Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2023 was +0.91 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, statistically unchanged from the October, 2023 anomaly of +0.93 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still 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 23 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.07 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.12 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.49 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.28 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.23 | +0.74 | +0.03 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.27 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.25 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.18 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.60 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.47 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.56 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.32 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.51 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.25 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.05 | +0.16 | +0.94 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.14 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.09 | +0.17 | 0.00 | -0.11 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.16 | -0.13 | -1.44 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.25 | -0.03 | -0.38 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.39 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.06 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.87 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.44 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.70 | +0.88 | +0.51 | +0.86 | +0.94 | +1.54 | +1.25 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.90 | +0.94 | +0.86 | +0.93 | +0.40 | +1.13 | +1.17 |
| 2023 | Oct | +0.93 | +1.02 | +0.83 | +1.00 | +0.99 | +0.92 | +0.62 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.91 | +1.01 | +0.82 | +1.03 | +0.65 | +1.16 | +0.42 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for November, 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
Middle 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
Wow. I have never seen a winter as hot as this year. Hopefully it will not seriously affect the Earth’s climate
Ha,ha,ha, good one, the folks in Munich, especially the ones whose airplanes were frozen to the ground preventing them from leaving to attend COP-28 in Dubai, may disagree with you. Munich has broken all of its prior records, and other locations are also seeing an early onset of very cold weather.
@survivor io
“I have never seen a winter as hot as this year”
___________________________________________________
Where did you see it?
On planet earth we still have autumn. Even “meteorological winter”
just began.
“Hopefully it will not seriously affect the Earths climate”
___________________________________________________________
A season doesnt affect the climate.
Its the climate, which affects a season.
In fairness to @survivor io, it is not widely known that winter starts December 21st in the Northern Hemisphere.
The Era of Greta.
“Its the climate, which affects a season.”
Now I seem to learn something new every day. But this is very interesting indeed.
While climate is a statistic of weather and seasons are related to certain weather patterns, now it is the climate that affects seasons.
Is this the result of the Hunga Tonga vulcano event beginning of 2022 which has move millionen of tons of water into the stratosphaere ?
Looking at the EEI data from February 2003 to September 2023, the 36-month average reveals a warming rate of roughly 1.50 W/m^2. Also, in the last two decades, there’s been a whopping 3.94-fold increase in the warming rate.
Here:
https://imgur.com/a/QFaA0lF
and here:
https://youtu.be/9lkCCNblIMM
Ark, the EEI value is nonsense, bogus, anti-science.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1559426
December now needs to be -0.57 to equal the record.
Dec-Jun needs to average +0.06 for the 2023-24 ENSO season (Jul-Jun) to be the warmest on record.
… to equal the ANNUAL record …
The rest of the decade needs to average +0.02 for the 2020s to be the warmest decade.
SInce November is a tiny fraction cooler than October, would this be considered a warming pause?
There’s no doubt. We could be at the beginning of the mother of all pauses.
You’ll have to ask deniers what they would consider to be a “pause.” They’re the ones who need it.
You alarmists are the guys that desperately need big El Nino events !
Even though they prove that humans aren’t the cause.
Incorrect. We run with the AVERAGE, not extreme events. You guys compare La Ninas from today to El Ninos from the past.
Mr. Q,
I am not a denier, I just don’t believe the concern about CO2 in the atmosphere is warranted. Actually, for various reasons, I’m always surprised its getting warmer, but also pleased. I hope it keeps getting warmer.
But you could place me with deniers in that I don’t believe the atmospheric CO2 added by mans actions is the cause of warming.
Think of what (I suppose) you advocate; actions to slow the use of the most efficient energy source for the common man: gasoline and diesel fuel. That in itself is a reason not to limit their use.
Then, go a bit farther than the shortsighted policies being advocated. Pretend they work. Wonderful you say. But the earths climate may be compared to an overly large ocean going vessel. It will takes years to turn from its course. If the policies work, and the weather, then climate stops getting warmer, those policies will continue, there being no thermostat to turn them on and off at will. Then the climate will begin to cool. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? No, it is not. Cold brings snow and ice and an inability to grow foodstuffs. Cold kills more people than heat. The first winter that snow falls so heavily in the grain belts that it can’t all melt the next summer will lead to mass starvation.
The other direction, warmer, opens vast areas of farmland in Canada and Russia which would/will be used to grow more food.
Merry Christmas
(if you wish to respond – I don’t come here often – guignard.lb at the gmail.)
This short pause is significant compared to the past 4 months. Hurricanes stop before changing direction too.
All anomaly charts are dishonest, visually deceptive charts that make tiny temperature changes look huge
The only honest charts are absolute temperature charts that cover a temperature range similar to an ordinary red line thermometer that people might have at home.
An anomaly charts may show more details but unless accompanied by an absolute temperature chart, as done on the home page of WUWT, they are ammunition for climate scaremongering.
Please add an absolute temperature UAH chart to present average temperatures in a way that does NOT support the climate scaremongers like the current anomaly chart does.
Why would that be the only honest chart? Where would the origin be (absolute zero?) and what scale would be needed? What research have you seen which supports the notion that the anomalies shown, even on the UAH series, are inconsequential?
The claimed warming of about 0.7 degrees C. inthe 44 years since 1979 is too small and too gradual for humans to notice. Especially since most of the warming wa at night when most people are sleeping.
The anomaly chart exaggerates warming visually and makes a tiny change over four decades look huge. In addition, a chart encourages people to see patterns that are just random variations.
I have been posting this UAH chart on my climate science and energy blog for the past 663,000 page b views. Today I decided to post ONLY absolute temperature charts that inform people, rather than scaring them.
It was my hope that an UAH absolute temperature chart would exist someday, published along with the UAH anomaly chart.
The anomaly charts are ammunition for climate scaremongers. The same UAH number can look frightening on an anomaly chart and harmless on an absolute temperature chart.
Global warming since 1979 HAS been harmless
Therefore, it should look harmless on an honest chart.
And if you do not accept that reason, I had an absolute temperature chart on my blog home page for the first 554,000 page views. Every leftist who looked at it went berserk, claiming the chart was fake. When I explained the absolute chart had exactly the same temperature data as the anomaly chart they liked, they did not believe me. Leftists hate absolute temperature charts, so they must be good!
Here is an example, borrowed from WUWT, of posting both types of charts at the same time:
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.Com/2023/12/same-data-on-honest-versus-dishonest.html
Most of the warming was NOT at night.
In some place the minimums have risen more (eg USA), in others it is the maximums (eg. UK and Australia).
“What people notice” is not relevant to changes in rainfall pattern and other effects.
To A.Q. who read my comment and claimed most of th global warming was NOT at night.
The warming has been mainly TMIN rather than TMAX. I called TMIN “at night”, and apologize if that confused you.
The chart at the link below presents data that back up my claim that most warming since the 1970s was at night. I am describing the entire surface area of our planet. not just one or two specific nations, such as the US or Australia. The details of the warming since 1975 — locations and timing — present MORE information than a single global average temperature that not one person lives. Especially a single average presented on a visually deceptive anomaly chart that makes a minor 0.5 degree C. change look huge.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/2023/11/one-symptom-of-greenhouse-warming-is.html
Most of the warming was also in the Northern half of the Northern Hemisphere (colder nations).
See the warming by latitude data chart at the link below:
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/2023/11/global-warming-since-1970s-was-mainly.html
Most of the warming was also in the six coldest months of the year. The Arctic region is a perfect example of that.
These three characteristics of warming since the 1970s explain why the warming was good news, even as Climate Alarmists warned us of climate doom every year since 1979 … while the climate actually improved.
The theme / poster boy for post-1975 warming should be: Warmer winter nights in Siberia
“Please add an absolute temperature UAH chart to present average temperatures in a way that does NOT support the climate scaremongers like the current anomaly chart does.”
If you really want to stick it to the alarmists, you should demand that the Y axis be completely zoomed out, and insist it be in Kelvin.
Just like an infant and a grown woman are pretty much the same height if you make the Y axis cover 100 metres.
In science we choose scales on charts to visualize the change as clearly as possible.
So we don’t zoom out to intentionally make variation look insignificant, as is being suggested here.
Nate says “In science”
ha ha
“Climate change” is mainly wild guess, data free predictions of a coming global warming crisis, that have been 100% wrong since 1979,
What is called consensus climate science (not this website) is at least 90% politics and 10% science.
Science + Politics = Politics
The leftists think “climate change” is science because the predictions of global warming doom are made by government scientists. They falsely believe whatever a scientist says or predicts is science
Without data there is no science: CAGW predictions have no data, and they have also been wrong for 44 years in a row, since the 1979 Charney Report.
CAGW has never happened, so there are no historical CAGW data
There are never data for the future climate
Therefore, predictions of CAGW are data free predictions, and data free predictions are not science.
UAH data can also be presented in a data table
When presented as anomalies on a chart the UAH data make barely noticeable temperature changes look huge. That serves as climate alarmist propaganda. Adding a UAH absolute temperature chart will put the tiny temperature changes into a perspective that visually demonstrates how minor the warming since 1979 was.
Well this blog, and its author certainly consider it science. If you have no interest in climate science, then don’t come here.
” are made by government scientists.”
Really you think most scientists who study this topic work for the government?
That would be quite false.
“When presented as anomalies on a chart the UAH data make barely noticeable temperature changes look huge. That serves as climate alarmist propaganda.”
So you are suggesting that the guy who makes the chart, Roy Spencer, is a supporter of climate alarmist propaganda?
This is just Chart-making 101.
When I search Dow Jones Chart, whatever years range, the y-axis covers only the full data range, and NO MORE.
Eg. here is the 5 y chart
https://www.5yearcharts.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/dow-jones-5y.png
Is that because they want to serve stock market propaganda?
Looks like Richard wants to hide the incline.
Richard Greene
1. ” Please add an absolute temperature UAH chart to present average temperatures… ”
No problem for me!
Here is a chart showing absolute data for UAH 6.0 LT:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EuZxQTmZynMurw68n5lBo6g35Vh00foK/view
*
2. ” … in a way that does NOT support the climate scaremongers like the current anomaly chart does. ”
How can a person like you, manifestly not having a clue of how anomalies are constructed, so woefully discredit people using them?
Here is a second chart, in which absolute and anomaly based UAH data are displayed in common relative to their respective mean:
https://tinyurl.com/3zy3uhtf
*
FYI
Time series anomalies are constructed as departures from the means of the time series’ unit with respect to a given reference period, here: months.
This explains why, at the right end of the picture, absolute values and anomalies run in the opposite direction.
The baseline for UAH 6.0 LT wrt the means of 1991-2020, together with the absolute temperatures for 2023 and the anomalies obtained by subtracting the monthly baseline values from the absolute values:
Mon | baseline | absol | diff | UAH anomalies
Jan | 263.179 | 263.141 | -0.038 | -0.04
Feb | 263.269 | 263.352 | 0.083 | 0.08
Mar | 263.427 | 263.631 | 0.204 | 0.20
Apr | 263.843 | 264.026 | 0.183 | 0.18
Mai | 264.448 | 264.819 | 0.371 | 0.37
Jun | 265.099 | 265.477 | 0.378 | 0.38
Jul | 265.418 | 266.059 | 0.641 | 0.64
Aug | 265.233 | 265.928 | 0.695 | 0.70
Sep | 264.637 | 265.535 | 0.898 | 0.90
Oct | 263.945 | 264.869 | 0.924 | 0.92
Nov | 263.406 | 264.317 | 0.911 | 0.91
Dec | 263.191
*
You see that though August 2023 was the highest absolute value, later months had higher differences to their respective baseline month than July.
**
Anomalies are useful because they help in computing more accurate trends (with lower standard error) than is possible when working with absolute values, due to removal of the annual cycle (the seasons).
See
UAH v6 LT Global Temperatures with Annual Cycle
March 3rd, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/#comments
*
They are also very helpful for comparison with other anomaly based time series:
https://i.postimg.cc/xT6mR007/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022-wrt-1991-2020.png
But… only if it is ensured in advance that the anomaly series were created for the same reference period and not as follows:
https://i.postimg.cc/ncDph2XL/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022.png
Ooop?!
” You see that though August 2023…”
should read
” You see that though July 2023… “
It seems that Mr. Greene, whose skep~tîcism is probably separated by at best a tenth of a millimeter from pseudo-skep~tîcism:
” All anomaly charts are dishonest, visually deceptive charts that make tiny temperature changes look huge… ”
has finally understood what an image of absolute UAH LT data would look like on the screen if it were displayed at the same resolution as that for the anomaly data used by Mr Spencer on his blog:
https://tinyurl.com/3zy3uhtf
versus
https://i.postimg.cc/v8KnWQJP/UAH-LT-1979-thru-November-2023-v6-20×9.jpg
While the anomaly value range is between +1.0 and -0.7 C, that of the absolute data lies within +2.0 and -1.3 K, hence nearly twice as high.
Even the trend of the absolute data is – albeit a tiniest fraction of a degree / decade – higher than that of the anomalies.
*
This aside from the fact that if Mr. Greene were a climate scientist, he most likely would not be very interested in comparing UAH’s LT and LS layers based on absolute data…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16GaarHUs7npnzyN5-wtJ7z0qODSKplVq/view
… but would prefer to switch to a slightly more convenient, anomaly-based comparison:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qC_cbNrs_qI6qBujpJ-nuxRAokaNIVri/view
Can I ask what makes you qualified to say what the best way to present scientific data is?
Are you saying that if I had a graph showing someone’s body temperature over time, it would only be honest if it was in Kelvin?
Somebody looking at the graph would see a bunch values around 311 K, and a dangerous fever of 314 K would barely be noticeable. It seems to me that it would be better to zoom into the range of values that happen.
UAH 10-year running average:
https://tinyurl.com/UAH-120-month-running-average
Hope Spencer and Christy are working on v7.0 to fix this.
The needed “fix” of course being that the rate is too small because they are measuring temperatures aloft.
You mean NOT being measured in the middle of large UHI affected areas and airport sites that are totally inappropriate for measuring any changes in climate ?
You KNOW that those temperatures are adjusted downwards for this effect.
spike55
” You mean NOT being measured in the middle of large UHI affected areas and airport sites that are totally inappropriate for measuring any changes in climate ? ”
**
Sorry for the lengthy expos but I don’t want to contribute to to superficial UHI blah blah.
I hope you won’t consider the pristine USCRN sites to be among the ones you’re talking about. Some people here and there are in between brazen enough to do so.
*
1. Some years ago, Anthony Watts was ranting at his WUWT against an airport-based station at Anchorage, AK. He said:
“Two degrees above other stations there”.
He was right, but what is the sense of comparing absolute temperatures?
Here is the right one, based on anomalies, with Anchorage AP compared to the CRN station 26563 ‘Kenai 29 ENE’, located in the middle of nowhere:
https://tinyurl.com/AK-Kenai
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OhCuDiAFUT80Ws4S8XopciaWQTp4rorn/view
(updated this year)
The linear trends for 2011-2023 look nearly identical but aren’t.
Trends of the Savitzky-Golay filter outputs, C/decade:
– Ancho: 0.75 +- 0.27
– Kenai: 0.89 +- 0.19
The outsider station has for this period a lower trend than the UHI suspected ugly station.
Of course, this is a very short period, but it was for me surprising enough to continue looking for similar things.
*
2. Last year, using the raw GHCN daily station set, I compared about 120 CRN stations (i.e. with TMIN/TMAX out of USCRN data) with about 960 randomly selected stations around them (the only criterion was location within the same degree of latitude and longitude):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jp5Bk75cAmSdZOAbfuSn3HRudwZ9Ld73/view
92 airports are in the 960 stations; and with ‘airport’ I don’t mean only such ones:
https://tinyurl.com/Bozeman-AP
*
Here too: period too short, and the numbers tell more than the pic.
Trends of the Savitzky-Golay filter outputs for 2005-2023 in C/decade:
Tmin
CRN: 0.45 +- 0.04
1 deg: 0.57 +- 0.04, and therein
AP: 0.59 +- 0.04
no AP: 0.53 +- 0.04
Tmax
CRN: 0.45 +- 0.03
1 deg: 0.41 +- 0.03, and therein
AP: 0.55 +- 0.03
no AP: 0.34 +- 0.03
Tmean = (Tmin+Tmax)/2
CRN: 0.45 +- 0.04
1 deg: 0.48 +- 0.04, and therein
AP: 0.57 +- 0.03
no AP: 0.42 +- 0.04
*
The airports stations report on average higher trends than the rest.
But for Tmax, the 960 stations (APs included) show a lower trend than the pristine stations. That’s unexpected.
For me layman, UHI still is best discovered in winters’ Tmin data…
*
Conclusion: there is interest in looking at a bigger context.
Maybe the 30,000 US city database
https://simplemaps.com/data/us-cities
then a global city database and a global airport database could aid further discovery.
On verra bien.
Another rainy low over eastern Australia. Today’s SOI positive.
https://i.ibb.co/dMY2LxF/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
Significance?
Lack of drought and lower temperatures. Strong convection.
An El Nino doesn’t have to mean drought. All El Ninos are different. It’s only a tendency.
Sydney’s average temperature for the past 7 days is 2.5C above the long-term average for this time of year.
Sydney’s forecast average temperature for the next 7 days is 3.5C above the long-term average.
But you wouldn’t know that because you only cherry pick the cooler days. Why don’t you give us an update on Perth’s average temperature for November? Not paid to do that?
https://i.ibb.co/cCLwSSv/archive-9-image.png
“Yeah … I’ll just post a map with no title and no explanation … that’ll end the discussion …”
Antonin, please stop trolling.
The Kp index suddenly jumped to 7, indicating a very strong geomagnetic storm.
Most worrying is the “heat” in the Arctic. This augurs a hard winter in the mid-latitudes, with heavy snowfall.
https://i.ibb.co/9Ymgv3x/gfs-npole-sat-t2min-d1.png
https://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg
The UK has just recorded some of the coldest November night time temperatures for almost 30 years , last night we had a -10 with heavy snow in the east, my gear read -3 at mid day.temperatures dropping off again ,
Looking out your window has always been a good way to determine global temperatures.
AW,
Maybe the point is that what you see looking out of your window is more useful than any “global temperature”.
Surface temperatures range between roughly +90 C, and -90 C. “Global temperature” is a pointless fiction. Don’t you agree?
We don’t have a global warming problem. The entirety of modern civilization has transpired during the Holocene. I hope the Holocene doesn’t end.
Stephen, looks like you’ve invented a new meaning for “transpire”.
It’s difficult to know what your intended meaning is.
Dictionary?
Worried about imminent glaciation, Stephen?
A,
Are you claiming to be too lazy or incompetent to find the meaning of a word?
OK, Ill take pity on your affliction. From a dictionary, a definition of the verb “transpire”
– to happen:
Here’s an example of usage –
“The entirety of modern civilization has transpired during the Holocene.”
You don’t need to thank me. It’s always a privilege to assist those less capable than myself.
Quite right, Mike Flynn.
It is well known that humanity transpires. You above all!
Please do not sweat it.
Cheers.
Why does nothing but nonsense come out of your month Antoenail Queery? All of your posts are meaningless, because you’re a one-celled parrot.
One again beats the previous record for November, set in 2019 by 0.49 C.
This makes it the 5th month in a row that a record for that month has been set. The June – November average this year has beaten the previous record, set in 2020, by 0.39C.
There is now no place you can start and get a negative trend (apart from starting last month). Best cherry pick is now December 2015 for a trend of 0.04C / decade. The trend since January 2018 is now 0.41C / decade. Which is meaningless, except to point out the absurdity of claiming no warming over a similar period is a pause.
Here’s a graph of the June – Nov average.
https://imgur.com/a/QH2kw93
And here’s the 12 monthly average from December – November.
https://imgur.com/a/6RRzQjn
This is still just about a record, which is impressive when you consider the start of the year was in negative territory.
Yet we dont know the cause for the three month spike in temperatures, still an awful lot of excess moisture in the upper atmosphere.
This spike was caused by the combined forcings of the HTE and El Niño. The HTE has ended and when the EN abates, temps should fall.
More BS from grammie clone, as usual. Where’s your documentation to support your repeated claims that the HT-HH eruption caused any recent warming?
Clearly the recent warming was caused by Taylor Swift getting together with Travis Kelce, cuz, ya know correlation = causation, according to Clint.
More BS from grammie clone, as usual. Wheres your documentation to support your repeated claims that the HT-HH eruption caused any recent warming? Now you are claiming that your “HTE has ended”, but I content that you need to provide data to show it really existed before you can say it’s gone.
Of course temps will fall when the El Nio ends, Clint. But will they fall back down to the level of pre-industrial temps? Or even down to the temps of pre-2014 times? Not likely.
The excess water vapour was almost exclusively in the southern hemisphere, yet the majority of the heat has been in the northern hemisphere.
Ant, you’re desperation is showing.
El Ninño is only in a portion of Equatorial Pacific Ocean, yet it affects global temperatures.
Did you think I was talking about El Nino? Oh dear.
I’m desperation is showing ??
Actually Ant, I thought you didn’t know what you were talking about, as usual.
You appeared to be saying that since HT occurred in the Southern Hemisphere it wouldn’t affect the rest of the globe. I merely pointed out that ENSO is only a small part of the globe, yet can affect global temperatures.
But, I didn’t expect you to understand….
Only eruptions close to the equator have reduced global temperatures in the past. I’ll leave it for you to be bothered to research the reason (you won’t be). The reason applies equally to warming.
ENSO warming STARTS at the source and spreads.
