

          • Willard says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            1) or 2), Ball4?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ah, he returns again.

            1) or 2), Ball4?

          • Ball4 says:

            Go ask those authors that wrote the script.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So evasive. 1) or 2), Ball4?

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Very evasive indeed. 1) or 2), Ball4?

          • Willard says:

            Perhaps Gill could answer that one:

            [A]s the infrared light which makes up the OLR is subject to more [A-word] 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.

            Op. Cit.

            When you cheerlead for Graham and Joe, are you denying the Beer-Lambert’s law by any chance, Gill?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …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.

          • Willard says:

            Gill may have left the building.

            It’s a shame, for I was about to ask him about this:

            [T]he energy flow from the surface to the emission height must be the same as the total OLR emitted back to space, and if increased [A-WORD] inhibits the radiative flow between earths surface and the emission height, then it must be compensated by other means.

            Op. Cit.

            Looks to me that there’s no energy created. Perhaps his auditing skillz could be helpful for once.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …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.

          • Willard says:

            Ah, Gaslighting Grahams gone into a loop again. Best to ignore him when he gets like this.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Gill, Gill,

            Riddle me this. When you say:

            upper atmosphere seems to be cooling just fine

            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?

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Exactly, Nate. No wonder Gaslighting Graham’s gone into a loop again.

            Best to ignore him when he gets like this.

          • Nate says:

            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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …in either case, both 1) and 2) are thoroughly debunked.

          • Willard says:

            … Nate. No wonder Gaslighting Grahams gone into a loop again.

            Best to ignore him when he gets like this.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sadly, Little Willy lacks the capacity to ignore me.

          • Willard says:

            … No wonder Gaslighting Grahams gone into a loop again.

            Best to ignore him when he gets like this.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            See?

          • Nate says:

            “Yes, Bill, it does indeed get very boring. He wont stop thoughever.”

            Willard, the problem is that he can’t ignore us!

          • Nate says:

            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)”

          • Nate says:

            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

          • Nate says:

            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 says:

            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?

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • 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:

            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?

          • Willard says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy hasn’t the faintest idea what’s going on.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Postma? No, I’ve not been reciting Postma. Mostly my own arguments, Little Willy. You wouldn’t understand.

          • Nate says:

            ” 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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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:

            Its quite correct to say that DLR exists (thats what my IR thermometer measured).

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I guess somebody, somewhere, might be arguing that back-radiation doesn’t exist…nobody here is, though.

          • Nate says:

            ” 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.”

          • Nate says:

            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.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            Bill goes veers off topic on a gish gallop.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Willard says:

            > 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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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?

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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?

          • 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.

            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.

          • 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.

            ———————–
            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • 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.

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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/

          • Nate says:

            “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?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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?

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • 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 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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …of course, he’ll project that fault onto others.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …course, he’ll project that fault onto others.

          • Nate says:

            “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.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …he’ll project that fault onto others.

          • Nate says:

            Its the bullies who so often play the victim card….

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …project that fault onto others.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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 says:

            “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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • 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.

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate returns to his lying ways having nothing to dispute the support I gave to the S&O results.

          • Nate says:

            Take your grievance parade somewhere else.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            Goodbye Bill.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …that fault onto others.

          • Nate says:

            Is someone who is not supposed to ever be reading my posts, reading my posts, and also stalking me???

            Bizzare.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …fault onto others.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

  27. Lee says:

    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.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Perhaps unusual for the strongest El Nina’s, but for the typical El Nina that doesn’t happen until Sep-Oct, or even Nov.

    • bdgwx says:

      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

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        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?

        • bdgwx says:

          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

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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.

          • bdgwx says:

            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.

    • Clint R says:

      Lee, this EN currently leans toward a “Modoki”. (Loose translation is “phony”.)

      We’ll see, as conditions could change.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

    • Bindidon says:

      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. “

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

  28. bdgwx says:

    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.

  29. TallDave says:

    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

  30. Willard says:

    The reactionary mind only presents itself as transgressive whence it mostly reinforces the status quo:

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_6M_KHEr5aA

  31. Entropic man says:

    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

  32. studentb says:

    +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.