Change in global temperatures from volcanos does NOT.
Ridiculous comparison.
A,
Must be the GHE, do you think?
Could you explain the science for those who don’t understand?
“There is now no place you can start and get a negative trend (apart from starting last month).”
Correct Bellman. If we’re at the peak of the warming trend, this would be the place to start.
And talking of Monkton’s mythical pauses, the trend from his most exciting start month of July 1997, the beginning of his favourite pause, is now just under 0.14 deg C per decade – pretty much the same as the trend for the whole dataset
What’s mythical about it, the flat trend stands out like a sore thumb on the UAH graph posted above, from 2016 to 2022. Look at the two back to back sine wave-like variations from 2016 onward, which average to zero trend.
Yes, you can see the pause here.
https://tinyurl.com/2v2ehur5
You can do similar with any of the global temp datasets.
B,
“The trend since January 2018 is now 0.41C / decade.”
I dont think the seas will start boiling within 2,000 years. What about you – do you think the trend will stop?
I certainly hope you can reassure me that this trend will not continue, or even get worse. What does your research and your calculations show?
bellman…don’t know where you studied statistics, but where I studied it, you don’t form a trend from a few months out of a 75 months data set.
Look at the entire range from 1979 – 2023 and there are major flat trends involved.
Apparently you chose to ignore the part where he stated it was meaningless. He was simply mimicking what you people do with data. Preach to your buddies.
Yes, Swenson’s deceitfulness is endless.
“dont know where you studied statistics, but where I studied it, you dont form a trend from a few months out of a 75 months data set.”
And yet you were perfectly happy to point out the trend from 2016 over the last few years.
You were wrong to do so, of course, and bellman made the same point when he accompanied the trend since January 2018 with the words, “It’s meaningless.”
Which ‘skeptics’ seem to have overlooked.
barry, please stop trolling.
These high temperatures of the troposphere are caused by highs in the oceans. This provides an increase in the solar-heated surface of the oceans.
https://i.ibb.co/7V9mt17/gfs-world-wt3-mslp-anomsd-d1.png
https://i.ibb.co/hXNpBhQ/gfs-world-wt3-sstanom-d1.png
The maximum surface temperature of the open ocean cannot exceed 31 C. Only the surface of the warmer ocean can increase. This forces the amount of water vapor to increase.
25 highs to 23 lows. WOW – such unusual conditions!!
Not as unusual as you continuing to bray about a fraction of a degree warming of a statistical average.
Or you continuing to believe that the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
M
O
N
C
K
T
O
N
P
A
W
S
The ijit, wee willy, cannot even post correctly.
So says the crank who keeps getting taken as a spammer by WordPress.
HINT: in a post where ‘posting correctly’ is the whole point, avoid being incorrect.
* “ijit” is spelled incorrectly
* “willy” is capitalized incorrectly.
Oh, OK.
Wee Willy is an idiot.
Better?
Yet we dont know the cause for the three month spike in temperatures, still an awful lot of excess moisture in the upper atmosphere.
Hunga Tonga Hung Ha’apai eruption ?!
I would like more detail on which parts of the planet are causing this warming spike because it certainly is not happening locally in Vancouver, Canada.
I am beginning to wonder if the Hunga Tonga water vapour injection into the stratosphere is not somehow messing with the satellite readings.
“I would like more detail on which parts of the planet are causing this warming spike”
You could scroll to the top of the page for regional values. Or go to the UAH page linked in Roy’s post to examine the temperature of even more regional zones covering the globe.
But that isn’t a genuine comment, so you won’t. Even when it’s laid out for you at the click of a mouse.
Gordo, when will you ever take the time to learn the basics? Weather is not climate. Cherry picking one location’s data for a few days tells nothing about the changes in global climate. Besides, December 1 was the first day of Winter in the NH.
“I am beginning to wonder if the Hunga Tonga water vapour injection into the stratosphere is not somehow messing with the satellite readings.”
Point 1 is that the there is a stratospheric component to the calculation of lower troposphere so it’s not unreasonable to suppose that a change in the nominal temperature vs altitude profile isn’t well handled by the algorithms. Swanson has been pulling at that thread for years.
Point 2 is that there is a corresponding spike in temperature anomaly for the surface dataset, so there’s some confidence that the satellite data isn’t completely out to lunch.
Excess moisture in the stratosphere is 1 part per million above what was prior to HTE. That’s about 15% higher than usual.
barry, Swanson, Mark B, please stop trolling.
A major snowstorm from the French Alps to Ukraine.
https://i.ibb.co/Vj0nT1J/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-01-214556.png
“White Bizon” is charging into Europe.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/12/02/0500Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-334.36,55.56,888
Pretty amazing how air circulates in the atmosphere.
The anomaly in ozone distribution (accumulation over the Bering Sea) will remain in December. It will cause the breakdown of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere.
https://i.ibb.co/WgjmDDd/gfs-t70-nh-f384.png
It is blatantly obvious here in Vancouver, Canada that this so-called record global average is meaningless. Whatever is causing the sats to measure such an out-of-balance average is definitely not reflected locally. It was so unseasonally cold the other night that I had to get up and turn on a heater in my bedroom as temperatures hovered around -3C.
The idea that it is related to a trace gas in the atmosphere is equally absurd. Anyone pushing this anthropogenic meme is seriously misinformed about real science.
“It is blatantly obvious here in Vancouver, Canada that…”
______________________
That what?
That it must be the same everywhere, all over the world?
Well, the global average presumably applies to the globe. So yes, it applies all over the world. A completely pointless and irrelevant number – just like “air” temperatures.
Is there supposed to be a use for any of this stuff?
So if the global average IQ were to rise, that would mean everyone would now have an IQ higher than the previous average?
Of course not … there would still be conservatives.
Global averages are completely pointless and irrelevant, I agree.
What’s a conservative? Do they promote conservation?
Yeah Mikey, they try to conserve the dictatorship of their out-of-favour leaders by staging insurrections.
You seem to make very angry and irrational posts attacking everything and everyone that does not agree with or support the alarmist narrative.
The HTE is a disrupting effect initially masked by SO2,s cooling effect. The moisture has spread and is now generally accepted as dissipating with an expected atmospheric presence of c. 5 years for H2O with 2 years for SO2. It will take another 1 to 2 years to correlate the effect to be able to deduct its effect to see the real trend. It is a real effect though which can not be denied and it correlates with the abrupt upswing in the data presented by Dr Spencer.
GW is real although at 400 ppm CO2 has become mostly irrelevant to additional warming, not so methane. (Do your physics on that one) That said I am in favour of additional CO2 to assist plant growth given C3 is optimal at c. 1800 ppm. Geology tells us temperature and CO2 have been much higher with life on planet earth doing just fine. No crisis no need to panic – stay calm.
I fear the cold returning, that is a problem. The record tells us this is a more likely event. We are in an ice age that is just a geological fact and given the last week of sub zero temps and -6c at night a record for this time of year here in Scotland even with the Gulf Stream I find the data at odds with my experience.
I approve of saying what you see and feel as others have it is weather and it is also scientific to observe. No harm in that.
No David, I respond in kind to people who make very angry and irrational posts attacking everything and everyone that does not agree with or support the denial narrative. If you were honest you would admit that Swenson (aka Mike Flynn) is one of those people. But I know you won’t want to break ranks.
HT ejected almost no SO2 into the stratosphere, so you have invented that claim.
” It is a real effect though which can not be denied and it correlates with the abrupt upswing in the data presented by Dr Spencer.”
Correlation is not = causation. You need to establish the cause, ie the mechanism.
Do you have one?
The impact of the HT-HH eruption appears as a brief cooling spike in the NOAA STAR LS data, the opposite of that for Pinatubo and El Chichon. Please provide data to support the claim that the eruption was the cause of the reported warming this year.
Swanson, the “supporting data” you’re seeking is in the UAH Global results for the last several months.
And it is further supported by the STAR data and your recognition that this volcano was not your typical volcano.
Nate,
You accidentally wrote –
“Correlation is not = causation. You need to establish the cause, ie the mechanism.”
Do you believe there is correlation between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and increased thermometer temperatures?
A,
You wrote –
“If you were honest you would admit that Swenson (aka Mike Flynn) is one of those people. But I know you wont want to break ranks.”
One of what people? You are not accusing a total stranger (and an anonymous one at that) of dishonesty, are you? Sounds like a wild accusation to me.
Now, you may believe that you can read strangers’ minds, and know what they are thinking, but I don’t believe mind reading is possible. Maybe you can convince others of your supernatural powers – why do you believe you can read minds?
Carry on – I’m just having a laugh at your expense. If I have hurt your feelings, I don’t care. Why should I?
“Do you believe there is correlation between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and increased thermometer temperatures?”
Obviously there is a correlation to global T. How dis you miss that?
And in that case, the causal mechanism was clearly identified, before most of the rise occurred.
While submarine volcanic eruption experiences H2O scrubbing of SO2 there is sufficient measurement of SO2 effluent injected into the Stratosphere. https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/976962/feart-10-976962-HTML-r1/image_m/feart-10-976962-t004.jpg
For H2O to contribute to the warming effect the ejected water (and SO2) has to dissipate into an extensive blanket which clearly takes time and thus the delayed impact. The ejected SO2 is not insignificant in quantity, it is lesser in relation to the magnitude of the eruption due to its subsea nature but clearly measured and effective. It will have come out the atmosphere quickly but it’s masking impact will have been months.
The other clear correlation is the significantly reduced sea ice extent in Antarctica. Clearly an observed anomaly that does not correlate with a slow gradual warming but a step change albeit short lived.
For those that say correlation and causation must be proven I suggest you explain the cause behind the spike in global temp anomaly Dr Spencer presents above and the reduced Antarctic ice. GW is slow and steady although CO2 has saturated its impact some time ago which tallies with the above data and we are now largely left with methane and H2O being the variables to increase the atmospheric GH effect. https://co2coalition.org/publications/van-wijngaarden-and-happer-radiative-transfer-paper-for-five-greenhouse-gases-explained/
I do realise that religion relies on faith and that the zealots do not discuss or debate, however science relies on observation, measurement and logic. The HTE will continue to reveal its impact and this is likely to result in a reduction in the temperature anomaly over the next 12 months. The upswing in the above data will be short lived, unfortunately the religious bigots are long lived and rather tedious on whichever forum and site they select to campaign on to declare the end of the world is nigh……
David,
It looks as though you don’t offer a mechanism, so it is still correlation = causation.
The problem with that is that other events are correlated, such as the recent international mandate to reduce sulfur aerosol emissions from shipping. It has been argued that this should result in less cloud cover over shipping lanes. Which matches the step -up in Atlantic and Pacific sea surface temperature, which preceded the global air T rise.
The HT eruption has been analyzed, and it has been suggested that the extra stratospheric water produces and added greenhouse effect.
But the calculated effect on T is much smaller than the step-up that has been seen.
So the jury is still out.
On the topic of attribution of recent warming, Robert Rohde at Berkley Earth has been showing the attribution chart below in his monthly blog updates.
There have been some references to contributing elements, but I’m not clear on precisely how this chart was generated.
https://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ForcingSchematic-Sep2023.png
https://berkeleyearth.org/september-2023-temperature-update/
That is an interesting analysis, Mark.
Huh, the seasonal alarmists say it’s Summer in the Southern Hemisphere, but Sydney was cold and wet today. Summer my ass.
Edmonton just had its first snow free November in over 100 years. I’m sure you’re not going to use that as an example of global warming.
Maybe Edmonton temperatures are offsetting Vancouver temperature
ark…”Youll have to ask deniers what they would consider to be a pause. ”
***
The word ‘pause’ was introduced by the IPCC in a p.a.t.h.etic attempt to explain the 15-year flat trend from 1998 – 2012. They could not bring themselves to deal with the reality of no warming for 15 years. NOAA went into such a snit they retroactively changed the SST to show an insignificant trend.
Trenberth, who confided secretly to his alarmist buddies in the CLimtegate emails, that the warming has stopped, declared it a ‘travesty’ that no one knew why. When the emails were exposed he rushed off to find a reason for his ill-advised commentary, finding a sci-fi explanation in the oceans, which he claimed were hiding the excess warming.
Meantime, people like you, with major issues related to appealing to authorities like Trenberth, wave your arms in the air and label anyone who dos not agree with the pseudo-science of the likes of Trenberth and the IPCC, as ‘deniers’.
Not correct. The IPCC used the term “hiatus” after deniers had been referring to the “pause”.
The rest of your comment is a continuation of the fiction.
Oxford definition of hiatus –
“a pause or break in continuity in a sequence or activity.”
Maybe the IPCC doesn’t have a good grasp of English? You lose again.
Did you miss the whole point yet again, Mikey?
Despite what Gordon claims, deniers were using the word first.
But naysayers don’t care about the point, as long as they get to say nay.
A,
Which word was that? What is a denier anyway? Climate changes continuously and is unpredictable. Do you agree, or are you are a denier?
Not terribly clever of you, oh mighty keyboard warrior!
Antonin Qwerty?
All it takes is a look back to see the context, which you have done but won’t admit to.
The rest was you implicitly admitting to losing by deflecting.
A,
“All it takes is a look back to see the context, which you have done but wont admit to.
The rest was you implicitly admitting to losing by deflecting.”
Ah, more mind reading claims. You are quite mad – nobody can read minds. If you believe you can, you are suffering from some form of mental defect.
What am I supposed to have “lost”? Did I know it, or am I supposed to be admitting to something unknown?
Maybe you could toss a few facts around, rather than bizarre claims of mindreading, and assertions that people are losing things they never knew they had.
Keep it coming. Nothing wrong with a bit of comic relief, is there? Come on, laugh at me! See, that made you feel better, didn’t it?
Antonin Qwerty, do explain in your own words what the difference is between the IPCC use of hiatus and the sceptic’s use of pause?
Did I say there was a difference, or even imply it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1567805
READ.
“READ”? “READ”?
SHOUTING COMMANDS AT PEOPLE MIGHT NOT GAIN THE RESPECT YOU HOPE FOR!
You wrote “Did I say there was a difference, or even imply it.”
Did anybody say you did? You’re sounding just a wee bit defensive there, laddie.
Maybe you should have a nice cup of tea, followed by a good lie down. You are sounding a bit overexcited.
Antonin Qwerty, you seem to accept any word that the IPCC says without question, but question any word from a sceptic. Hence my question on whether there was a difference in your mind?
“The word ‘pause’ was introduced by the IPCC”
No, it was introduced by AGW ‘skeptics’ well before the IPCC talked about it.
It’s astounding how consistently you make up claptrap from whole cloth.
barry,
Why do you find it astounding?
There seem to be more questions than answers.
There seem to be more empty comments than substantive ones.
barry, please stop trolling.
Meanwhile in Finland.
The average temperature in November was mostly 1.5‒3.5 degC below the average for the reference period 19912020, in Finnish Lapland the average temperature was mainly 3‒5.5 degC below the average.
In Sodankyl, Finnish Lapland, average temperature for the reference period 1991-2020 was -5.8 degC. In November 2023 Sodankyl’s average temperature was -10.9 degC, 5.1 degC colder.
November 2023 was 18th coldest out of 116 Novembers since 1908 in Sodankyl, Finland.
In english that would be Sodankyla. Extended ASCII character 132, ”, does not go through / is not allowed.
javs
Just a little hint: you might use
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
Enter your words or sentences containing UTF-8 characters, and paste the result into the blog’s edit form:
Sodankylä Tromsø ± č â ï
Noticed. Thanks Bindidon.
Thanks for you weather report on that 0.07% of the earth’s surface.
You’re welcome.
Let’s extend the area.
SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute) reports.
The month (November 2023) was colder than normal throughout the country, and in large parts of Norrland (Swedish Lapland), Svealand and also parts of Gtaland, it has not been this cold since November 2010.
November 2010 was 14th coldest November out of those 116 in Sodankyla.
^ That would be Gotaland, not Gtaland.
Congratulations – you’re now up to 0.25% of the world’s surface.
Now find another 49.75%, and repeat for every month of the past 5 years, and you can claim that the earth hasn’t warmed.
In fact I’ll grant you 34.75% if you’re looking for below average, and 14.75% if you’re looking for the bottom quartile.
In case you haven’t noticed I am specifically reporting about the November 2023 average temperatures.
I haven’t claimed Earth has not warmed.
Averaged annual TAVG for 30-year period 1993-2022 in Sodankyla was 0.7 degC warmer than 30-year period 1925-1954.
As long as we understand that this is a regional weather report and says nothing about climate.
Sodankyla’s 30-year periods I mentioned represent rather aptly the regional climate of the Fennoscandia. Fennoscandia’s climate has changed for the better.
The GLOBAL climate has not.
A,
“The GLOBAL climate has not.”
So you say. Upon which particular fantasy do you base your claim?
Maybe you could describe this “GLOBAL climate” for anyone not within your fantasy world?
A,
You wrote –
“As long as we understand that this is a regional weather report and says nothing about climate.”
Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you really believe that you are more than one person?
Very odd.
Couldn’t say. Never lived in GLOBAL climate.
The Norwegian Meteorological Institute (MET Norway) reports.
Coldest November since 2010 in Norway. In Norway, November 2023 was cold and ended 3.5 degrees below normal.
You are joking. No summer in the UK and in a very cold spell.
UK area = 244 thousand sq/km
NH area = 255 million sq/km
Globe area = 510 million sq/km
barry,
Maybe Tim lives in the UK, not spread thinly around the globe.
Averages are pointless – as Mark Twain once said, “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”
Was your comment relevant to anything useful?
barry thinks it is insignificant that no summer and a colder winter in the UK can be written off as a geographical anomaly. That is similar thinking to Barry’s authority figures the IPCC, who think it scientific that a 400+ year mini ice age happened only in Europe while omitting the rest of the planet.
One thing I have noted about alarmists here on Roy’s blog is their insular thinking. Translated, they cannot see beyond the ends of their noses, and that goes straight to the top at the IPCC.
Barry, so let’s take your silly comment to the next stage.
The volume of the solar system is what? and the average temperature of the solar system is going to be a few kelvi at best.
So the odd little record claimed by the alarmists will result in the average temperature increase of the solar system by such a small increase that it wouldn’t be measurable…..
So why dont you try again and make your comment less frivolous.
The solar system is large, planet Earth is small and fragile.
‘So why dont you try again and make your comment less frivolous.’
is a perfect response to your solar system thinking, anon.
Global average temperature is the average temperature of the Earth’s surface.
No more, no less.
If we only knew what it was.
Averaging numbers is not difficult in a spreadsheet Stephen. You should try it.
Nate says:
”Global average temperature is the average temperature of the Earths surface.”
Hmmmm, thats only true if we measure the temperature of the entire surface.
We could also measure a representative sample of the earth’s surface and come up with an approximate global average temperature the accuracy of which is dependent upon the sample size.
But we don’t do either of those things Nate.
We do exactly that.
Nate we know the sample is non-representative. We have few stations on mountain tops and lots in the valleys. We also have most stations in landscapes altered by man (just building one does that)
Even if you just have a Stevenson screen its going to affect the climate inside the box.
few thermometers in the forests. Having lived in a forest I can tell you its about 10 degrees or more cooler at the surface than in the agricultural fields surrounding the forest on hot days and virtually the same temperature at night.
Yep those are details that don’t change the TRENDs significantly. If you think they do, prove it.
Its not my job. Its the job of those peddling the argument. Unless of course you want to surrender skepticism and believe everything your daddy tells you.
And keep in mind that we are observing tenths of a degree based on known biases (like with elevation of dozens of degrees) seems it would be simple enough to say find the mean elevation of the stations and the mean elevation of the land masses of the earth. Do you have a link.
You also have to deal with the fact it has often been stated that the absolute mean temperature is only accurate to 2 degrees.
“Its not my job.”
In science, if you think all others have done it wrong, you cant just pull it out of your ass, as you do.
You have to demonstrate it. Show that it makes a significant difference, as Roy is trying to do.
Go off and do that.
In science, if you cant demonstrate the error is significant, then your complaints are just hot air.
The measured sea surface temperature is not affected by your issue.
The reanalysis data is most convincing to me.
Nate you can’t derive a more accurate answer than the data that goes into deriving it. Didn’t you learn that in your beginning classes in a applied mathematics in high school?
Yeah reanalysis allows one to use multiple datasets and increase the odds that the error is between the standard deviations between the data sets. . .but what you are suggesting is the figures I used didn’t do that to come up with a standard deviation for a single factor in a data set. But you would be wrong about that.
As I said if you have a reanalysis that comes up with a different answer produce it. As it stands what you have produced doesn’t support your position as did the S&O experiment that you spent dozens of posts claiming various things were wrong with it that weren’t wrong.
“but what you are suggesting is the figures I used didnt do that to come up with a standard deviation for a single factor in a data set.”
Where did you produce figures or any standard deviation?
sorry to mislead you. the figures i used came from sources that properly estimated the error.
take for example just the possible range of natural variation in trenberth 2009.
various measurements vary for mean solar incoming from 342.5 to 339.1. thats more than uah has recorded warming in its history.
assuming the various works are correct how can that be? well solar output changes over time and our distance from the sun is constantly changing by variations in the eccentricity of the orbit based upon the position and influence of the other planets. and where do you see that influence detailed down to minimum length climate periods for the purpose of analyzing trends over those periods? but of course there is no consensus on any of the variables in the Trenberth energy budget.
you say you were convinced by the reanalyzes, but solar reflect varies by more than 20w/m2 between the various analyses. now that isn’t due to co2. you can’t take data like that and convert a sows ear into a silk purse. all that is is a special license for outrageous claims and those claims are rewarded and institutions fight for the Don Kings of the promo world of climate like they fight for football coaches.
“various measurements vary for mean solar incoming from 342.5 to 339.1.”
Completely different topic.
“thats more than uah has recorded warming in its history.”
Which isn’t something that UAH measures! You seem to be very confused, Bill.
Now Nate wants to change the topic. What do you want to talk about now Nate?
Nate makes the outrageous claim that incoming solar is irrelevant to figuring out what the imbalance is.
Actually for the quoted .9w/m2 its obvious the folks that ginned that one up agrees with Nate strongly.
Honestly they didn’t do it that way because they knew it would be subject to very specific reliability charges. So how do you circumvent that criticism?
Well black box climate models work great for that purpose.
Its the usual story that gets foisted on the public.
Nope.
You are hopelessly confused about which thread is which argument.
This one was about
“We could also measure a representative sample of the earths surface and come up with an approximate global average temperature”
Nate says:
”We could also measure a representative sample of the earths surface and come up with an approximate global average temperature”
————————–
Well that may be true but it doesn’t mean anything until you define approximate.
You also said in this thread:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”In science, if you cant demonstrate the error is significant, then your complaints are just hot air.
The measured sea surface temperature is not affected by your issue.
The reanalysis data is most convincing to me.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The discussion is about that and what this thread is about. So far those of your ilk have not defined a level of significance. Seems any global warming to you is significant.
first, You could assuage that concern by stating what level of warming would be significant to you and why.
second, the measured SSTs are affected. There remains a lack of uniformity of measurement and the fact that from that measurement we simply assume that the SST is that temperature when in fact we only gathered the information near surface (for surface waters below the surface). Anybody with experience in monitoring SSTs knows that there is a sharp temperature gradient within a few centimeters of the surface that arises out of evaporative cooling of the surface skin and mixes at a very wide range of rates down from that skin, like when the wind blows and a whitecap breaks over the surface, then depending on wave size you might still not be as deep to eliminate anything more than part of the gradient.
It takes .418 joules of energy to warm a gram of water 0.1c
But to vaporize one gram of water requires that the remaining water must be cooled by 2259 joules of energy.
Finally you claim to have been convinced by a reanalysis. But there are lots of reanalyses so which one convinced you and why that one versus the many others?
So long story short, this thread was not about “various measurements vary for mean solar incoming”.
And the answer to that very clearly presents huge problems for key climate numbers that you claim have been measured to accurate enough of a degree to reliably calculate .9w/m2 imbalance elsewhere in this comment section.
I do notice you don’t want that connection to occur or you would not be complaining. I also notice you haven’t given any answers I asked for of why you were convinced by some reanalysis. I thought you might want to point that out so I can tear that apart also. But I thought wrong.
“you dont want that connection to occur or you would not be complaining. ”
No I want to expose your evasive tactics, such as changing the subject, to obfuscate and avoid having to acknowledge that you were wrong.
We are on to you.
Its not off topic. Understanding the measurement is always done to some level of imperfect accuracy. And knowing the accuracy is absolutely pertinent to that which you might use that number for.
So its totally on topic since the entire discussion of its accuracy is in determining whether science supports your points of view or not.
Auditors are constantly assessing the materiality of accurate measures as accuracy has no real meaning outside of that.
Nah, you just drifted off topic.
Nate continues to desperately obfuscate.
“barry thinks it is insignificant that no summer and a colder winter in the UK can be written off as a geographical anomaly.”
It might be significant in the UK, but as that is a fraction of the global surface area, it doesn’t determine what the global average is.
Which is the point.
How dumb are skeptics when they assume that because the UK is cold, that means everywhere else has to be cold at the same time.
barry, please stop trolling.
The blockage of the polar vortex over the Bering Sea causes an easterly circulation over northern Canada. A smaller polar vortex is forming over Canada.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif
https://i.ibb.co/DPBdTFD/gfs-t70-nh-f00.png
Let’s talk today about snow in Germoney.
While in northeast we have now 5+cm, the stituation in Bavaria, especially in Munich, is really unusual. Up to 50 cm snowfall last night: that’s a lot indeed.
Form our weather data supplier ‘wetteronline.de’:
” Snow paralyzes traffic in Bavaria
Snow and ice have caused chaos in parts of southern Germany. Bavaria is particularly affected. There is over 40 centimeters of snow in Munich. There’s nothing going on at the airport until Sunday morning. Rail traffic is also often at a standstill. The situation on the streets is hardly better.
Persistent, heavy snowfall has partially paralyzed traffic in Bavaria. More than 30 centimeters of fresh snow also caused chaos in Munich overnight.
Due to the ongoing snowfall, air traffic at Munich Airport has now been suspended until 6 a.m. on Sunday morning. More than 150 takeoffs and landings were canceled there yesterday. ”
*
Yeah. Grrrand Solaaar Minimuuum aheaddd!
Bindinon, so you can easily find an extreme cold record across a large country. But that’s not a surprise as there will always be an extreme event somewhere. Only attribution studies seem to want a big deal of it.
By the way, does that excessive snowfall indicate that the next ice age is on its way, or is global boiling still happening?
Tonight snowfall in England.
https://i.ibb.co/mBsbHX2/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-02-220036.png
It’s a little warmer in Berlin today. I think the temperature will only drop to -4 C at night.
Five reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
Reason #1 discussed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556460
Reason #2 discussed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557312
Reason #3 discussed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1559426
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
There are two basic attempts to describe/define the bogus GHE. One involves direct warming of Earth’s surface by CO2. The other involves indirect warming (slowing the cooling) by CO2 acting as insulation. The discussion here is about the first. The “insulation” nonsense will be discussed under Reason 5.
Earth’s average temperature of 288K emits a spectrum with the peak energy having photons of about 10μ wavelength. Lower down the spectrum is the 15μ photon, which is absorbed/emitted by CO2. The cult believes that the 15μ photon is reemitted by CO2, returns to Earth, and causes warming.
CO2 does emit 15μ photons, and some are directed to Earth (called “back-radiation”). But those low energy photons can NOT raise the temperature of the 288K surface.
To emphasize the point that CO2 cannot raise the temperature of a 288K surface, consider the photon at the peak energy emission from an ice cube. That photon has a wavelength of about 10.65μ. The ice photon is hotter(shorter-wavelength/higher-frequency) than the CO2 photon. If you believe CO2 can warm the 288K surface, then you must believe ice cubes can make it even hotter!
Believing that CO2 can warm the surface just indicates a lack of understanding of radiative physics and thermodynamics.
Nice, but
Photons don’t have a temperature.
It has energy and that can be added to a surface.
bob, photons are identified by their wavelengths/frequencies. Their energy is then established. The 15μ photon’s “temperature” refers to the WDL calculation from the emitting surface.
This has been explained to you before, but you’re stuck in a rut. You’re unable to understand the basic physics. You keep running to a CO2 laser, not understanding anything about entropy. You keep believing that nature behaves as a properly engineered, powered device.
You’re not alone in your rut. Norman cannot understand that ice cannot boil water and barry cannot understand that arriving fluxes are not affected by “view factor”.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
“The 15μ photons temperature refers to the WDL calculation from the emitting surface.”
You are confusing photons from gases with photons from blackbodies, and that shows you don’t no what you are posting about.
Wrong again, bob.
You quoted me correctly, but you were unable to understand the quote: “The 15μ photons temperature refers to the WDL calculation from the emitting surface.
A surface emits a spectrum. Gases only emit in spectral lines.
You don’t understand the science so all you’ve got are your false accusations. Maybe it’s time for some of your infamous juvenile profanity. That might impress “anal Norman”, or “view factor” barry. It won’t impress responsible adults.
Science-wise, your cult has NOTHING.
The 15u photons are coming from what imaginary surface Clint R?
The 15μ photons are within Earth’s emitted spectrum, bob.
Earth is NOT imaginary.
Cult children can not understand any of this.
Clint R,
Not the ones that are emitted by the CO2 in the atmosphere.
bob, you seem to be going in circles, as usual.
Start here and let’s see how many laps you can do:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1568551
You can’t learn, but maybe you can get some good exercise….
Clint R,
“The 15μ photons temperature refers to the WDL calculation from the emitting surface.”
You are doubling down on your mistake.
I was referring to the 15u photons coming from the atmosphere, not the surface.
You can drive around in circles quoting yourself but it’s
Clint Rs all the way down.
Bumbling Bobby,
Unfortunately, the surface cools at night – the photons emitted by the atmosphere dont appear to be having any effect at all! Even when a low level inversion exists which makes the atmosphere hotter than the surface, the surface continues to cool.
Magic bobdroege SkyDragon photons dont count in the real world.
You’re off with the fairies again.
Swenson,
You are drooling in your Maypo again, maybe you could post something on topic?
Bumbling Bobby,
Unfortunately, the surface cools at night the photons emitted by the atmosphere dont appear to be having any effect at all! Even when a low level inversion exists which makes the atmosphere hotter than the surface, the surface continues to cool.
Magic bobdroege SkyDragon photons dont count in the real world.
Youre off with the fairies again.
They make the surface warmer than it would be without them.
That’s not no effect.
bob…photons have a specific frequency and that frequency is dependent on the temperature of the emitting surface. The frequency of a photons from a cooler surface is lower than the frequency from a hotter surface. That means a hotter surface cannot absorb the photons from a cooler surface.
Ergo, only photons of a specific frequency can be abosorbed by any surface and no photons from a colder surface can be absorbed by a warmer surface.
It would help, Bob, if you identified the ‘energy’ to which you refer. different forms of energy have different properties.
Gordon, you say that no photons from a cold surface can be absor.bed into a hotter surface, or words to that effect.
So what happens to these photons?
Anon,
Damn, don’t spoil my fun!
That’s my stock question for SkyDragon cultists. What happens to all the photons of radio wavelengths? What about the green photons which went straight through the window? Where do the visible light photons from an LED flashlight go when you turn it off?
And so on.
They have no clue, but they are famous for claiming bizarre things – the energy from a colder atmosphere can warm the surface – when even the radiation from a warmer atmosphere (a low level nighttime inversion, for example) still cannot increase the temperature of a colder surface.
But hey, I can’t lay claim to exclusive rights to any laughter to be had at the expense of people who believe they can make thermometers hotter with CO2 (or H2O).
Swenson, the alarmists will say that the green photons are good photons and should be protect and cherished. All other photons will be considered as enemies against their cult and should be cancelled.
Same with CO2, there is good CO2 that is from natural sources and the evil CO2 from fossil fuels. The plants haven’t gone to the woke universities so they haven’t had the chance to discriminate between the good Vs evil CO2 molecules.
Sounds like a great job for Tony Fauci. Gain of function research and cloning of plants that won’t take advantage of extra CO2 in the air. Maybe even come up with an AI robot to run around and infect all existing plants. We already know that’s his area of competency.
“The frequency of a photons from a cooler surface is lower than the frequency from a hotter surface. ”
No. The AVERAGE frequency of photons from the cooler surface is lower than the AVERAGE frequency of photons from a hotter surface. An individual photon from the cooler surface can be high frequency than an individual photon from a hotter surface.
“That means a hotter surface cannot absorb the photons from a cooler surface.”
Strike two. Even if an individual photon from a cool surface has a low frequency, that does not prevent the warm surface from absorbing it.
Suppose 0 C CO2 emits a 15 um photon. And 200 C CO2 emits a 15 um photon. The two identical photons arrive at a 100 C surface. Either photon gets absorbed with equal probability at the 100 C surface. Neither identical photon is ‘prevented’ from being absorbed.
Tim,
You are off with the fairies, picking irrelevant and miniscule nits as fast as you can move your hands in your imagination.
You say particularly ridiculous things like “Strike two. Even if an individual photon from a cool surface has a low frequency, that does not prevent the warm surface from absorbing it.”
Here’s a fact for you – submerging a block of ice in water does not prevent the ice from emitting photons (not that you even know what a photon is – copy and paste your Wikipedia definition and I’ll tear it to shreds).
The water will actually cool. The ice is colder than the water.
Now if you are insane enough to claim either that the water absorbs the photons and increases in temperature, or that the water absorbs the photons and does not increase in temperature, you deserve all the derisive laughter which will follow either statement.
So where do the photons from a block of ice submerged in water go?
You resemble a donkey trying to convince a monkey that you Einstein in disguise!
Come on, Tim, provide an unambiguous answer. The world wants to know!
“Now if you are insane enough to claim either that the water absorbs the photons and increases in temperature, or that the water absorbs the photons and does not increase in temperature, you deserve all the derisive laughter which will follow either statement.”
You clearly don’t understand the relevant physics at all.
I claim (and all competent physicists claim) that:
* materials emit photons based on their temperature
* materials warm/cool based on the net thermal energy in/out.
Cold ice emits photons — which are indeed absorbed by the warmer water. Warmer water emits more photons (and with a higher average energy), which are absorbed by the ice. Therefore the net thermal energy via radiation is from warmer water to cooler ice. The ice warms and the water cools.
Moving on, you agree that “submerging a block of ice in water does not prevent the ice from emitting photons”. So there are indeed photons emitted by the ice.
“So where do the photons from a block of ice submerged in water go?”
I know that they are indeed absorbed by the water, but that there are simply more photons from the water back to ice, so the ice warms and the water cools.
Where do YOU think they go?
Tim if the photons go they must be reflected because there is no evidence that photons are lost in the direction of a warmer object.
“You resemble a donkey trying to convince a monkey that you Einstein in disguise!”
Swenson’s figured out its better skip the science altogether, in his arguments.
His mother is very disappointed in him.
While Bill seems content to just declare his own new science ‘facts’
“Tim if the photons go they must be reflected”
No thats not science Nate. The photons might not go. And if they go they may be like waves against a breakwater and just reflect. What we do know is they don’t cause the alleged recipient to get hotter.
“What we do know is they dont cause the alleged recipient to get hotter.”
Speak for yourself.
Again, you make up your own facts, offering no evidence.
Shameless, Bill.
Nate lies again.
He knows the results of the Vaughn Pratt experiment.
He knows the results of the Woods experiment
And he has read the paper by Seim and Olsen
And he refuses to admit to their results all the while never ever providing a paper that shows a successful experiment.
Woods -not relevant
Pratt??
Seim – bad exp as explained ad nauseum, and he admits that laws of physics cannot account for it.
Been over IR detectors with you at length, which DO abs.orb photons from colder objects.
Nate thinks science is a process of waving ones hand and hoping that ignorant people will actually believe it.
When Bill doesnt understand basic science, he feels he can just make it up!
A more detailed response is that you need review Kirchhoff’s Law.
It states that a high emissivity surface will abs.orb, rather than reflect, nearly all light hitting it.
And there is nothing in this law about rejecting light coming from colder surfaces. And how would a surface know that anyway?
There is no LAW OF PHYSICS consistent with the idea that cold-source emitted photons (or light) must be reflected from warmer surfaces.
But if you can find one, please show it!
Nate the same way that electricity does it.
”And how would a surface know that anyway?” Whats the matter Nate? Can’t you ask the surface yourself. ROTFLMAO!
So you acknowledge that this has no science rationale:
“Tim if the photons go they must be reflected “
well what do you call it when light fails to warm something? Albedo? Here we can have near black bodies and the 3rd grader radiation model fails.
So no science rational for a body of high emissivity to reflect light from a colder body.
-There is no physics support for that. You don’t offer any.
-You can’t tell us how, even in principle, a body could selectively reject only light coming from colder sources.
Oh well, another mole whacked.
I said the same way that electricity rejects a voltage of a smaller potential.
I am not saying its science I am just pointing out that despite your bloviating you haven’t provided any evidence that it doesn’t. And since this is the proposition of the CAGW activists demanding action without first producing the science the burden is upon you to produce, not me.
“I am not saying its science”
Gald to hear you acknowledge that. Electricity behaves is not light.
“I am just pointing out that despite your bloviating you havent provided any evidence that it doesnt.”
Of course I did, Kirchoffs law is well established. Unless YOU can show that it can be violated when light comes from a cold source, and how that happens, you are just bloviating.
Arrggh,
Electricity behaves differently from light, so not science.
Nate continues his lying and his science by declaration.
And of course while the burden isn’t on the skeptics they found it easy to show that CO2 isn’t insulation. After using Modtran to calculate the expected warming effect from the amount of CO2 used in the experiment, the experiment failed to show any measurable warming.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
“Nate continues his lying and his science by declaration.”
Loser talk, Bill.
Sorry that you have no alternative laws of physics that support your thinking.
Again for people who don’t understand how science works, to become a law of physics, as Kirchhoff’s radiation law has, it had to be tested and confirmed many many hundreds of experiments.
Those aren’t cancelled by a single, questionable experiment, whose authors can’t even rule out experimental error (lost heat).
To overturn an established law of physics requires extraordinary evidence.
But if you are determined to believe contrarians MUST BE right, at the expense of all other known facts, then you can certainly do so, but it won’t be justified by the evidence.
Nate continues showing he is a proud card carrying member of a gypsy driveway paver crew selling an untested theory about CO2.
I show him an experiment that shows it doesn’t work and he declines provide an experiment showing it working.
“I show him an experiment”
Whose results both you and its authors don’t understand in terms of physics.
You still can’t explain how a body can filter and reject radiation (photons) if they come from a colder source?
“selling an untested theory about CO2.”
Nah, the topic of this thread is your claim that photons from cold sources must be reflected by warm bodies, which violates Kirchhoff’s law.
Please include your sources Nate.
https://web.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/classes/ge108/week3/lec6.pdf
There. One of many.
Now pls provide any source that gives a rational scientific reason why warm bodies should reflect light (photons) from cold bodies, which would be a violation of Kirchhoff’s law.
Please make sure it explains how warm bodies can filter photons by their source temperature.
there is nothing in there that prohibits what i said. you are just too focused on a photon being a particle as opposed to a wave. the law is just a mathematical formula that describes behavior but says nothing whatsoever about any substance of the photon.
You ask for evidence, get it, reject it, then offer none yourself.
That is weak, Bill.
Again, Kirchhoff’s law states that a high emissivity body abs.orbs nearly 100% of the radiation that hits it.
If it receives radiation, now matter what the source temp, it must abs.orb nearly 100% of it.
Again, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE that warm bodies must reflect light from cold bodies?
What is the logical rationale for that?
How can a warm body discern light has been emitted from a cold source?
You take Kirchhoff’s law too literally.
The way physics laws are taught is by analogy.
then you imagine anything that doesn’t hold to that analogy is a violation of the law.
There are AT LEAST two ways and possibly more. Particle theory and wave theory are the two known ways to satisfy it. Two methods to achieve the same result. Perhaps there are more known ways but 2 is good enough for me to make my point.
You should note in the story you provided that this only occurs up and until equilibrium is reached.
But you seem to believe that if you block the emissions of the heated object it will continue to warm to a temperature greater than equilibrium in violation of SB’s Law.
Equilibrium occurs when the input equals the output period. No fussing, no fudging, no imagining 3rd grader radiation models stuff where the input becomes greater because you blocked the output. Thats getting into the territory of the pile of bricks in the room heating up to a temperature greater than the room.
In Tim’s example of the coffee pot there need be no change in temperature of the sky for the coffee pot to have a different temperature. It will change with a different temperature in the local environment.
Further the coffee pot is by definition in his experiment hotter than the local environment but its too small to affect the environment in any measured way.
If you create a coffeepot big enough to affect the local environment then its going to warm the local environment because its hotter. If its colder its going to cool the local environment similar to dropping an ice cube into a cup of water.
there isn’t much more to say. I will just await the next silly experiment you try to imagine doing something other than the above.
Laws of physics are not analogies.
You offer only handwaving. Not evidence.
The laws of physics are not analogies. They are quite explicit.
Again, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE that warm bodies must reflect light from cold bodies?
What is the logical rationale for that?
How can a warm body discern light has been emitted from a cold source?
You simply havent made the case.
nate my statement was a conditional statement. apparently you have no concept of logic as this isn’t the only time you have failed to recognize one just in the last couple of days. obvious i don’t know because nobody has established that a photon exists in order to warm the warmer object and we already know the warmer object doesn’t get warmer even if one exists.
Cop out. You have no evidence. Period. Your claim was hot air.
Unlike you Nate I don’t jump to conclusions. My folks said I was like that as a baby and always had an intense interest in how things actually worked and never took anybody’s word for it. So much to do, so little time.
You were the one making the unsupported claim that light from a cold body must be reflected from a warm body.
We have learned not to take your word for it.
In context if as you believe any light absor.bed is going to warm the abor.bing molecule and experiments show no warming occurs then your theory is wrong such that if a photon arrived at the surface in question then it must have been reflected if no warming occurred.
Its amazing how block headed you can be.
Hunter wrote, in part:
Of course, that assumes that said “experiments” are valid. Your repeated reference to the S&O experiment, which is deeply flawed, does not refute anything. Hunter continues:
That conclusion is simply a empty assertion, without any supporting evidence. And, as I demonstrated, there’s evidence that the IR EM from a colder body can cause a warmer body to warm further.
Only extremely gullible people will believe ONE experiment, lacking any rational explanation, undoes hundreds of previous ones, that are in any case ignored.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter wrote, in part:
experiments show no warming occurs then your theory is wrong
Of course, that assumes that said experiments are valid. Your repeated reference to the S&O experiment, which is deeply flawed, does not refute anything.
Well it certainly is valid to the claims of the early days that the greenhouse effect is demonstrated by the 3rd grader radiation model.
Now its down to no description given and a claim it must be CO2.
And Nate thought that had been verified such that he produced a paper that was no more than a model and had a conditional caveat regarding warming being the increase in emission height. So no S&O is not a test of the increase in emission height but also the third grader radiation model bandied about for a decade or more isn’t how the greenhouse effect works either.
So obviously we aren’t ever going to see a blueprint until science determines if it works or not and how it works if it works. But its clear at some point you guys decided to abandon the need for science.
“model and had a conditional caveat regarding warming being the increase in emission height.”
Bill, you really did not understand that paper, and you are misrepresenting it here.
Nate confirms he doesn’t understand the impact of an if,then statement. Perhaps if he could find a more recent paper solving the matter? Maybe there is none as nobody has brought this issue to the attention of our bosses yet so they can fund 6 rebuttal papers.
“Nate confirms he doesnt understand the impact of an if,then statement.”
Quote the statements from the paper, with context, that support this exaggerated spin:
“had a conditional caveat regarding warming being the increase in emission height.”
This is just blather.
Gordon,
“photons have a specific frequency and that frequency is dependent on the temperature of the emitting surface.”
I was referring to photons from CO2 gas, not from a surface, and CO2 emits the same frequencies of photons no matter what the temperature of the gas. And it’s from individual molecules of CO2 anyway, which don’t have temperature.
And also, photons have no way to measure the temperature of the surface they are about to interact with, only if the energy levels are available will they be absorbed.
bumbling bobby,
You are a complete dingleberry. No, the Earth did not heat up from absolute zero to its present temperature, and all matter above absolute zero emits IR, the frequency of the emitted radiation varying with temperature.
You will find that two bodies in thermal equilibrium by definition are at the same temperature – for example two masses of gas of different composition. At the same temperature, they emit and absorb precisely the same frequencies of photons – you cannot distinguish them by measuring the frequency of the emitted photons. A slab of gold at the same temperature, in equilibrium with the the gases, will emit and absorb exactly the same photons. How could it not? This is what experiment shows.
If you have any experimental results to back up your rambling incoherence, feel free to amaze me.
A dingleberry trying to convince a donkey and a chimpanzee that the smarter than both. Maybe he is?
“You will find that two bodies in thermal equilibrium by definition are at the same temperature for example two masses of gas of different composition. At the same temperature, they emit and absorb precisely the same frequencies of photons you cannot distinguish them by measuring the frequency of the emitted photons.”
If the two gases are different, then of course you can distinguish them, because they emit different spectrums.
“A dingleberry trying to convince a donkey and a chimpanzee that the smarter than both. Maybe he is?”
I can sell you a verb, for fifty bucks.
Sorry Gordon,
“bobphotons have a specific frequency and that frequency is dependent on the temperature of the emitting surface.”
That’s not true at all, even for blackbodies which emit a spectrum of frequencies, not just one frequency.
Individual atoms or molecules emit based on the transition energy levels available in the molecule or atom. And since individual atoms or molecules do not have a temperature, those atoms and molecules are not emitting frequencies based on temperature.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
barry…”Yes, you can see the pause here”.
***
No, Barry, what you see is abject propaganda from ijits who think it is amusing to dress up as Nazis and impersonate a physicist. Theur defining hour may have been the illegitimate study in which they stole the work of Naomi Oreskes to claim 97% of scientists agree on global warming. You embarrass all Australians by quoting this drivel.
By posting garbage from skepticalscience, you reveal your true alarmist roots. You have no interest in real science, only in the pap offered by alarmist authority figures.
Your graphic from SkS, presuming to represent the truth, shows a trend ranging from 0.3C to 1.3C over 5.3 decades, which works out to about 0.19C/decade. If that was true, it should be about 1C warmer here in Vancouver, Canada than in 1970 and it is not.
Bellman chimes in with this gem…”The trend since January 2018 is now 0.41C / decade”. So, the trend according to SkS has been 0.19C/decade yet Bellman is now claiming 0.41C/decade over 5 years. A quick check of the UAH graph above shows a relatively flat trend since 2018 with the recent extremes skewing the trend since 2018. But, hey, why let the truth get in the way of alarmist fiction?
Omitted from the mix since 1970 are mysterious step warmings that have never been explained. The sudden 0.2C warming in 1977 had several scientists wanting to erase it from the record as a mistake. That happened 10 years before the formation of the IPCC but I doubt that it is mentioned in IPCC review notes. The sudden spurt led to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
There have been at least two similar step increases since 1977. What caused them, certainly not a trace gas?
This is the key point. If ocean oscillations can suddenly increase the global average by 0.2C over 1 year, what can a combined effect of multiple oscillations do? Tsonis et al, concluded that ocean oscillations working in phase and out of phase could explain all warming and cooling.
I can do the same graph myself with UAH data:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/from:1979.75/to:1989.5/trend/plot/uah6/from:1987.80/to:1997.34/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015/to:2023/trend/plot/uah6/trend
Hilariously, each of the ‘pauses’ has a steeper negative gradient than the previous. And yet the whole series has a statistically significant positive trend (none of the negative trends are statistically significant).
No propaganda – just exposing the silliness of of ‘skeptics’ touting a pause after every time there is a new higher peak to start from.
“Your graphic from SkS, presuming to represent the truth, shows a trend ranging from 0.3C to 1.3C over 5.3 decades, which works out to about 0.19C/decade. If that was true, it should be about 1C warmer here in Vancouver, Canada than in 1970 and it is not.”
Again the asinine straw man that whatever happens globally must be mirrored on the local scale or AGW doesn’t exist.
As I said above, the seasonal alarmists say it’s Summer in the Southern Hemisphere. But Sydney was cold and wet the last couple of days, so I know that Summer is a hoax!
And just in case you’re too daft to get it, that was sarcasm. 50/50 on whether you get the analogy.
barry,
According to your calculations, when do the seas start boiling? Or does the warming trend stop in the future?
Come on, you’re a clever chap, surely! Help out those less intelligent than you.
Show your equations and workings, if you feel like copying and pasting them.
Only joking – you can’t predict the future at all, can you?
Barry, it seems to be yourself that comes out with strawman arguments.
You use an extreme hot record from across the world as proof, but any cold record you ignore. So it is you who seems to ignore the data.
As a non-alarmist I prefer to see the data in it’s entireties Vs your alarmists cherry picking of data provided by your cult.
I don’t use “extreme hot weather from across the world as proof” of anything.
It’s you, not me, building straw men.
The data in those links are the data in entirety, taken straight from the UAH web page that provides them. The link is in the article at the top of this page.
You have no idea at all about this, do you.
As Anon claimed, you have little or no interest in understanding why temperatures suddenly rise after a 6 year flat trend. All you do is push your alarmist propaganda.
As I’ve talked about this endlessly with you over 7 years and explained that pauses are just cherrypicking start and end points in noisy data, the idea that I have ‘no interest’ is just silly waffle from you.
“your alarmist propaganda”
Doesn’t exist. Please quote me saying anything alarming about global climate.
barry…”I can do the same graph myself with UAH data:”
***
That’s the point, Barry, you, an amateur, can take UAH data and show a negative trend using w4trees. All you are demonstrating is a penchant for alarmist propaganda. When you turn to SkS to support you, it suggests you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
No the point is that in noisy data you can find any number of ‘pauses’ just by cherrypicking your start of the trend with a high anomaly and ending the trend analysis with a low anomaly.
THAT is chicanery.
barry,
Here you go – no cherry picking at all.
Surface originally – molten
Surface now – mostly not molten.
My conclusion is that the surface is now cooler. It has cooled.
Your conclusion? Do you think the surface heated up?
“My conclusion is that the surface is now cooler. It has cooled.”
Except for the last 20,000 y of warmer temps, then the last 100 y of additional warming, which you always ignore.
Why?
barry,
Here you go no cherry picking at all.
Surface originally molten
Surface now mostly not molten.
My conclusion is that the surface is now cooler. It has cooled.
Your conclusion? Do you think the surface heated up?
Trying to weasel around what I said, you wrote –
“Except for the last 20,000 y of warmer temps, then the last 100 y of additional warming, which you always ignore.”
I know you can’t help being yourself, but why do you think that “warmer temps” started 20,000 years ago? Is that when the GHE which you can’t describe, started? Are you quite mad?
” why do you think that warmer temps started 20,000 years ago?”
Evasion by distraction.
The point was that the Earth warmed since then. So your theory that it only ever cools, as much as you love it, is WRONG.
Feynman is very disappointed that you keep on declaring it so anyway!
Nate says:
”The point was that the Earth warmed since then. So your theory that it only ever cools, as much as you love it, is WRONG.”
And what do you have for evidence that the cause of warming changed since then?
Stalking me again?
Nate gets upset when somebody points out to him that his logic has gapping holes in it. Like his idea that the moon in its motion has particles going in multiple directions at the same time.
Bill gets upset when he loses arguments with me elswhere, so he takes his grievance parade on the road.
Nate your narcissism is showing.
Speaking of unprecedented anomalies, did anyone mention yet that Antarctic sea ice extent is the lowest ever this year, that it beat 2022 for the lowest March minimum, and that the 3 months August through October have each smashed the record low for the those months?
https://tinyurl.com/muppuvxb
Click on ‘Antarctic’ top left.
Arctic sea ice, on the other hand, has been lower than average again this year, but not even close to record-breaking material.
barry,
“Speaking of unprecedented anomalies, did anyone mention yet that Antarctic sea ice extent is the lowest ever this year, that it beat 2022 for the lowest March minimum, and that the 3 months August through October have each smashed the record low for the those months?”
I don’t anybody has mentioned it yet, so you doing so is unprecedented.
Your completely irrelevant weather report is duly noted, and will be filed in the circular filing cabinet (waste paper basket) at the appropriate time.
Thank you for your input.
Every post makes clearer that Swenson has no interest in the topic of this blog.
Then why is he here? It is a mystery.
Nate,
Everything is a mystery to you.
That’s because you are not terribly bright. No mystery there.
barry
” … did anyone mention yet … ”
Yes. Every month.
Here are 3 links to daily sea ice extent charts.
1. Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
2. Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
3. Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
The charts are updated below the permanent links, so anyone interested can bookmark them.
*
The simultaneous extent drop at the end of November looks a bit strange, to say the least. No idea where that comes from.
*
OK, Arctic is below average, but that is no difficult task because the mean of 1981-2010 was very high.
2023 is similar to 2021/22 – way above 2020 and 2019.
Thanks for the charts. I haven’t checked out global sea ice for a few years. Looks like 2023 is going to be the lowest extent on record, and by some margin.
barry, please stop trolling.
So if the guy on CNN is correct that we will never see lower temperatures on planet earth ever again, this must be the long-feared tipping point. A new baseline has started.
On the other hand, if the temperature falls later in 2024 or 2025 — possibly dramatically like it did in 1999 — then we need some explanation, or the possibility that climate really is more complex than human minds can analyze. At a minimum, it would show that CO2 is not regulating the temperature of earth. I do not think we are seeing the effect of a sudden El Nino as some have suggested, although it is probably a contributing factor.
Tim, no the media will just ignore any of their previous claims. But will then double down on their next wild claim. There is already a move to muddy the water between mis/mal/dis information.
“So if the guy on CNN is correct that we will never see lower temperatures on planet earth ever again”
Neither named nor quoted. Sounds like you or someone else completely invented what this mystery guy said.
I do not have the exact quote, but it is something to the effect that this record breaking July or August is only going to get even hotter next year, so this is actually the coolest month we will ever see again.
Here is your CNN climate expert:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Weir
“After graduating from Victory Christian High School in Tulsa, Oklahoma he briefly attended Oral Roberts University before transferring to Pepperdine University in Malibu, California[1] where he earned a degree in journalism and creative writing.”
“we will never see lower temperatures on planet earth ever again”
Becomes
“this record breaking July or August is only going to get even hotter next year”
barry,
And the year after? What’s the advertised range of your crystal ball?
Or do you truly believe you can see into the future? Can you read minds as well?
C’mon Barry. You can do better. The July and August records were world-wide records. It was particularly hot in North America and Europe, but the record was reported for the world.
I watched Bill Weir live on CNN making those statements. He was in NY City standing by a body of water that was probably the Hudson River.
The guy has a long record or making emotional reports that highlight his complete lack of scientific knowledge. But nobody ever tries to correct him — not even Michael Mann who is also a frequent guest on many media networks cheering on about how the USA alone can stop climate change.
Instead of vague reconstructions of what you think some journalist said, you could a) find a quote, b) not rely on MSM news for your advice, which sensationalises everything. You may as well complain that the sky is blue in daytime.
At worst you sensationalised whatever he said sensationalised. At best, you just “re-interpeted” what he said.
Grandpas can rant on the porch to their hearts content. It’s usually pointless asking them to verify anything they say. They immediately make that someone else’s problem.
Thank you again Barry for reinforcing the fact that you have no legitimate response except to accuse me of being both incompetent AND dishonest. I take that from you as a compliment.
What would your theoretical answer be if the most watch news network in the world (their claim) was putting out pure nonsense about climate? Does that matter?
“except to accuse me”
C’mon Tim, you can do better.
Take some responsibility for your exaggeration. The guy never said “we will never see lower temperatures on planet earth ever again”
He is one journalist, not the spokesman for Climate Science.
And scientists DO say that next year could be warmer still because of El Nino.
> the record was reported for the world.
Wait. Are you suggesting that AMERICA is not the world?
Only joking:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/06/exp-hottest-temp-bill-weir-live-fst-070609aseg3-cnni-world.cnn
Sounds like you need to work on your memory!
“What would your theoretical answer be if the most watch news network in the world (their claim) was putting out pure nonsense about climate?”
I don’t have a theoretical answer for this, just a real one.
Now Nate wants to defend Bill Weir. He seems like the last person anyone would want to defend. To clear, if it wasn’t already, he was talking about the specific month, but those were his words. Here is my statement again:
“I do not have the exact quote, but it is something to the effect that this record breaking July or August is only going to get even hotter next year, so this is actually the coolest month we will ever see again.”
For further clarification he meant that July or August of this year would be the coolest July or August we would ever see. His words and his intent was that blunt. He was talking about a world record.
Click on the damn video, TF.
Then apologize.
Tim only knows how to blame others, even when he is the source of the error.
Nate, I have previously suggested that you lose credibility as you adopt the same style of commentary as these other people. Do you really want to be taken seriously?
The strawman is now fully in play. Someone posted a video from CNN that shows an interview with Bill Weir from a different time and with a different anchor from the one I described. That discussion has no relevance to the report that I saw live with him standing outside next to a body of water. Nonetheless, you folks allege that I must be wrong, even though Bill has done more than one interview at CNN. He is after all their official climate expert.
I have a DVR with a buffer, so I was able to replay that interview I saw live. I wanted to make sure I heard him correctly. I am certain he was claiming that those months would always be warming in the future, and that it was due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions. CNN is not alone. The CBS News website has at least two different reporters who post ridiculous commentary disguised as science reporting.
You and barry seem to be grasping at straws to build your strawman. Many of these other people are already irrelevant. Is that your goal?
“Nate, I have previously suggested that you lose credibility as you adopt the same style of commentary as these other people. Do you really want to be taken seriously?”
How can YOU be taken seriously, when you simply MAKE UP things said by journalists?
And you refuse to own up to it.
Did the guy ever say we will never see lower temperatures on planet earth ever again or not?
If not, why are you claiming he did?
I’m sure we can find Fox News or NewsMax anchors who are climate change deniers.
If I can find one doing that, so what?
None of them are the spokesman for Climate Science.
“Nonetheless, you folks allege that I must be wrong, even though Bill has done more than one interview at CNN.”
You’re right because Weir does lots of interviews at CNN?
Or your memory could be faulty. The proposition you stated seemed unlikely even for the sensationalist MSM news services. It’s no one else’s fault if you can’t corroborate it.
“CNN is not alone. The CBS News website has at least two different reporters who post ridiculous commentary disguised as science reporting.”
We can all find reporters saying the darndest things, but perhaps you could find anyone at CBS or CNN or any other communist news service saying ‘we will never see lower temperatures on planet earth ever again.’
tim s…”…it would show that CO2 is not regulating the temperature of earth”.
***
That is already known in science. With a mixed gas, the amount of heat one gas can diffuse into the overall gas is dependent on its mass percent. That means what it says, the percentage of mass that gas makes up of the entire gas mass. That varies slightly molecule to molecule based on the individual atomic masses of each atom in the molecule. In that case, CO2 is slightly heavier than N2 or O2, having the extra carbon atom.
All the same, it does not amount to a hill of beans. The concentration of CO2 is rated as 0.04% making its mass percent about 0.06%. That percent translates almost directly to degrees C based on the overall warming in the gas of 1C. For every 1C warming, CO2 accounts for about 0.06C and N2/O2 for about 0.99C.
Alarmist science is based on the quaint notion that CO2 can add 9% to 25% of the heat. No science to back the claim, just consensus.
ant…”The IPCC used the term hiatus after deniers had been referring to the pause”.
***
Makes no sense. The idea behind a ‘pause’ or a ‘hiatus. is that we are on a never ending linear warming trend, and that a flat trend is merely a temporary interruption. As a skeptic, I think the warming trend is a temporary situation, a 170 year recovery from the 400+ year cooling produced by the Little Ice Age.
Remember Monty Python’s black knight ?
Both arms and both legs hacked off by Arthur yet still wants to continue the fight.
Hilarious.
When did 15 C air temperature become warm?
When you spent last night at -15 C.
You asked.
“Oddly enough, 1913 was also the year that saw Death Valley’s coldest temperature. On January 8, the temperature dropped to 15F (-10C) at Furnace Creek.”
I live somewhat close to hottest place in world, but where I live I have only seen about -4 C.
It’s a less extreme place. And in my weekly forecast it’s only drop just below freezing this week. And was a bit colder last week.
The proof of global warming is the hottest temperature {and coldest temperature] was over 100 years ago.
Or global warming is about a more uniform global air temperature.
“The idea behind a pause or a hiatus. is that we are on a never ending linear warming trend, “
No. If I ‘pause’ my TV, that does not imply unending never ending TV watching. If I pause climbing a mountain, it does not imply a steady, infinite mountain.
A ‘pause’ in warming implies neither “linear” nor “unending”. It merely implies a trend of some sort is expected to resume the future (the same as the TV watching or mountain climbing). And no one expects the trend to be ‘never ending’ since would imply arbitrarily large temperatures in the distant future.
So you are wrong about who used the word first AND wrong about what the word means. [Cue one more limb getting hacked of the black knight.]
Tim Folkerts, so by omission you forget plateau which is another type of pause or hiatus. So you want the temperature to keep rising, whereas the plateau would indicate a following downward trend. This indicates that you filter the data throught your confirmation bias.
“Tim Folkerts, so by omission you forget plateau …”
No. I was simply responding to the original claim that a ‘pause’ must imply a never ending linear trend.
“So you want …”
It is not about what I want. It is not about what you want. It is not about what anyone wants. It is about what science predicts.
Despite what many people here think, there is a very simple causal relationship between more CO2 and higher temperatures. Certainly there are MANY other factors (solar input, earth’s orbit, shifting continents, and volcanoes to name a few). But one factor is CO2, and the predictions keep getting confirmed. There have been several multi-year ‘pauses’ in satellite record … and every time so far, they have been followed by warming. It is not ‘bias’ when the data objectively supports one conclusion.
tim f…”If I pause my TV, that does not imply unending never ending TV watching. If I pause climbing a mountain, it does not imply a steady, infinite mountain”.
***
Good grief, Tim, your logic is getting zanier with each post. A while back you claimed that the addition of ink to produce a 0.04% water solution would muddy the entire solution while comparing that to a 0.04% concentration of CO2 in air warming the entire atmosphere. You based that on adding ink to a glass of water, what if you added he same amount to a reservoir, or a lake?
These things are like comparing apples to oranges. Pausing a TV program being played back after taping or pausing while climbing a mountain has nothing to do with a pause in an ever-increasing global average temperature claimed due to increasing atmospheric CO2. That’s especially true when the heat added by CO2 is insignificant.
“what if you added he same amount to a reservoir, or a lake?”
Well, then it would no longer be 0.04%, now would it?
It would be something like 0.0000004% (400 parts per trillion) for an Olympic swimming pool (or add more zeroes for your favorite size reservoir or lake). Such a concentration of ink in water would have little impact, just like such a concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would have little impact.
My point still stands. Any argument that ‘400 ppm is just too small to matter’ is zany. Concentrations of 400 ppm (or less) can and do have large impacts.
And back to the original claim: “The idea behind a pause or a hiatus. is that we are on a never ending linear warming trend …”
Which is ‘zany’?
* a pause implies a never ending linear trend
* a pause can be in a non-linear, finite trend.
Are you arguing that this is correct? That “pause” implies a never ending linear trend?
IPCC referred to the pause in the 2013 IPCC. Fake skeptics introduced the idea a few years earlier. Here’s a post at Judith Curry’s on the topic, and the word “Pause” is even in the title of it.
https://judithcurry.com/2012/10/14/pause-discussion-thread/
IPCC included the topic because of the loud noise the ‘skeptic’ community was making about temps since 1998.
You know nothing, Gordon Robertson.
barry
The pause exists only in the LT data computed by UAH (totally) and by NOAA STAR (partly) out of a mix of MT, TP and LS soundings:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T5692_-6rsacO96ckFaZbpMt8CcJvmLV/view
For both the UAH and NOAA STAR time series I see in the data that from Jan 1997 till Dec 2014 the linear trend is near 0, while for the NOAA and JMA surface time series, the trend for this period is ~ 0.12 C / decade.
*
Maybe this rather unusually strong temperature peak at the surface and in the lower troposphere explains the simultaneous sea ice extent drop at both poles.
*
The higher we go up in the atmospheric layers, the lower the peak:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jhAF_6xS8ZiSLlN6voeayJUc2RyxIggV/view
binny…”The pause exists only in the LT data computed by UAH…”
***
The IPCC bases their temperature series on surface stations from alarmist sources like NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut. They relegated UAH to the back-burners. The irony is that NOAA showed the same flat trend till the IPCC announced the so-called hiatus. It was after the claim by the IPCC that NOAA retroactively fudged the SST to eliminate the trend.
None of what you wrote is true, Gordon.
IPCC uses Had.CRU as the main surface dataset, and it doesn’t just use surface stations, it also uses sea surface temperatures for its global temp record.
In the 2013 IPCC report (AR5), where they mentioned the ‘pause’ that ‘skeptics’ had been blogging about for a few years, the trend of Had.CRU, which the IPCC noted in the report in the ‘pause’ section, was 0.05 C/decade fort the 1998 to 2012 period – the ‘pause’ at that time.
Today, the Had.CRU record still has the same exact trend.
I just ran a regression on Had.CRU data for 1998 to 2012 (inclusive), and the trend is 0.052 C/decade.
So what else did you get wrong?
The satellite data also get a mention in IPCC AR5 (and the latest report, AR6). In fact, there are four sections under global temperature in AR5: 1. land temperature, 2. sea surface temperature, 3. combined land and sea surface temperature, and 4. upper air temperature. Each gets an equivalent amount of pages devoted to them.
and do they get equal treatment in the Advise to Policy Makers?
Nope, only a mention. As people live on the surface and not 4 kilometres off the ground, and as the satellite records are only 40 years long, I think that’s probably reasonable for the summary. There’s no qualitative difference between the satellite and surface data sets for an overview. They all show warming over the satellite period.
nevermind that the sampling program isn’t representative right? nevermind that the theory of warming allegedly occurs and is greatest at some unidentified place way up above the clouds, right? nevermind that because the increase in upper atmosphere temperatures (the hotspot theory zone of the atmosphere is projected to be higher than the surface and that isn’t showing up in data measured data we can skip that part in the summary for policymakers, right? nevermind that surface warming is less than projected by models we can also ignore that right?.
barry joins Tim F’s class of illogical arguments. The stoppage in warming was being discussed by Trenberth and his cronies in the Climategate emails much earlier than 2012. Trenberth noticed the lack of a warming trend circa 2005. He claimed the warming has stopped and it is a travesty that no one knows why.
The IPCC would not review such comments, made by alarmists, till the 2012 review. All they did was verify what Trenberth lacked the ingrity to reveal to the scientific community much earlier.
Not to be put off by science, NOAA went back and retroactively changed the SST to show a warming. This is the kind of chicanery supported by Barry and his alarmist brethern.
The change in NOAA’s global temp record 1998-2012 went from 0.039 C/decade to 0.086 C/decade when they adopted the new SST dataset. This set the skeptiverse aflame.
The only conclusion about climate, that can be derived from the available scientific theory and data, is that no conclusion is possible. There are very many factors that work on different time scales, and some of them are not identified entirely.
One conclusion that is possible, for those who passed the final exams in a rigorous college physics program, is that increasing CO2 from fossil burning must have some effect. People who claim they know exactly what that effect is, or that CO2 is the most significant effect, are either dishonest or did not pass the final exams.
Tim S,
You are right, of course. The atmosphere acts chaotically. As Edward Lorenz said in his presentation “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterflys Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in
Texas?”, – “1. If the flap of a butterflys wings can be instrumental in generating a tornado, it can equally well be instrumental in preventing a tornado.”
SkyDragon cultists believe that can foresee the future – the outcome of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is bad! bad! bad! That just means that SkyDragon cultists are mad! mad! mad!
I’m with someone who appears to know what they are talking about, mathematician and meteorologist Edward N Lorenz.
Gee I wonder why chaos theory doesn’t get rid of the seasons. Could it be that the random behaviour of weather occurs within parameters set by climate?
barry,
You wrote –
“Gee I wonder why chaos theory doesnt get rid of the seasons. Could it be that the random behaviour of weather occurs within parameters set by climate?”
That’s about as silly as wondering why chaos theory doesnt get rid of the wind!
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, and “sets” nothing!
I assumed you knew that. Correct me if I’m wrong.
barry…”Could it be that the random behaviour of weather occurs within parameters set by climate?”
***
Please try to do some serious thinking, Barry. Climate is a mathematical average of weather, not the other way around. Climate is ‘defined’ based on weather and there is no magical force called climate that forces weather. Rather, weather is produced by differences in temperature in the atmosphere. Since CO2 produces insignificant heating in the atmosphere, it is a non-player.
I did not know that weather causes the seasons to change. I thought it was the tilt in the Earth’s access and its orbit.
You guys are full of some really excellent advice.
But seriously, chaotic behaviour exists within systems that have definable parameters.
Weather is chaotic, climate isn’t. Climate is the parameter within which the chaotic behaviour of weather occurs.
That’s why we can be sure many years in advance that Summer will be hotter than Winter, but we can’t say which day in Summer will be hotter than another.
You knew that, but you got all twisted up trying to land some punches.
And why you forgot the daft point that kicked this off – Tim S suggesting climate is chaotic, which Swenson happily agreed with – as he talked about weather.
The ‘confusion’ Tim mentioned is simply that you guys use climate and weather interchangeably. And when called on it you hurry to affirm that climate is the average of weather, saying something obvious, and totally missing the point.
barry,
Like the average SkyDragon cultist, you are mightily confused – probably caused by your attempts to make stuff up as you go along.
You wrote –
“And why you forgot the daft point that kicked this off Tim S suggesting climate is chaotic, which Swenson happily agreed with as he talked about weather.”
No, barry, Tim S did not mention chaos. You just made that up. I pointed out that the atmosphere is chaotic. I didn’t mention the word weather. You made that up, too.
You rattled on –
“But seriously, chaotic behaviour exists within systems that have definable parameters.
Weather is chaotic, climate isnt. Climate is the parameter within which the chaotic behaviour of weather occurs.”
Maybe you could specify the definable parameters of the atmosphere? I’m betting you can’t. Are you really saying that a change to a chaotic input will result in a predictable change to its average? That sounds a bit nutty, but maybe you can provide an example. You babble that climate is a “parameter”. You are obviously off with the fairies.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations – a meaningless and useless collection of numbers. That should suit you, at least.
Carry on making stuff up.
Earth’s global climate is average temperature of the ocean.
Earth’s global air temperature is caused by the temperature of the surface of the ocean. And the surface of the ocean, particularly polar ocean surface temperature is directly related to the average temperature of the entire ocean.
We are in an Icehouse global climate because the average temperature of entire ocean is colder than 10 C.
If our ocean was 5 C, we wouldn’t have much polar sea ice in the winter in the polar regions. If was 4 C, we could have ice free summer in Arctic ocean {Antarctica does currently have ice free in summers with our cold ocean of about 3.5 C, but Antarctica would have less winter sea ice if average ocean temperature was more than 4 C.
The last interglacial period we had an ocean with an average ocean
of 4 C {or more} and sea levels 4 meters or more higher than present sea levels.
Earlier in Holocene, sea levels were 1 to 2 meter higher, and had slightly warmer ocean than 3.5 C, but probably less than 4 C.
We have been cooling and getting drier for last 5000 years.
We are no where as warm as we were in last peak interglacial period, which was wetter {Sahara desert which nearly all grassland and many forests and rivers} which don’t exist now. But did exist during African Humid period, earlier in the Holocene:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
Barry, I am disappointed. I somehow thought you were capable of an intelligent discussion. My mistake. This is what I wrote:
“There are very many factors that work on different time scales, and some of them are not identified entirely.”
You brought up chaos. I did not. If you are not aware of the different forcings that influence weather and climate, then you need some education.
I was thinking about ENSO and various ocean current cycles for starters. Then someone needs to explain how the earth cooled for several hundred years resulting in the Little Ice Age. The earth did cool. The only question is how much. Even Mann had to admit that and “revise” the hockey stick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
“The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals. One began about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all of which were separated by intervals of slight warming.”
Swenson brought up chaos in agreement with your post about climate having factors working on different time scales.
You said there were too many factors to make climate conclusive. Swenson happily agreed and spoke of Lorenz and chaos.
Swenson mentioned tornados in his post about chaos, and then was mystified why I thought he was talking about weather. Just as you are confused about who introduced the notion of chaos.
If you guys were capable of a meticulous inspection of facts rather than waffling against AGW, you might be able to keep track of who said what.
Barry, you can do better. I did not mention chaos, and still have not mentioned chaos except to point out that you have misquoted me. This is your quote:
“And why you forgot the daft point that kicked this off Tim S suggesting climate is chaotic, which Swenson happily agreed with as he talked about weather.”
Now, who exactly is confused?
You still have not addressed my comment that the only thing close to a conclusion about climate is that CO2 must have some effect, and any attempt to quantify that effect is not conclusive. You must be aware of the wide range of results in the climate models.
There are legitimate questions about the ability to accurately track temperature trends from measured data. Why do satellite datasets show less warming than surface observation? The bigger question is, if UAH is wrong, why is there no other effort other than RSS to show us how that data should be presented? I would think there would be a competition to prove UAH wrong. Where is that effort?
Tim S,
You wrote “Barry, you can do better.”
Ah, a supreme optimist. I envy your faith.
I expect better waffles from TF, Mike Flynn,
What about you – do you put Marmite on them?
Tim S,
“Why do satellite datasets show less warming than surface observation?”
Do you understand that the satellite datasets are measuring different thing than the surface observations.
baffled bobby,
You wrote –
“Do you understand that the satellite datasets are measuring different thing than the surface observations.”
Are “. . . measuring different thing . . . “?
What “thing” would that be?
Tim,
“I did not mention chaos”
Apparently I need to help you with some complicated English. The word “suggest” in this context means “imply.”
“And why you forgot the daft point that kicked this off Tim S suggesting climate is chaotic, which Swenson happily agreed with as he talked about weather.”
Does that help you?
Or were you bamboozled when I said, “Swenson brought up chaos in agreement with your post”?
Despite the needless huffing about who said what the point remains that climate is stable and quite predictable, while weather is not. A butterfly flapping its wings may or may not cause a tornado on the other side of the world, but it will never change Summer into Winter.
Swenson,
Yeah, I missed an s on the end of things.
But the satellite data set measures the O2 radiance from the whole atmosphere and converts that data to temperature. Ask Roy how that happens.
The surface data set measures the temperature approximately 6 feet above the surface of the Earth.
Or did you not know that?
Bobby,
“But the satellite data set measures the O2 radiance from the whole atmosphere and converts that data to temperature.”
Well, no, it doesn’t. If you think it does, you should be able to tell me the temperature of the “whole atmosphere”.
You also wrote –
“The surface data set measures the temperature approximately 6 feet above the surface of the Earth.”
I suppose you are going to be silly enough to tell me that the “temperature approximately 6 feet above the surface of the Earth.” means something, are you?
Maybe thermometers respond to IR radiation, do you think? If you put a thermometer in a box in the Sun, what do you think the thermometer is responding to? The air?
No wonder you are a member of the Association of Dingleberries! You certainly have some odd notions.
“Well, no, it doesnt. If you think it does, you should be able to tell me the temperature of the whole atmosphere.”
Do you think it measures something else?
And you can convert the temperatures from the chart at the top of this page to a temperature of the whole atmosphere, but you won’t get a very useful number.
Or like I said, ask Roy.
Well one can argue about whats measured being different from what the theory claims will warm. But there is no way to figure out what the ramifications of that are without a blue print of the GHE effect as imagined by so-called mainstream science funding.
What it really boils down to is treating the public like a mushroom farm, keeping all of us in the dark and feeding us shiit.
“keeping all of us in the dark ”
Nah. The internet has numerous sources of information on these topics. One can even get well informed in this forum.
Only the people who CHOOSE to be ignorant, remain in the dark.
What are you talking about specifically Nate. You never seem able to find any of this stuff other than the ”official” results that the virus came out of a wet market. Where are all the exchanges between Fauci and the scientists that thought it had all the earmarks of coming out of a lab? And to find that out took a Congressional Investigation.
I’m talking about people airing generic grievances about the science, complaining that no one has spoon-fed it to them to their satisfaction, while not bothering to get informed about it themselves, and then rejecting it.
It is a rejection based on lazy, intentional ignorance.
Nate science can be a private as it wants to be. But if its going to set public policy I believe in open and transparent public processes. Its my government Nate. You are effectively saying government should be able to do anything they want to do to you in the name of non-transparent science. Its identical to not having a reason. that’s open season on corruption and abuse.
Uh we are going to give a few billion dollar contracts to my billionaire buddy to save the world!
Having you in here harping that there is a reason doesn’t reveal that reason. I have no idea why you are so dense and don’t get that.
“You are effectively saying government should be able to do anything they want to do to you in the name of non-transparent science.”
No I’m not.
Well you aren’t saying that but if you don’t know. . . aren’t you suborning it with what you do say?
What I stated was what I meant.
The fact that no one has spoon-fed the theory of the GHE to you to your satisfaction (which never comes), is not a problem of transparency.
The papers are there. They are all public. You are free to read them, but unlikely to really understand them, which is your problem.
Until you have read and understood them, your complaints about transparency are not convincing.
Nate says:
”is not a problem of transparency.
The papers are there. They are all public. You are free to read them, but unlikely to really understand them, which is your problem.”
———————-
Thats false right on the face of it.
1) Many papers are behind paywalls and thus are not public.
2)there are many contrary papers thus to even obfuscate you need a cherry picked set of papers.
3) there are millions of papers and you don’t have the bibliography that supports your viewpoint.
4) there are number of key issues that you can’t even prove a paper directly supporting it exists.
5) you can’t just point at IPCC report bibliography because your viewpoint isn’t supported by all those papers. (the key ones you can’t prove to exist obviously aren’t in that bibliography at all)
Plenty of papers and online resources are available.
Plenty of people can access paywalled papers thru libraries. They are no more ‘hidden’ than newspaper articles that require a subscription.
Indeed contrarian papers are also out there, they are not hidden either.
There are endless flimsy excuses for you to remain ignorant.
If all else fails then it is the Revelle Factor.
well Nate if you do have access why not prove it?
I’m willing to help people find resources who are actually interested in learning.
Bill, when I find sources for you, you knee-jerk reject them.
So you are on your own.
Nate we have been through one full paper and 2 other accounts of experiments where it was found that IR blocking didn’t warm the warmer surface. You haven’t yet provided a paper of an experiment within the atmosphere where it was found that yes IR blocking warmed the warmer surface. So don’t lie!
Bill, as noted, when I found sources for you, such as Manabe and Wetherald 67, or Hansen 81, you knee-jerk reject them, without any science rationale for doing so.
We already know that you gravitate to contrarian papers like G&T, even though have been thoroughly debunked.
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/burrow-project-gerlich-and-t-have.html?m=1
It is solely because they and you are contrarian, not because you understand their argument, and that it is better.
Manabe has already acknowledged that his paper didn’t establish the effect. He says he just applied it.
And you haven’t provided a link to Hansen 81 to my knowledge.
And Eli claimed that conduction was effectively zero despite it transferring more than twice the net energy from the surface to the atmosphere as does surface radiation according to Kiehl Trenberth so what does he know? Apparently nothing of importance! And that means he didn’t refute any of G&Ts calculations much less provide any of his own. He just handwaved it all away. that isn’t a scientific refutation no matter how much you want to stretch it into one.
Nevermind the link to Hansen.
Hansen’s proof is:
”The global temperature rose 0.2C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
And you call that proof of AGW? Why not just believe everything your daddy tells you? Oops! thats right you already do. LMAO!
“Manabe has already acknowledged that his paper didnt establish the effect.”
No he didnt. Stop making up shit.
Hansen’s paper did two things:
-He again explained the GHE theory, similarly to Manabe. You keep denying that anyone has explained it to your satisfaction.
-He quantitatively predicted the rise in T over then next 40+ years that did happen. He predicted the faster warming of the arctic and NH which did happen.
The gold standard in science is to make successful predictions such as this.
“And Eli claimed that conduction was effectively zero despite it transferring more than twice the net energy from the surface to the atmosphere as does surface radiation according to Kiehl Trenberth so what does he know? ”
It is effectively zero.
You are mixing up conduction with convection, again demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about!
Boy are you ignorant!
The surface cools primarily by conduction. Convection just moves the air that received the heat from the surface by conduction and radiation.
Sorry Bill, as usual, you are on the wrong track..
The issue is heat transfer between the surface and space, not between the surface and the first few millimeters of atmosphere.
That is all about heat transfer within the atmosphere, which is dominated by radiation and convection. Conduction is nil in the atmosphere.
No Nate its about surface temperature. Its you that wants to worry about hot spots and such. I will start worrying about that after you come forth with evidence your theory is correct.
“No Nate its about surface temperature.”
Veering off topic.
The topic was whether you and GT are correct about conduction being important in the atmosphere.
It isn’t. Yet another mole whacked.
your theory is greenhouse gases warm the surface then the surface warms the atmosphere the the atmosphere warms the surface and so on. so now you are trying to divert attention from your basic argument and deny it.
“your theory is greenhouse gases warm the surface then the surface warms the atmosphere the the atmosphere warms the surface and so on.”
So a heated body that is insulated heats the insulation, and then the body’s heat loss is reduced.
If you think its because the insulation is heating the body, that is up to you!
It aint my idea.
Well the government standards body laid out standards for insulation to meet to qualify for sale as insulation to the public.
CO2 has yet to qualify.
So you think the atmosphere is not a good insulator?
Is it a good conductor?
Prove it.
tim…anyone smart enough to pass their college exams would surely be aware that the Little Ice Age cooled the planet over 400+ years and that we are currently experiencing a re-warming from that mini ice age. Renowned scientist, Syun Akasofu, who pioneered studies in the solar wind, calculated that the planet should re-warm at about 0.5C/century.
Akasofu’s specialty is in geophysics so he should know a thing or two about what it would take to cool the Earth then re-warm it. We are about 30 years short of 200 years since 1850 when the LIA is claimed to have ended, but is that a precise science, claiming the exact ending time of an ice age? At 0.5C/century, we should be close to 1C since 1850 and that is about what we are seeing.
The question is, how much did the planet cool? If it is much beyond 1C, then the warming will continue till the equilibrium is reached.
“calculated that the planet should re-warm at about 0.5C/century.”
No. He noticed that the planet HAS warmed at about 0.5C/century; but there is no calculation suggesting that is the rate it SHOULD warm. That is a huge difference.
He *speculates* that solar activity is the cause of the LIA cooling and later warming, which is a plausible hypothesis: Fewer sunspots = cooler climate. However, we are continuing to warm and break records as sunspot numbers decline. That should make us wary of putting too much confidence in the hypothesis.
“At 0.5C/century, we should be close to 1C since 1850 and that is about what we are seeing.”
0.5C/century is 0.05C/decade. We are seeing about 3x that amount in Dr Roy’s data.
“The question is, how much did the planet cool? If it is much beyond 1C, then the warming will continue till the equilibrium is reached.”
You are assuming there is some unique ‘equilibrium’ that earth was at before the LIA and that earth will return to after the LIA. That is not how it works.
[Syun Akasofu’s paper is here for anyone who wants to read it : https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4%5D
Tim Folkerts says:
”He noticed that the planet HAS warmed at about 0.5C/century; but there is no calculation suggesting that is the rate it SHOULD warm. That is a huge difference. He *speculates* that solar activity is the cause of the LIA cooling and later warming, which is a plausible hypothesis:”
Agreed
Tim Folkerts says:
”Fewer sunspots = cooler climate. However, we are continuing to warm and break records as sunspot numbers decline. That should make us wary of putting too much confidence in the hypothesis.”
That should indeed but only after an appropriate length of time after sun spots have been low. Cycle24 is the first low cycle that started in December 2008. So 15 years isn’t nearly long enough. At least two decades is the science standard. we do need to understand something about the recent temperature spike. We know its not a spike in anthropogenic emissions.
We have decades of sunspot numbers to work with.
https://tinyurl.com/55349atv
I was careful to run the trends from peak to peak.
The record shows that if you start from the mid 20th century, or start from the beginning of the satellite temperature record, the trend in sunspots has been decidedly negative over 6 or 4 cycles.
“At least two decades is the science standard.”
So 40 or 60 years should be plenty.
“At least two decades is the science standard.”
Here is 40 and 60 years of sunspot numbers.
https://tinyurl.com/55349atv
The trend is decidedly down over those periods.
the trend may be down but you have to factor in the imbalance from that remains from it being so high compared to any other period in history. Imbalances would take thousands of years to resolve if nothing else changed. And certainly solar changes aren’t the only thing capable of climate change. You have ozone and clouds also and our remaining lack of understanding about all those, much less are ability to measure any of that stuff to within a couple of watts.
thats why Nate tells me to go hunt for the study that he claims exists that proves the greenhouse gas imbalance. Namely has no clue at all how they estimated it. Its like masks don’t work until its expedient for the government to recognize they do. Or the shutdown of conversations about a China lab leak that was claimed to be a conspiracy theory until we found evidence of Fauci quieting it among the experts for the expediency of his organization who was funding the lab. . .illegally per some.
And that can be a huge influence as claimed by the IPCC that might cause the entire Greenland and Western Antarctic ice sheets to melt leveraging devastating flooding and temperature increases over time arising from albedo lowering because the edges of these ice sheets living on a fine temperature line. . .so should we be concerned about imbalances arising from the LIA recovery?
Since warming is on a ~2.0c/century warming track instead of the IPCC ~3.0 warming track from CO2 forcing and 2/3rds of the warming is supposed to arise from just feedbacks does that mean that all the warming we have been experiencing is just feedbacks? Seems to be a valid question.
barry says:
We have decades of sunspot numbers to work with.
https://tinyurl.com/55349atv
—————————
Yes I am aware of that dataset. Its a dataset that was manufactured from the raw data that was available up until about 10 or 12 years ago that was taken down.
Which is more reliable is questionable as the entire remanufacturing process was done by Dr. Leif Svaalgard who was quite active at one point for years trying quash the idea that solar variation was the cause of global warming. I don’t question his credentials but he even tried to insert himself in the effort to quash the G&T paper after it came out.
One likes to see such efforts supervised by independent scientists that don’t have axes to grind.
I have been trying to locate the older original dataset from the actual observers of sunspots but I have been unable to locate it though I didn’t spend a lot of time looking for it. Do you happen to have a link?
“thats why Nate tells me to go hunt for the study that he claims exists that proves the greenhouse gas imbalance. ”
Only people who CHOOSE to remain ignorant of this readily available information, will remain in the dark, and feel empowered to deny it.
The old and new data are virtually identical from 1950 onwards, both showing a peak in sunspots mid century, and generally declining cycles to present. But we can check against a different metric measuring solar activity.
https://tinyurl.com/3khux3rt
PMOD is total solar irradiance, and it correlates very closely with SDIC sunspots. We only have data from 1979 to 2015 at woodfortrees, but that is plenty longer than 2 decades.
BTW, Leif didn’t do the work on his own. He did it with a team of researchers, and wasn’t even lead author on the paper that updated the methodology. You just make things up, Bill.
Did they use the same team of researchers that found weather station managers didn’t know what they were doing too?
Actually being overly snide with the last remark. I just have to question the validity of going in nearly 200 years later and questioning what observers were seeing 200 years ago.
In cases like that its fine to speculate what the errors might have been but both series should be available to the public side by side with access to the discussion and changes that were made. Then others can look at the evidence and perhaps gain confidence in the methods. I am somewhat familiar with the methods as I spent a good deal of time on a blog where Leif discussed his work on this and saw the results he came up with before they were published via documents on Leif’s website. Thats good stuff but even that is now gone.
I’ll have look and see if I can find the old data. In the meantime, here is the main paper that brought about the revision to the data.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=1f65b27a970a7016e267a754e68456177f80b7db
I found an archive of previous sun spot indices.
https://tinyurl.com/yc35cmwe
(tinyurl because the web address contains the letters d and c adjacent, which this site forbids)
thank you very much barry. i spent some time looking for that.
You’re welcome, Bill.
barry, please stop trolling.
Just to remind of what was actually said:
Tim S:
The only conclusion about climate, that can be derived from the available scientific theory and data, is that no conclusion is possible. There are very many factors that work on different time scales, and some of them are not identified entirely.
Swenson:
You are right, of course. The atmosphere acts chaotically.
So Tim, you did indeed imply climate is chaotic, which was why Swenson was happy to agree with you while naming it.
However, you are both wrong. The seasons’ statistics of weather observations demonstrate that climate is a relatively stable phenomenon. The flap of a butterfly’s wings cannot change Winter into Summer.
barry, please stop trolling.
The interesting question is whether this year’s step-up in temperature prior to El Nino warming, is permanent. Will it persist after the El Nino next summer?
An even more interesting problem is how hot it really was during the Medieval Warm Period before the Little Ice Ag reduced the global average enough to drive the Vikings out of southern Greenland. The increasing global average may not level out till southern Greenland is ice free.
Nothing to do with a trace gas.
I agree. 2024 will be interesting to observe. Could 2024 will be colder than 2004?
That’s the thing, Walter, we set records for cold weather here in the Vancouver, Canada area in a climate claimed to represent recodrs for warming. Of course, those records feature a tenth of a degree or so, sometimes a hundredth of a degree.
GR,
Yes, I find it puzzling when people here dismiss what you say as ‘just weather.’ The unusual event took place over the summer, which is weather. According to the WMO, they define climate as weather averaged over a period of 30 years.
GR,
Yes, I find it puzzling when people here dismiss what you say as ‘just weather.’ The unusual event took place over the summer, which is weather. According to the WMO, they define climate as weather averaged over a period of 30 years. Not sure exactly why it’s 30 years; I would say 500 years is much better, because of how chaotic our climate is!
walter…climates to me are fairly obvious and don’t need a 30 year definition. For example, here in Vancouver, Canada, we have a fairly obvious rain forest climate. We live in a forested are and it rains a lot in winter. I have noticed no significant changes in annual weather over the past 30 years. We have not suddenly developed the climate attributes of a sub-tropical climate.
Meantime, 150 miles north east, we have a clearly defined desert climate. The fauna consists of sage brush, small cactii, and their ilk. In other parts of our province there are inconsistent yet on-going droughts. What it seems to come down to are the mountain ranges we have that seem to run north-south. The mountains seem to force moist air from the Pacific to dump their loads before reaching the desert areas.
Even on the coast, it can be drier on the east side of mountains than on the side facing the ocean.
GR,
Same with my location. I calculated the rate of warming at a nearby station with data going back to October 1974. There was rapid warming starting from then and into the early 2000s, but the rate since then has been slowing. I saw the volcanic eruption signatures in the early 1980s and 1990s, which I think quickened the rate. Even this station has likely bias because when I check the rate of warming for the minimum temperature, it’s warmed much more rapidly. I even visited the station itself and saw that it was situated next to a sidewalk in the person’s backyard.
Makes me wonder how effective ‘homogenization’ is. There are lots of people here and at WUWT reporting nothing unusual happening with their climate both this year and over the past 3 decades. Are they smearing data from biased locations throughout their assigned grid? As such, I think people reporting the conditions of their weather in their locations are good anecdotal evidence; obviously not better than properly sited weather stations but still useful.
“lots of people here and at WUWT reporting nothing unusual happening with their”
That’s called anecdotal evidence. In science, that is considered to be the weakest kind.
Nate says:
”lots of people here and at WUWT reporting nothing unusual happening with their climate”
Thats called anecdotal evidence. In science, that is considered to be the weakest kind.
———————-
Yes it is the weakest kind of science. But thats why science has absolutely no place in policy.
the only thing important in policy is the anecdotal. How does the policy effect you, how does it benefit you.
Science obviously just handwaves all that away and replaces it with their own biases, desires, and ambitions. Which explains why the scariest sound in the world is: ”I am from the government, and I am here to help you”
Anecdotal evidence:
“Yes it is the weakest kind of science. But thats why science has absolutely no place in policy.”
You fail at logic Bill!
How many times has this question been asked over the last few decades, with the same answer each time?
Nate
Other than Earth’s spin and orbit, I don’t know of anything permanent on this planet.
There is nothing permanent about either. The orbit varies all the time, just like the Moon’s orbit, where the orbital path actually rotates every 7 years or so. Of course, the Moon does not rotate about an axis, as does the Earth, but the Earth’s rotation is by no means permanent.
He may not understand what you’re saying. Remember Bindingdong doesn’t know that ice freezes below 28F?
There is no ‘may’ about it Bob, Binny understand very little when it comes to an intelligent level of conversation. He would not even understand the humour on Sesame Street, failing to understand what is funny about Muppets talking.
“Remember Bindingdong doesnt know that ice freezes below 28F?”
Oh boy, that’s news to me!
Perhaps you should review your statements before you post them.
“Oh boy, thats news to me!”
Isn’t everything?
blob,
You clearly do not know what I am referencing to.
Spongebob Ape,
Obviously seawater freezes at about 28 F, depending on the salinity of the seawater.
Ice is already frozen.
I can read English, that’s what you were referring to.
‘permanent’ in this context means a new normal.
Nate,
Presumably only”permanent’ until the next “new normal”?
And that will occur . . . .?
Another candidate for the Association of Dingleberries.
troubleshooting…
Of course, leave it to stoopidb to come back with the most illogical argument. The Black Knight claimed his wounds were merely a flesh wound, which produced good humour. It is just about as humourous to claim a 15 year flat trend has no significance based on a theory that ever-increasing anthropognic CO2 should produce a linear trend.
Yes, alarmists are a good laugh.
A scientific rebuttal of alarmist propaganda…
[bob d]..I was referring to photons from CO2 gas, not from a surface, and CO2 emits the same frequencies of photons no matter what the temperature of the gas. And its from individual molecules of CO2 anyway, which dont have temperature.
And also, photons have no way to measure the temperature of the surface they are about to interact with, only if the energy levels are available will they be absorbed”.
***
A contradiction of Bohr’s basic quantum theory. Any EM/IR emitted from a molecule must come from electrons in the atoms making up the molecule. Those electrons will emit at frequencies dependent on the temperature of the mass.
Once again, the photons do not require any knowledge of the surface temperature. They carry a signature temperature with them based on the frequency they carry. If electrons in the surface are not at a temperature where that frequency resonates with their angular frequency, they will not react to the EM/IR.
************
[tim f]…The AVERAGE frequency of photons from the cooler surface is lower than the AVERAGE frequency of photons from a hotter surface. An individual photon from the cooler surface can be high frequency than an individual photon from a hotter surface.
***
Bullfeathers. You have human-based averages on the brain. Photons know nothing about averages, nor does heat wrt the 2nd law. If elemental atoms in any mass have the same temperature they will produce exactly the same frequency of photons. That’s why sodium atoms in a sodium vapour lamp all produce a frequency we see as the colour yellow. It’s the same reason stars can be classified due to their temperature and colours which range from reddish to bluish white.
I will grant you one thing. If there are significant variations in temperature of an emitting source, then the photon will have different frequencies. However, the reason an atomic clock is so accurate is that the emissions from the Cesium atoms are so constant.
—-
Even if an individual photon from a cool surface has a low frequency, that does not prevent the warm surface from absorbing it”.
***
Yes it does, Tim. Electrons that receive the EM/IR are particularly fussy about the frequency of the radiation energy that excites them. Their angular frequency of rotation makes it essential that the incoming radiation frequency matches it.
You have heard of a glass shattering when a discrete sound frequency excites the glass to shatter frequency. Nature surprises us all the time with its idiosyncrasies.
Gordon,
You wrote-
“Electrons that receive the EM/IR are particularly fussy about the frequency of the radiation energy that excites them.”
When excitation is involved, frequency is definitely a consideration.
However, consider 2 objects – one has a temperature of 1 K, one has a temperature of 2 K. The cooler object will warm, the warmer will cool. The radiation emitted by the warmer is insufficient to excite anything much – not me, that’s for certain! Only joking – most of what is on the internet, and even taught in American universities (if course content on the internet is any guide) is complete nonsense.
swenson…I get your point and it is something I have thought about over the years. The closer two bodies are in temperature, the less heating can take place via radiation absorp-tion from the hotter body.
If my body temperature is 37C and someone standing beside me has a temperature of 37.2C, I seriously doubt that I will getting hotter standing next to that person, unless it is a really hot babe who is dumb enough to stand close to me.
However, a body like the Sun, with a surface temperature of 5000C+, can radiate energy that will warm me 93 million miles away when my body almost instantly converts the radiation to heat. By the same token, I would consider it folly to presume radiation from my body could raise the temperature of the Sun. Many alarmists seem to think it can.
I think the effect of radiation is seriously over-estimated re its heating effect. If you turn on a radiant heater in a living room on a cold day, it’s not the radiation that warms you, it’s the air molecules heated by the element. The room gets warmed far more by convection than the radiation itself.
“If you turn on a radiant heater in a living room on a cold day, it’s not the radiation that warms you, it’s the air molecules heated by the element.”
No, not at all. Virtually none of the radiance given off by an element is absorbed by air molecules, the device works by heating surfaces directly, which is why if you step away from the focus of a radiant heater you will feel cold.
Eventually the air in a room heats up due to contact with the surfaces that have been heated by the radiant element.
This is why radiant heaters are used in small places, and particularly bathrooms, where the fan sucking the moist air out won’t interfere with the radiant heat reaching your skin.
A scientific rebuttal would indeed be a good idea.
Gordon,
“A contradiction of Bohrs basic quantum theory. Any EM/IR emitted from a molecule must come from electrons in the atoms making up the molecule. Those electrons will emit at frequencies dependent on the temperature of the mass.”
Bohr’s theory does not apply to polyatomic molecules like CO2.
Basically it applies to the Hydrogen atom and ions with only one electron.
bumbling bobby,
Off with the fairies again?
You wrote –
“Bohrs theory does not apply to polyatomic molecules like CO2.”
Ah well, you obviously don’t agree with –
“The Stefan-Boltzmann law, a fundamental law of physics, explains the relationship between an object’s temperature and the amount of radiation that it emits. This law (expressed mathematically as E = σT4) states that all objects with temperatures above absolute zero (0K or -273C or -459F) emit radiation at a rate proportional to the fourth power of their absolute temperature.”
Go on, tell me a mass of hydrogen is an object, but an identical mass of CO2 is not!
Tell, o wise and powerful bobdroege, scourge of the undersea realm, feared by all, did the Navy put you in charge of anything more complicated than a light switch?
Learn some physics, if you can.
Dear Swenson,
Physics and Thermodynamics comes in two flavors, micro and macro, don’t get them confused.
Here you go
“For an ideal absorber/emitter or black body, the StefanBoltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time (also known as the radiant exitance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s temperature, T:”
Do you see any molecules or atoms in that statement?
Do you see the word black body in that statement?
Do you understand that individual atoms or molecules are not blackbodies?
As a graduate of a liberal arts college, do you want fries with your physics lesson>
Bumbling bobby,
“The form of the StefanBoltzmann law that includes emissivity is applicable to all matter, provided that matter is in a state of local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) so that its temperature is well-defined. This is a trivial conclusion, since the emissivity,
ε, is defined to be the quantity that makes this equation valid.” – Wikipedia.
I assumed that you knew that emissivity for non-black bodies varies.
Obviously, members of the Association of Dingleberries don’t accept that all matter includes, well, all matter.
Maybe you don’t understand that only electrons emit and absorb photons. Nothing else.
Carry on displaying your intellectual level.
“The form of the StefanBoltzmann law that includes emissivity is applicable to all matter, provided that matter is in a state of local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) so that its temperature is well-defined. This is a trivial conclusion, since the emissivity,
ε, is defined to be the quantity that makes this equation valid. Wikipedia.”
Still no molecules or atoms in that statement.
“Maybe you dont understand that only electrons emit and absorb photons. Nothing else.”
Don’t get your science from the College of Gordon.
Try Wikipedia instead, but always try the references provided at the bottom of any Wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodisintegration#:~:text=Photodisintegration%20(also%20called%20phototransmutation%2C%20or,by%20emitting%20a%20subatomic%20particle.
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
Bobby Dingleberry,
“Still no molecules or atoms in that statement.”
Matter includes molecules and atoms. Well, maybe not to Dinglelberries.
With regard to photons, I assumed you knew I was excluding nuclear processes. My bad.
Carry on dreaming, bobby. I suppose you are trying to tell everyone that the Earth was created at absolute zero, and has heated up since. Correct me if I’m wrong. What temperature do you believe the Earth’s surface was when all the surface rocks were molten, as all non-Dingleberries assert?
I’ll reiterate – atoms and molecules are regarded as matter by real,scientists.
Swenson,
“What temperature do you believe the Earths surface was when all the surface rocks were molten, as all non-Dingleberries assert?”
Was that when the Earth formed, or slightly later during the heavy bombardment period?
“I suppose you are trying to tell everyone that the Earth was created at absolute zero, and has heated up since.”
No, I never said that. Your suppositions and five bucks will buy you a Starbucks.
As for my time in the Navy, this is what I was responsible for
“Responsible for leading a watch team in operations, maintenance as well as casualty control in Navy reactor plants.”
And that included light switches.
And what about this
“Maybe you dont understand that only electrons emit and absorb photons. Nothing else.”
Well that won’t get you a cup of coffee.
Exactly.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/quantum-physics/atoms-and-electrons/a/bohrs-model-of-hydrogen
https://www.space.com/bohr-model-atom-structure
Bohr’s model already failed with helium; moreover, his model is in contradiction to Heisenberg’s later discovered indeterminacy principle (1927).
And all climate models fail miserably at predicting future climate states. Stated by the IPCC, even.
Richard Feynman, in a lecture, used Heisenberg’s principle as the basis for demonstrating why this must be so, without invoking chaos theory at all.
Many ways to demonstrate that supposed climate models are completely useless.
“Richard Feynman, in a lecture, used Heisenbergs principle as the basis for demonstrating why this must be so,”
Nah. You just made that up.
Bumbling bobby,
“Since that is a random process, a precise answer is not possible.”
I apologise. I did not specify a time.
The time is 1 second. Off you go.
The Association of Dingleberries won’t accept me. I accept reality.
Nate,
Sorry. Fat finger syndrome.
Here’s my reply to your “Nah. You just made that up”.
I didnt make it up. What leads you to think I did? If you can produce some evidence to show I’m wrong, please do so.
The recorded lecture certainly sounds like Richard Feynman.
After you have listened to it, you may agree it was actually Feynman speaking.
You have no intention of actually checking for yourself, have you?
Typical.
Feynman was not stoopid, and thus would not claim the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is a Quantum Mechanical principle, applies to Climate Models.
So yes, you just made it up. You are caught red handed.
But if you continue to claim its true, then provide quote, and a LINK to it.
If cannot, then we will know that you simply LIED.
Swenson,
Specifying a time of one second doesn’t help, still random, still unpredictable.
yes, Bob, we know Bohr’s elementary theory only applied to hydrogen and partly to helium. However, it laid the foundation for later theories like that of Schrodinger, that did cover molecules like CO2.
Schrodinger’s equations are also based on electrons orbiting a nucleus at a certain radius. It gets far more complex with more complex molecules but it is still based on the relationship between electrons and radiation a la Bohr.
Even Schrodinger’s equations were challenged by Linus Pauling who had to use his experience with molecules to make them work. In fact, he had to modify Schrodinger’s equations.
There is nothing magical with CO2. It is a molecule comprised of two oxygen atom and one carbon atom bound by 6 valence electrons contributed by each atom. Electrons are the only factor in CO2 that allows the molecule ro radiate and absorb energy. Mind you, applied heat will have a similar effect.
Gordon,
“Schrodingers equations are also based on electrons orbiting a nucleus at a certain radius.”
Nope, they are based on the probability of finding the electron at a certain location.
Electrons might orbit the Hydrogen atom, but I prefer the Copenhagen interpretation, but they definitely do not orbit the atoms of polyatomic molecules.
CO2 definitely absorbs and emits lower energy photons than the electronic energy level photons associated with the hydrogen atom.
“Its the same reason stars can be classified due to their temperature and colours which range from reddish to bluish white.”
Are you truly under the impression that a star emits a single frequency of light? That all the photons from a red star are some frequency near 450 THz?
The only thing I have implied is a relative temperature based on the colour emitted. Our Sun emits a white to yellowish light, which is near the peak of the EM spectrum. That means most of the electrons are emitting in that range which represents a temperature of about 5000C. Stars with a lower temperature will emit more toward the colour red.
“Electrons that receive the EM/IR are particularly fussy about the frequency of the radiation energy that excites them.”
You DO realize that both warm and cool CO2 emit 15 um photons (2E14 Hz), right? So no matter how ‘fussy’ any particular electron/atom/molecule is, it will absorb a warm-source 15 um photon exactly as well as it will absorb a cool-source 15 um photon.
Tim,
Gordon mentioned “excites” by which I am guessing he is referring to the phenomenon of “excitation”. Nothing to do with photon emission due to temperature. Correct me if I am guessing wrong.
Feel free to read Gordon’s mind if you wish.
You might like to demonstrate your knowledge by indicating precisely how many 15 um photons are emitted by 1 kg of cool CO2 at 1 K. That should be cool enough.
Have you joined the Association of Dingleberries yet? You’d fit right in.
“You might like to demonstrate your knowledge by indicating precisely how many 15 um photons are emitted by 1 kg of cool CO2 at 1 K. That should be cool enough.”
Since that is a random process, a precise answer is not possible.
Maybe you should try to enroll in the college of dingleberries and see if you can pass the entrance exam.
tim…your 15 micron absorp-tion applies only in the range of atmospheric temperatures. There is quite a range of temperatures therefore there will be an absorp-tion bandwith around that 15 micron peak. However, a photon with a wavelength of 15 microns is produced at a very specific temperature.
“However, a photon with a wavelength of 15 microns is produced at a very specific temperature.”
No! Absolutely not. Cold CO2 in the atmosphere produces 15 um photons. Hot CO2 in a furnace produces 15 um photons. My body produces 15 um photons. The sun produced 15 um photons.
I’m curious now what ‘specific temperature’ you think is required to produce 15 um photons.
“Bullfeathers. ”
The sun emits photons across a broad range, including UV, visible and IR.
A hotter start like Sirius emits photons across a broad range, including UV, visible and IR.
A cooler star like Betelgeuse emits photons across a broad range, including UV, visible and IR.
A 350 um UV photon might come from any of them.
A 650 um red photon might come from any of them.
A 1200 um IR photon might come from any of them.
The difference is the relative intensities of the photons at each frequency. (This is not due to different temperatures within the stars, either) The hotter the surface of a star, the higher the average frequency of the photons emitted.
Gordon,
You have enunciated something which pinpoints your fundamental misconception about radiative transfer.
“If elemental atoms in any mass have the same temperature they will produce exactly the same frequency of photons.”
In no mass or gas of uniform temperature will photons of the same frequency be emitted.
Elemental atoms at a uniform, equilibrium temperature emit photons of various frequencies due to the distribution of electronic transitions occurring within the atoms. The resulting spectrum of emitted radiation follows the principles of thermal radiation described by Planck’s law. We’ve posted these emission curves her many times.
Folkerts is quite right in saying: “The AVERAGE frequency of photons from the cooler surface is lower than the AVERAGE frequency of photons from a hotter surface. An individual photon from the cooler surface can be high frequency than an individual photon from a hotter surface.”
Any surface of uniform temperature will emit photons at broad range of frequencies, with the most intense band of emission corresponding to the temperature, as described by Planck.
And because emission = absorp.tion, a receiving surface will also absorb across a wide range of frequencies. Photons are absorbed if the frequency corresponds to any of a large number of orbital states in the receiving atoms, which is NOT determined by temperature.
You erroneously believe that objects at uniform temperature give off radiation at one, single frequency. This is the exact opposite of the truth.
Here is a diagram of the spectrum of radiation emitted at 5000, 4000, and 3000K, based on Plank’s Law.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Black_body.svg
And if you learned your physics, emission = absorp.tion. Therefore, the frequency spectrum of an object at 3000K greatly overlaps with the frequency spectrum of an object at 4000K. Each object can absorb the photons coming from the other.
Nothing in this breaks the 2nd Law.
barry, please stop trolling.
Weekly ENSO anomalies – week ending Dec 2.
1.2 … +2.1 (up 0.1)
..3 … +2.0 (down 0.3)
3.4 … +2.0 (down 0.1)
..4 … +1.7 (up 0.2)
A tropical cyclone is approaching northern Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/ausf/mimictpw_ausf_latest.gi
https://i.ibb.co/pXyDRDJ/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
Relevance?
And your first two links don’t work. Not that they will show anything meaningful.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/storminfo/92P_gefs_latest.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=92P&product=ir
The letter ‘f’ is missing at the end of the link.
Not that it shows anything meaningful.
You will find out in a few days, provided you are in Queensland.
Nino 1.2
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
If this forecast
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
is correct, then El Niño could fall below the 0.5 threshold by May at the latest.
Nino 3.4
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Palmowski still didn’t get the difference between ENSO numbers and SSTs, as it seems.
Surely you don’t have enough snow in Berlin.
You are exceptionally right, but only with regard to children:
https://i.postimg.cc/PxTKCWTR/Snow-south-of-Berlin-GM.png
About 1 mm today above the 5 cm from last week. Maybe a bit more tomorrow…
Still not enough for tobogganing.
Ren you are showing Nino 3.4 is up. You are only supposed to show it when it is down.
Ireneusz Palmowski says:
Nino 3.4
————————–
Thanks for that resource. I have been wondering when somebody would start looking at ENSO from a larger perspective. Living on the westcoast its clear that the extratropics contributes greatly to the ENSO pattern and from my reading does so in both the N and S hemispheres. I look forward to reading more on the topic out of this resource.
https://tinyurl.com/25y8jcda
The real Climate Change and Climate Crisis agenda has been brought into clear focus at COP28 with the agreement on “Loss and Damage Fund”. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
There is no “climate crisis”. The “crisis” is entirely based on cult beliefs. That ain’t science.
Earth varies between cooling and warming trends. The average surface temperature remains in a range of 288K +/- 2 K. We are in a warming trend which is probably about to end.
Enjoy the warmth while it lasts….
A front with heavy snowfall is approaching Bavaria. Round-the-clock frost in southern Germany.
Sea surface temperature measurements do not indicate such a strong increase in global temperature.
https://i.ibb.co/NSGn7Kw/coraltemp-v3-1-global-current.png
Meteorological Winter 2023 is continuing the trend of Summer and Autumn with an Anomaly of 1.3 C for Sunday December 3 (1979-2000 climatology). The anomaly for the same day one year ago was +0.5 C.
https://imgur.com/a/xZoBKFy
High pressure over Iceland guarantees frost and snow in Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/cgSp1VV/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-04-163637.png
Weather in Oymyakon, Russia
https://i.ibb.co/CPmcMyq/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-04-165618.png
Wow, -54C! That’s -65F.
Just think how cold they’d be without all this “global warming”….
This is just the beginning.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/russia/oymyakon
Looks nice over there:
https://i.postimg.cc/SK0XP0H7/Forecast-Oymjakon-Wetter-Online.png
Werchoyansk looks pretty nice as well.
Planetary habitability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
…
“An absolute requirement for life is an energy source, and the notion of planetary habitability implies that many other geophysical, geochemical, and astrophysical criteria must be met before an astronomical body can support life. In its astrobiology roadmap, NASA has defined the principal habitability criteria as “extended regions of liquid water, conditions favorable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism”. In August 2018, researchers reported that water worlds could support life.”
There are a lot water worlds in our solar system- Or a lot a lot water worlds are guessed to be in our solar system- and most have source of tidal energy. There all being pounded with space rocks- and you could call that a energy source. Venus is thought it could have life, and it has no “extended regions of liquid water” in sight, unless you count acid stronger the battery acid, some liquid water.
NASA is rather interested in whether Mars, had life. As it seems Mars did have “extended regions of liquid water”.
I think habitability is related to whether humans could live there.
And at present time, Low Earth orbit is not habitable, though people can visit Low Earth orbit.
A problem with orbit is lack of gravity {or artificial gravity , and life {and humans adapt to this microgravity over time} so humans can live in orbit for 6 months or even more than 1 year, but human body is adapting to microgravity which has various unwanted/harmful medical issues- and we don’t know how life would adapt to artificial gravity nor do know, how human body adapts to lower gravity worlds, such as the Moon or Mars.
So we can live at bottom of the ocean or in the skies of Earth, but wouldn’t say these place are habitable, yet. And I think what might be easier, is living on the ocean surface which cover 70% of the surface of Earth. And it also seems to me, that live anywhere beyond Earth’s land surfaces, we need to live on the ocean surface.
Elon Musk thinks we need to launch rockets from the Ocean surface to get to point of having settlements on Mars {it has to do the launch rate of rockets}. Others think we need to use equatorial Earth orbits, and do that by launching rocket at the equator {and 80% of equator is ocean].
Some have thought we could live in skies of Earth.
Hmm. Can you launch rocket from cities in the sky.
It seems the ocean has the advantage of oceanic cargo ships.
Anyhow, I would put freshwater lakes on the ocean and freshwater lakes on Mars.
Makes me wonder if you can put lakes in skies of Venus. I tend to think they would have hot lake water. Hmm, might just have to be small swimming pools.
“Makes me wonder if you can put lakes in skies of Venus.”
You’d have to stop them falling to the ground, I suppose.
Unless you could make the water? less dense than the surrounding atmosphere.
In other words, I don’t imagine you can.
Probably, but you could have steam rooms or stadiums.
And cooled pools.
November ENSO 3.4 : +2.02
Sep-Oct-Nov ONI : +1.8
So much for Bill Hunter’s claim from just 3 weeks ago that this EL Nino would “top out” at +1.5 or 1.6, making it “one of the weakest strong effects in the 73 year record”. Aside from the 3 “very strong” El Ninos, only two other El Ninos are ahead of it.
Qwerty says:
”So much for Bill Hunters claim from just 3 weeks ago that this EL Nino would top out at +1.5 or 1.6, making it ”one of the weakest strong effects in the 73 year record”. ”
Qwerty certifies his ignorance status and even resorted to a lie to try to win some contest he had only in his own mind.
He went found the quote and took it out of context. the actual quote in context.
”the prognosticating international panel has topping out as one of the weakest strong effects in the 73 year record. 1.5 to 1.6.”
that was one day before the dynamics raised theirs to 2.0 and the experts raised theirs to 1.7.
So its clear that Qwerty is a liar because we had a subsequent conversation about ”the prognosticating international panel”.
Qwerty: ” Who is this ”prognosticating international panel”.
Be specific.
Hunter: ”the IRI here: https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table”
Qwerty: ”The mean of the dynamical models hits a maximum of +2.00. How does that qualify as ”one of the weakest strong effects in the 73 year record”?”
Hunter: ”the dynamical models are not the prognosticating international panel.
Qwerty: ”The Climate Prediction Center is a part of NOAAs NATIONAL Weather Service. It is NOT an ”international panel”.
Hunter: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1559155
right now nothing is settled per the dynamical models vs the experts. The prediction we were discussing was that NDJ would be the peak for the expert panel (they had 1.7 in the November chart) and that DJF would be the peak for the dynamic models at 2.0.
So we aren’t going to know the winner between these two until March 4, 2024 as to when the peak has come. Although we may get a good inkling of that before then based on weekly data.
My position is and has been for years that ENSO is not anymore predictable than climate or the weather in 3 weeks so I am not into the ENSO prediction game for two reasons. One it is a game for experts, and two I am not an expert. But I know enough to be aware of the fact that nobody has a good track record at this game. Just that some do better than others.
All I said was the experts tended to have more data and some understanding of model biases and that maybe 10 years when I last spent some time with working with results the dynamic models tended to run hot. . .but so do climate models. . .so its not surprising.
Would you please link me to your post where you announced the upward revision with as much enthusiasm as your original post. Because it seems that you and ren have a bias in selecting what information you present.
BTW, I have not been able to find any reference to a CPC “panel” which decides on their projections independently of their computer models. Please provide a link. It must state that a panel decides on this figure after consultation, not simply state that a panel exists (most likely for writing up their reports and making impact assessments). And it had better be an international panel, as you claimed, which means it consists of people who represent each country, not just people from other countries who are working in the US.
A,
You have obviously joined bumbling bobdroege’s Association of Dingleberries.
Carry on,
I already gave you the links you are asking for. Just search on some of the quotes above in the previous monthly comment section.
And it was made abundantly clear that Eben was using Nino 1+2 for his prediction as he provided the link to it.
Fact is there are about a dozen Nino indexes.
As far as how the expert panel actually does its work its briefly explained in the IRI/CPC page on it that they have access to more than model information and they consider model biases. The Dynamic and Statistical model thick lines are merely the mean value of all those models. The expert panel puts out the CPCCONSOL which isn’t a mean value but perhaps a model where the previous biases (from missing actual) are assigned to each model. Thats a guess based upon the wording of them considering the biases of the models. It could be more sophisticated than that based upon expert knowledge of how the models use individual indicators.
but be clear it should have been clear to you that these were not my predictions unless English is a language you are not very proficient in.
The experts are almost always focussed on predicting Nino 3.4. The projection plumes given at IRI and CPC and BOM are for that region. Because it covers a large portion of the central Pacific that is strongly affected by ENSO.
But you aren’t explaining why you are complaining about Eben using Nino 1+2.
If you had actually studied the ENSO phenomena, Modoki El Ninos are the most common. But the whole affair started from El Nino being a phenomena that greatly affected the fishing fleets off Ecuador and Peru way back when these boats didn’t venture far to sea.
Thus Nino 1 and then Nino 1+2. today we recognize a lot more El Ninos, ones that affect weather and climate worldwide.
But sometimes Nino1+2 is a better early indicator for El Nino 3.4 than just about anything else. Those happen to be the more traditional non-Modoki El Ninos. Nino 1+2 is not a good early indicator for Modoki El Ninos that form in central Pacific.
Well this happens to be a non-Modoki El Nino and if you actually have any experience with them you know the odds are your in favor watching this index for the future of the current El Nino.
Indeed the expert opinions represent what is going to happen in Nino 3.4. But you don’t know what they are looking at besides models (particularly statistical models that do consider SSTs throughout the area) for all the El Ninos in the record back to 1950. The expert opinion is right on top of the statistical model line.
Eben comes in and says El Nino is in decline. He posts a chart with the historical performance of Nino 1+2 and modeled prediction of 1+2 continued decline then said the others would soon follow.
So what do you not understand about that?
Eben twice said last month that this el Nino was past its peak and already in decline.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561822
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1563136
Then a few days ago CPC published its latest observed ENSO value, which is the highest yet for this el Nino.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
BoM’s NINO3.4 value was also highest in the week Eben said it was already past its peak.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean&pacific=Sea-surface
Eventually Eben will be right, but not when he made those assertions.
barry says:
BoMs NINO3.4 value was also highest in the week Eben said it was already past its peak.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean&pacific=Sea-surface
Eventually Eben will be right, but not when he made those assertions.
———————
Eben didn’t say ENSO 3.4 was past its peak. He said ENSO had peaked and ENSO includes SSTs in all the Nino areas. Nino 1+2 will have the highest anomaly of all the ENSO areas, is past its peak, and its highly unlikely any other area will even approach within one degree the Nino 1+2 anomaly of ~3.5 set back a few months ago.
No one uses NINO1.2 as the measure of the current ENSO state. NINO3.4 is the standard SST, or NINO3 for JMA. Other monitoring groups use NINO3.4 plus other non-SST factors (eg, Multivariate ENSO Index).
Eben predicted that the current el Nino has peaked and is in decline. He didn’t say just the NINO1.2 region. He was wrong, and you seem to need to resurrect his faulty claim.
barry says:
”No one uses NINO1.2 as the measure of the current ENSO state. NINO3.4 is the standard SST, or NINO3 for JMA.”
That simply isn’t true Barry. Perhaps the public generally thinks thats true because Nino 3.4 is the official measure of an El Nino without it necessarily being a peak value of the SST sn the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean.
The definition by the National Weather Service is: The El Nio-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a recurring climate pattern involving changes in the temperature of waters in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.
For that 4 areas are defined and SSTs reported weekly. Thats ENSO. The 4 Nino areas are 4 parts of it and the NWS favors using Nino3.4 as the measure of an official El Nino, though other countries have different choices and Australia I believe includes Indonesia in the Western tropical pacific in their index and measures it by air pressures influencing air movements rather than SSTs.
So don’t try to claim that there is one way to describe the peak of an El Nino. . .you are just too well suited for being influenced by propaganda when you don’t dig deeper than ”official” pronouncements. the IPCC for example is a wholly transparent propaganda white washing operations that ostensibly uses the input of 1000’s of scientists, buts it in the laundry and picks out what they want to wear.
Bill, no one uses NINO1.2 as the key indicator of the current state of ENSO, as I said.
Yes, SSTs in that region are included in study of ENSO, the name gives a clue.
If Eben wants to declare that el Nino is past its peak and already in decline, he can use the same metrics to determine this that every other institute and interested party uses. He is free to announce that NINO1.2 is the metric that he will use from now on, he is free to do so, but he will find before long that that region occasionally has opposite signed anomalies to NINO3.4 during ENSO events, and he is going to be calling an el Nino when every other institute is calling a la Nina.
As you have weighed in in defense of this nonsense, it is on you to show that anyone else uses NINO1.2 as the key metric for determining the current status el Ninos and la Ninas. I look forward to a reference that this is standard for any monitoring group anywhere.
“So dont try to claim that there is one way to describe the peak of an El Nino”
Ahem, I believe I said: “NINO3.4 is the standard SST, or NINO3 for JMA. Other monitoring groups use NINO3.4 plus other non-SST factors (eg, Multivariate ENSO Index).”
In the post above this one that you replied to.
Did you forget that as you were writing your reply? How old are you, Bill?
With this little oversight you gave yourself license to wax on my being in thrall to propaganda, with an excursion on the IPCC. When, in fact, it is you who are blinded by your own rhetoric into missing the second sentence of the short post you replied to.
That is, you reacted to the first sentence and missed the rest.
This is a typical indicator of your attention span. It’s hardly the first time you’ve said something in reply to a post that was already negated by what was in the post.
Back to the point, you don’t get to unilaterally decide on a new metric for determining the current state of ENSO, and especially when it’s not your own claims you are defending.
barry says:
”Bill, no one uses NINO1.2 as the key indicator of the current state of ENSO, as I said.”
I will save myself from the effort of reading the rest of your post.
Eben never said ”the key indicator of the current state of ENSO” is in decline.
He said ENSO has peaked he also provided a graph of that peaking that was clearly labeled Nino 1+2. He also said the rest will soon follow and provided graphs of those also declining in the near future.
Fact is all this stuff is derived from models that consider a variety of wide ranging climate phenomena. Nino 3.4 is not always the best indicator of downstream climate effects, its just that the NWS model and perhaps others puts more emphasis on that zone or the others. But every Nino is different and if you watch Nino progression over numerous Nino events as I have done for years you realize that ”key indicators” are mostly tradition, possibly based on statistics by some parties but not others as being the best indicator of climate effects. Australia adds in Indonesia which isn’t even a defined Nino zone likely because it affects their weather the most. US may have a similar bias. Japan another. My observation is that non-Modoki El Ninos start and end in Nino 1+2. I haven’t formally analyzed that but the last non-Modoki was 97-98 and thats what it did. Which nations Nino 1+2 affects more regarding climate or which have the most effect on climate really hasn’t been sorted out yet.
I would say you are just taking an obedience to authority to a level it hasn’t yet earned.
“I will save myself from the effort of reading the rest of your post”
That’s what you do every time, isn’t it Bill? Read the first sentence and sound off.
When you say el Nino is past its peak and point to NINO2.1, but NINO3.4 rises further after your comment, you are just plain wrong.
El Nino is not determined by NINO2.1. In fact, the NINO2.1 region can have negative SST anomalies during an el Nino event.
That’s why it is not used as a key indicator. It is a factor, but not a determinant in ENSO events.
It’s as simple as that. You may cease holding Eben’s hand.
If you got this far reading my post, congratulations.
thats why there is no point in reading the rest of your post. As I said we know where you are coming from. You bow to authority so much that you can’t even fathom considering anything different.
Stop pouting. You regularly blather stuff that isn’t true and when called to verify you blather a bit more and then get huffy instead of just verifying what you say. You’re trying to defend Eben’s prediction but it’s falling flat. Give it up.
NINO1.2 region is used to help characterise ENSO events, particularly el Ninos. It is not a useful index of the current state of ENSO events, particularly as it is sometimes at odds with the other indices.
For example, in the midst of the strong el Nino that lasted from 2015 to 2016, NINO2.1 had negative anomalies for a couple of months while the other indicators were all in el Nino territory.
Had Eben only said that NINO1.2 had peaked, I doubt there would have been any response. But he said el Nino had peaked, and he was wrong.
barry says:
”NINO1.2 region is used to help characterise ENSO events, particularly el Ninos. It is not a useful index of the current state of ENSO events, particularly as it is sometimes at odds with the other indices.”
——————–
so are you privy to what the models use to generate sst predictions? if so provide some links to support your claims or stop pontificating.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
barry says:
”For example, in the midst of the strong el Nino that lasted from 2015 to 2016, NINO2.1 had negative anomalies for a couple of months while the other indicators were all in el Nino territory.”
——————–
sure 15/16 was modoki or a central pacific forming el nino. not the case for this one.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
barry says:
Had Eben only said that NINO1.2 had peaked, I doubt there would have been any response. But he said el Nino had peaked, and he was wrong.
————————-
he did if you incorporated the charts he provided. you are just insisting that the enso oscillation only has significant climate effects if they are in nino3.4 which is false.
“you are just insisting that the enso oscillation only has significant climate effects if they are in nino3.4”
Nope, that’s false. I’m not saying anything at all about “significant climate effects.”
ALL I’m saying is that Eben predicted the current el Nino has peaked and is in decline, and he was wrong about that, based on the metrics used to establish the status (not character) of an ongoing el Nino.
ENSO indices do not use NINO1+2 to determine whether an event has started, finished or is in decline. Period. Your post-hoc rationalising otherwise is tortured and unnecessary.
I think what people do is pick the index that best represents their local weather. For global weather it seems to depend a lot on the initial intensity in the area it forms.
But none of that nor none of what you said matters either Eben posted his support, obviously some people read it others didn’t, and some are now trying to hold Eben to what they think they heard. I understand that as I have been victimized on that issue a number of times myself. Go back and look at his support. He clearly showed a chart that had 1+2 declining for months and he showed a chart of Nino3 Nino3.4 at probable peaks. How can you not know what he was saying?
Eben’s post:
———————-
Eben says:
November 23, 2023 at 12:48 PM
El Nino is already past the peak , the rest will be short lived
https://i.postimg.cc/zXrgfHrp/nino12-Monadj.png
https://i.postimg.cc/L8mLxYQh/nino3-Monadj.png
https://i.postimg.cc/mDfnnyv7/nino34-Monadj-PDFC.png
———————–
He isn’t even really making a prediction. He is telling you what happened and all you are doing is quibbling about who should be the most authoritative.
Bill, I’ve already twice linked to Eben’s post that you just did now, and I did it in this thread, too.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1570501
So don’t bother telling me I haven’t paid attention.
“How can you not know what he was saying?”
I know exactly what he said, I saw the charts, which are from the CPC.
That’s why I posted the CPC results that followed his prediction, based on their own metric for el Nino. According to the institute that he referred to for his prediction, el Nino got stronger, not weaker.
This is reflected in CPCs monthly anomaly: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
And also their official ENSO observation chart, for the Sep/Oct/Nov trimester, the highest ENSO anomaly this year, updated after Eben’s comment.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Give it a rest, Bill.
Bill is foremost a contrarian. Being factual and accurate are low priorities. Often he’s a Contrarian Without a Cause.
Eben and his posts are hardly a worthy cause.
One thing he regularly does is post PROJECTIONS, which show eg Nino 3.4 going down as usual in the Spring, and misinterprets them as OBSERVATIONS.
Thus he declares ‘El Nino is already past the peak , the rest will be short lived’ or ‘its fully blown and already deminishing’.
Bill, I suggest you find a better cause.
Nate continues to build strawmen re: Eben.
Me being a rebel without a cause? Well I did grow up in the era when that was a fad. but it extended to professional training as well auditors are always perceived as contrarians by those who don’t know the answer to the questions they are asked.
Barry said:
”Thats why I posted the CPC results that followed his prediction, based on their own metric for el Nino. According to the institute that he referred to for his prediction, el Nino got stronger, not weaker.”
Well the CPC charts have both actuals to date and predictions.
Nino 1+2 actuals had clearly peaked.
Nino 3 actuals were looking like a likely peak
Nino 3.4 actuals showed continued increases but they were predicted to peak soon.
And with CPC those actuals are up to date the day before his post.
So do you always assume that someone who posts can’t read his own charts? Seems to me Eben’s post matched the actuals and predictions dead on center.
As I said your only quibble is saying ENSO had peaked and the others would soon follow which you seem to have read as him saying Nino 3.4 had peaked.
No, Bill, it is you who is rewriting what Eben said, and now you are rewriting history.
“And with CPC those actuals are up to date the day before his post.”
You are saying CPC published the November monthly value before the month was even finished.
You are saying CPC published their Sep/Oct/Nov average – their ENSO metric – before November was even finished.
Boy, your need to win this argument has led you to a pretty big gaffe.
Need reminding of the date of Eben’s post?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1563136
So let’s keep this straight: Eben posted CPC NINO1.2, NINO3 and NINO3.4 values from CPC and said that el Nino was already past its peak.
Then CPC publish their actual ENOS values AFTER Eben’s post, showing a higher month, and a higher trimester than what was known when Eben posted.
Yes, Bill, if Eben had just said, “NINO1.2 is past its peak,” there would have been no issue.
But he said, “el Nino [is] fully blown and already deminishing,” on November 21, and “El Nino is already past the peak,” on November 23.
The updates for November were published in December. Obviously.
Here are the latest actuals with prediction spread.
https://tinyurl.com/57pwwvh6
The CFSv2 predictions have been predicting an immediate drop in NINO3.4 for some weeks, without success.
Other predictions have NINO3.4 SSTs rising over the next month or two.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/#region=NINO34&tabs=Pacific-Ocean
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/images/elnino/20231101/nino34_anom_20231101.png
I wouldn’t make a prediction either way, but Eben did, as he always does, that el Nino and temps would drop. Eben ONLY predicts that else Nino is over, or a la Nina is getting bigger – anything that goes along with a drop in global temperature.
Pointing out when he gets it wrong is just a way of spotlighting his extreme bias.
Here is a snapshot of the spread of ENSO forecasts from last August.
https://i.imgur.com/5PvSMGn.png
The dynamical models did very well, and the statistical models fell quite short. The mean of the dynamical models was pretty much spot on so far, but the mean of the statistical models is currently well below observations.
There is quite a spread among the model types, so some of the dynamical models did poorly, and one of the statistical models did ok.
I’m living in barry’s head now
Bill I get it. You feel the need to defend all your denialist pals.
Eben has been consistent in prematurely calling the demise of the El Nino and the solar maximum.
Who knows why. He’s a Coolista.
His recent post was saying the El Nino is past peak and he showed nino 1.2, 3 AND 3.4 data.
November 23, 2023 at 12:48 PM
People of course correct him on these posts from time to time.
The El Nino is not past its peak.
That’s a justifiable opinion.
But its really just not a big deal.
No Nate you are in the same state as Barry. Read my reply to him.
ENSO above all is a climate phenomena. The models have various ways of analyzing it that involves wind patterns, current patterns, and more.
The real purpose of all this is primarily to estimate worldwide climate impacts. Various agencies of various governments and modeling groups do their forecasts broadly across all those parameters. It just happens that NWS cherry picks the Nino 3.4 zone for their quantification of El Nino. But it varies from zone to zone, el nino by el nino. I have been thinking since late last winter this El Nino was looking like a Nino 1+2 event. To determine what the experts feel, the phone it in guy is going to just check Nino 3.4. If you want to figure out if it was Nino 1+2 event I would suggest looking at the downstream forecasts from NWS to see if your Nino 3.4 is actually the most dominant zone for worldwide climate effects for this El Nino and comparing the differences from this one to other El Ninos.
Since these are climate models all the info to do such an analysis is there to make a case that Eben should have used Nino 3.4 instead of Nino 1+2. But I doubt you are going to do that. I can’t even get you to look for a detailed explanation for the cause of the GHE or the moon’s rotation or anything else.
“It just happens that NWS cherry picks the Nino 3.4 zone for their quantification of El Nino. But it varies from zone to zone, el nino by el nino.”
It’s not cherry-picked, most monitoring groups use that region, and with good reason. Japan Meteorological Agency uses NINO3, Bom uses 3.4 and a few other non-SST indices, like the SOI, the MEI uses 5 different indices, including 3.4 SSTs. CPC uses NINO3.4 as the index, but examines other factors when studying ENSO.
“I have been thinking since late last winter this El Nino was looking like a Nino 1+2 event.”
I can remember one study group that characterised el Nino events in this way (3 since 1950, if I remember correctly). They referred to those events as Eastern Pacific el Ninos.
It might be worth pointing out that the NINO1.2 region shows the greatest SST variability of the regions, anomalies going above/below 3.0/-3.0 nearly as often as NINO3.4 goes above/below 2.0/-2.0.
Yep.
Here’s what NCAR says about the regions:
“Nio 1+2 (0-10S, 90W-80W): The Nio 1+2 region is the smallest and eastern-most of the Nio SST regions, and corresponds with the region of coastal South America where El Nio was first recognized by the local populations. This index tends to have the largest variance of the Nio SST indices.
Nio 3 (5N-5S, 150W-90W): This region was once the primary focus for monitoring and predicting El Nio, but researchers later learned that the key region for coupled ocean-atmosphere interactions for ENSO lies further west (Trenberth, 1997). Hence, the Nio 3.4 and ONI became favored for defining El Nio and La Nia events.
Nio 3.4 (5N-5S, 170W-120W): The Nio 3.4 anomalies may be thought of as representing the average equatorial SSTs across the Pacific from about the dateline to the South American coast. The Nio 3.4 index typically uses a 5-month running mean, and El Nio or La Nia events are defined when the Nio 3.4 SSTs exceed +/- 0.4C for a period of six months or more.
ONI (5N-5S, 170W-120W): The ONI uses the same region as the Nio 3.4 index. The ONI uses a 3-month running mean, and to be classified as a full-fledged El Nio or La Nia, the anomalies must exceed +0.5C or -0.5C for at least five consecutive months. This is the operational definition used by NOAA.”
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/nino-sst-indices-nino-12-3-34-4-oni-and-tni
Also, here is what Nino 1.2 and Nino 3.4 did during the 2015-2016 super El Nino.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iersst_nino12a_2015:2016.png
You can see 1.2 peaked in July.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iersst_nino3.4a_2015:2016.png
You can see 3.4 rose steadily throughout the year peaking in December.
What you fail to consider Nate is that every ENSO event is different. Modoki El Ninos are El Ninos that form in the central Pacific. Regular El Ninos (as NWS describes the ”original” El Nino) form in the Eastern Pacific.
All El Ninos affect all the Nino areas based on prevailing surface winds and a theorized ebb of waters from water pile ups in the Western Pacific caused by the prevailing winds. Thus wind strength and direction are seen as major causes of ENSO events. The slosh back theory may account for most El Ninos, but I believe the eastern Pacific originating El Ninos are a product of variation in deep water upwelling as offshore winds off the land is the major cause of upwelling in most of the earth’s upwelling zones.
Thus if your model doesn’t recognize these effects your model is not likely going to perform well. I agree most El Ninos are Modoki so Nino 3.4 or 3 both make sense as a single consistent measure of El Nino.
But I appreciate Ireneusz posting yet another model output.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
this one matches my perception of the current El Nino. So that led me to this. https://tinyurl.com/25y8jcda
Which claims: ”When atmospheric “observations” are assimilated only poleward of 20 in both hemispheres, most ENSO events in the “observation” are reproduced and the error of the Nino3.4 index is reduced by over 40 % compared to the ensemble control experiment that does not assimilate any observations.”
This is verifies that its likely my local weather observation conclusions as to being a precursor to ENSO is real.
Over the last several years I have been watching for similar patterns in the southern Hemisphere and I consistently see SST changes I subsequently looked at to see if the same types of effects could be seen the southern Hemisphere. And yes similar patterns exist off Chile.
so what it boils down to is: ENSO isn’t an effect that arises out of a tiny little patch of Pacific Ocean about 2.5% of the entire ocean but instead is more of a Pacific Ocean wide event that takes up 30% of the earth’s surface.
Since at least small areas of the Pacific Ocean have waters that haven’t seen the surface in well over 1,500 years, much of the Pacific Ocean is still warming from the LIA recovery. How much that effects SSTs is totally uncertain. thus the climate effects from ENSO are just fluctuations with measured climate effects seen to arise from multi-decadal patterns seen in the frequency of positive vs negative ENSO events.
I will reserve my opinion to later but now that all this has been transferred to under the direction of Kevin Trenberth its possible we will see a change in how fast and the direction this science advances.
“so what it boils down to is: ENSO isnt an effect that arises out of a tiny little patch of Pacific Ocean about 2.5% of the entire ocean but instead is more of a Pacific Ocean wide event that takes up 30% of the earths surface.”
Exactly thus 3.4 is preferred:
“The Nio 3.4 anomalies may be thought of as representing the average equatorial SSTs across the Pacific from about the dateline to the South American coast.”
Nate says:
”Exactly thus 3.4 is preferred:
The Nio 3.4 anomalies may be thought of as representing the average equatorial SSTs across the Pacific from about the dateline to the South American coast.”
—————
Excellent observation Nate.
equatorial SSTs across the Pacific from about the dateline to the South American coast was during the first week of the month was:
August 2023: 2.07
September 2023: 2.07
October 2023: 1.9
November 2023: 1.93
Should be a new diagnostic coming out in a few days for December. Looks like Eben may be right.
Nah. What sort of stoopid math are you doing Bill?
I also tried to answer that question:
If the Global average surface atmospheric greenhouse effect is +33C, what the atmospheric greenhouse effect approximately is at different latitudes, like:
1). Kenya
2). Egypt
3). Greece
4). Czechia
5). Sweden
6). North Pole
Notice, the higher latitudes represent smaller areas on the Globe.
–
But I couldnt answer that question, because there is not such an answer.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Of course there is one.
1. All 6 places you mentioned are completely useless.
2. The major agent for GHE is water vapor; thus you find the highest GHE effect where water vapor is most abundant, namely above the Tropical oceans.
“All 6 places you mentioned are completely useless.”
The inhabitants too? That’s a bit harsh.
“The major agent for GHE is water vapor; thus you find the highest GHE effect where water vapor is most abundant, namely above the Tropical oceans.”
Get rid of water and cool the world? That doesnt seem very clever. Almost as silly as reducing the amount of CO2 (that most essential plant food) in the atmosphere.
What’s your next cunning plan to stop the climate from changing?
It’s rare when Bindi actually attempts any science, but it’s always fun when he does.
As Swenson already pointed out, Bindi’s concept of the bogus GHE is even more inane than what his cult touts. Does Bindi believe the oceans are burning fossil fuels? He must.
Or does he believe water vapor rising off the oceans is unnatural?
Maybe he could explain what on earth he’s talking about. That would be even more fun!
Blather blather blather.
How boring.
Your blather is fun, Bindi.
Of course, it’s not as much fun as when you attempt science.
Actually, Bindidons belated recognition that H2O is supposedly a major “greenhouse gas” doesn’t really explain why deserts can be so much hotter than oceans.
On the one hand, H2O is supposed to make things hotter, but it doesn’t seem to work for the oceans. On the other hand, if less GHGs makes things colder, it doesn’t seem to apply in arid deserts – which can get very hot indeed.
Maybe deserts and oceans need to be added to Binny’s list of “completely useless” places?
“Actually, Bindidons belated recognition that H2O is supposedly a major ‘greenhouse gas’…”
This Swenson guy. Two lies and a contradiction in a single phrase.
Contradiction: if there is no GHE, then H2O isn’t a greenhouse gas, “supposedly” or otherwise, and so there is nothing for Bindidon to recognize, and yet is he is doing it – “belatedly!”
1. “belated recognition” is a lie. A cheap shot lie.
2. the contradiction is the other lie – either CO2 is a GHG or it isn’t. It can’t be both. But this guy wants to have his cake and eat it.
So much disingenuousness that mendacity folds in on itself.
Blundering barry,
SkyDragon cultists imply that “greenhouse gases” exist, but cannot actually state what the effect of these “greenhouse gases” is supposed to be. You certainly can’t, can you?
I note that you have defined a contradiction to be a lie, just like some SkyDragon cultists claim that the GHE is “Not cooling, slower cooling”. No increased temperatures – or is Global Warming defined as Global Cooling?
Maybe you could straighten this all out by describing this supposed GHE in some way that reflects reality? What is the GHE supposed to result in? Hotter thermometers? Colder thermometers?
All very mysterious – you can’t say, and neither can anybody else!
You might as well avoid accepting reality, and try playing silly semantic games. Only joking, you lose at those too!
Others will no doubt form their own opinions.
Water vapour is also a trace gas and is significant only in the Tropics near the ocean surface. Insignificant effect on warming.
If there is +33C atmospheric global average surface greenhouse warming effect, it should be stronger at places with higher solar irradiance, because the core issue in atmospheric global average surface greenhouse warming effect is the surface LW emission atmospheric feedback.
If there is +33C atmospheric global average surface greenhouse warming effect, it sould be stronger at equatorial zone, because at equatorial zone the solar irradiance is much stronger.
We face a paradox here:
We should have assumed, in the case of Planet Earth without-atmosphere, at Earths equatorial zone the far below zero C the surface temperatures
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The upcoming week is forecasted to bring exceptionally cold temperatures to Eastern Europe.
https://imgur.com/a/GODXNFn
https://imgur.com/1sFNBA2
Here’s a brilliant video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8R-X0kccHo&list=PL89cj_OtPeenLkWMmdwcT8Dt0DGMb8RGR&index=3
Watched a good portion and it is very interesting. Tsonis et al found a positive correlation between the various ocean oscillations and global temperatures and the AMO of one of the main oscillations. If the thermohaline conveyor does affect the AMO as claimed, that would explain much of the warming.
Indeed, I found the 1995 “shifts” especially convincing.
Interesting speculative video on an alternative source of heat from the ocean to explain GW.
But fatally flawed.
The total measure ocean heat content has been rising at ~ 1 W/m^2 for several years, and recently has accelerated.
As he stated at the beginning, the global average geothermal heat flux is < 0.1 W/m^2. And he provides no evidence that it has recently increased by a factor of 10.
In fact the source of the added 1 W/m^2 has been traced to the top of the atmosphere, where the incoming absor.bed heat from the sun and outgoing heat transfer is measured by the CERES satellite, and the NET has been increasing, tracking closely the accelerated rise in ocean heat content.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lkCCNblIMM
Sorry Nate, but all those “measurements” ain’t actual measurements. They’re estimates, guesses, assumptions, and modeling. That ain’t science.
It’s the same basic nonsense as the bogus “EEI”.
Clint’s theory, whatever that is, can’t explain the measurements, so he declares the measurements must be wrong!
Wrong again, Nate.
Roy has explained, in detail, the difficulty, complexity, and rigor required to arrive at valid data from measuring fluxes. It’s a new technology, and you can’t understand any of it. Your cult believes they can guess at “ASR” and “OLR”, subtract, and arrive at an “EEI” that has any value.
That ain’t science.
“they can guess at ASR and OLR, subtract, and arrive at an EEI that has any value.”
Nope. Measuring, not guessing.
Wrong again, Nate.
You can’t measure ASR.
What will you try next?
Come on Nate, what’s the OLR right now?
You Dingleberry. Blathering about things that you don’t understand, can’t define, and can’t be measured, anyway!
Go on, you gutless Warmist worm, wriggle away.
Nate says:
”Clints theory, whatever that is, cant explain the measurements, so he declares the measurements must be wrong!”
What measurements Nate. All your youtube video shows is a mathematical model as Clint points out.
What part of ‘the measurements are done by CERES satellites’ are you confused about?
Well, maybe if you could relate the “measurements’ to reality, he could understand what you are talking about.
You really aren’t silly enough to believe it is possible to simultaneously measure the total amount of energy emitted by the Earth, and that absorbed by the Earth?
That would require the same type of mind which believes that the illusionist really cut the woman in half, and really vanished the elephant!
There are plenty of you about.
Nate you are the one confused.
I asked for the study with error bars with the databases used to make the estimates of what you claim to be accurate enough to determine the earth’s imbalance. A very simple request. Is that clear enough for you to clear up your confusion about what I asked for?
“Nate you are the one confused.
“I asked for the study with error bars with the databases used to make the estimates”
Oh did you?
You can look up CERES publications yourself and tell us what issue you have found.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science/publications/
In my experience when I do your homework for you, you reject it anyway.
So not interested in that job.
“You really arent silly enough to believe it is possible to simultaneously measure the total amount of energy emitted by the Earth, and that absorbed by the Earth?”
Your personal incredulity is not an argument, and is rather worthless.
Nate continues to shill for the special interest institutions draining tax payer pockets without coming up with anything in support of his claims. How embarrassing does that look?
Nate you confuse heat with incoming solar and heat with outgoing longwave, and heat with reflected solar.
Obviously you know nothing about physics if you don’t know how wrong that is.
Nah, that’s stoopid. You are just on another grievance parade after yet another argument loss.
So Nate actually thinks radiation is heat. ROTFLMAO!
Nate,
You call people stupid because you possess a great amount of it.
You never justify your reasons, which explains why you try to heap your stupidity on others.
Maybe, if you ever developed a backbone, you could say what it is you believe in. So far, SkyDragon cultists say nothing of substance, so that that they can whine furiously “I didn’t say that!”.
Random laughing and falling down again?
“You call people stupid”
False.
“You never justify your reasons”
Justify why most of your opponents are called Dingleberries.
Well Nate seems to still believe that the moon can rotate and not rotate on the same axis at the same time with two different motions.
What else can I say?
Nah, Bill continues to shamelessly attribute fake arguments to me that I have never made, because sadly he cannot refute my actual arguments!
come on Nate you have been saying the moon translates and rotates at the same time in two separate motions. ROTFLMAO! Are just now realizing the implications of that or have you been simply obfuscating all along?
“you have been saying the moon translates and rotates at the same time in two separate motions.”
Yep. As thoroughly explained here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1570443
And compare to what you JUST CLAIMED my argument was:
“Nate seems to still believe that the moon can rotate and not rotate on the same axis at the same time with two different motions.”
If you think these are remotely saying the same thing, you have brain damage.
Nate continues to believe that a line between 2 particles in the moon can have two motions in which that line both changes orientation and does not change orientation simultaneously.
Quote me saying stuff you want to refute. Otherwise kindly f*k off.
You did say the moon simultaneously translates and rotates at the same time Nate. You even denied that the translation would instantaneously stop for a rotation to occur to catch up and vice versa.
You wholly painted yourself into that corner and now you are just pissed, at who?
No quote no credit. F*k off.
Nate can’t even say what he believes here. Just goes ad hominem. The sure sign of the loser he is.
You made your bed, Bill, by repeatedly making up BS beliefs for me that I never stated nor held.
Obviously you are unable to rebut my actual arguments.
Hence, you want to rebut my arguments, from now on you will need to directly quote them.
You mean your argument that the moon both translates and rotates at the same time?
Nate,
You wrote –
“The total measure ocean heat content has been rising at ~ 1 W/m^2 for several years, and recently has accelerated.”
Listen, Dingleberry, heat content is not measured in W/m2! Nobody has measured total ocean heat content, and I doubt anybody ever will.
You cannot even say what units are used, or how many there are, currently.
If you want to believe the conjurors at NASA, NOAA, RSS, they are “measuring” various things – which is true to a point. However, their instruments may not lie, but their operators may, and how would you know you are being gulled into believing fantasy?
For example “surface” temperature. It’s not the surface at all. In fact most of the Earths surface is covered by a considerable layer of water. You willingly believe then, that “air” temperature is being measured. Well, no, it’s not. Look at the documentation of the WMO, for example, and you will find that the measured temperature of the air is not what is being presented as “surface temperature”, or even “air temperature”.
The signature of a good illusionist is that you can’t figure out how he makes the impossible happen.
The signature of a good con artist is that you dont even know you are watching an illusionist at work.
You’ve been had, Nate.
“they are measuring various things which is true to a point.”
Yep, that’s about it.
Unless you can point out the specific flaws in their work, which you clearly cannot, your complaints are just a bunch of hot air!
Nate,
I wrote “which is true to a point.”
People measure the temperature of a thermometer, and claim it is the temperature of something else.
Not a specific flaw? What is “their work”? Pretending to measure the temperature of something they are not? Generally, that would be called fraud, misrepresentation, lying, or something similar.
I’m not complaining