  33. Clint R says:

    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.

    • Norman says:

      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.

      • Clint R says:

        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

        • Norman says:

          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.

    • Norman says:

      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?

      • Clint R says:

        Wrong Norman, the 33K comes from comparing Earth’s 288K with an imaginary sphere’s 255K.

        Strike 2

        • Norman says:

          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.

          • Norman says:

            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.

          • Clint R says:

            You struck out Norman.

            Sorry.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

    • Norman says:

      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.

      • Clint R says:

        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

        • Norman says:

          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.

          • Clint R says:

            You struck out, Norman.

            Game over.

            No amount of endless blah-blah will help. Better luck next time.

    • Bindidon says:

      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.

      • Clint R says:

        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?

  34. barry says:

    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/

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

  36. Norman says:

    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.”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

    • Stephen P Anderson says:

      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.

  37. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

  38. gbaikie says:

    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}.

    • gbaikie says:

      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.”

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

  39. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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?

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo’s mind is locked into his usual incorrest physics, writing:

        All that CO2 can do in the atmosphere is absorb infrared energy emitted by the surface.

        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:

        The IR trapped is incidental since radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures.

        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”.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          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.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo’s completely wrong, as usual. For example, he wrote:

            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.

            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.

    • Bindidon says:

      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’.

  40. Tim S says:

    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?

    • Tim S says:

      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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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/

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Would you explain what you mean by “the way the two gases interact”.
        What way is this?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          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?

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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.

        • Tim S says:

          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.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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.

          • Tim S says:

            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.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            My interest is only in the science. What do you believe my agenda is?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

      • Entropic man says:

        “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.

        • Clint R says:

          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.

        • barry says:

          Atmospheric CO2 emits in all directions. Add more CO2 and it emits more in all directions, including groundward.

          • Clint R says:

            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?

      • Tim S says:

        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?

  41. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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

  42. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      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?

    • Bindidon says:

      ” 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!

  43. Clint R says:

    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?

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      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.)

    • Bindidon says:

      ” The evidence of the HTE is clearly seen in the UAH results. ”

      Show us EXACTLY what you mean.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “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.)

      • Clint R says:

        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.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • E. Swanson says:

            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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • E. Swanson says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson, please stop trolling.

  44. Entropic man says:

    RSS agrees.

    htlatest-ice-and-temperaturetps://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/-data.html

  45. Clint R says:

    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:

    For example, disruptions of the polar vortex occur when the vortex is bumped from below by large-scale atmospheric waves flowing around the troposphere.

    Sounds like my description of how the HTE raised temperatures, huh?

    That’s why this is so much fun.

  46. Rob Mitchell says:

    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?

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      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

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        I’ve always thought humans are nothing more than a pimple on a gnat’s ass concerning the earth’s climate.

    • gbaikie says:

      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.

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        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!

        • gbaikie says:

          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.

    • Tim S says:

      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.

      • Tim S says:

        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.

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        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.

        • Willard says:

          It’s also the cheapest way to sniff methane.

          Kids love it!

        • Tim S says:

          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.

        • gbaikie says:

          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.

  47. gbaikie says:

    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.

  48. Willard says:

    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/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

  49. Eben says:

    The Grand Solar Fizzle chart updated

    https://i.postimg.cc/6q8LRcBr/184-n.jpg

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Now stick Zharkova’s prediction on the graph.

      • Bindidon says:

        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

        • Bindidon says:

          Ooops, text crunching:

          ” Conversely, we are still far for… ”

          should read

          ” Conversely, we are still far away from… “

        • gbaikie says:

          –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.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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.

        • Bindidon says:

          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.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.”

        • gbaikie says:

          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.

  50. Bindidon says:

    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

  51. Gordon Robertson says:

    test

  52. Scott R says:

    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)

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        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.

        • Scott R says:

          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.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Who is “we”? Are you another Yank who believes your 2% of the globe is the whole world?

            “World” Series anyone?

          • Bindidon says:

            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.

    • Clint R says:

      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.

  53. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Tim S says: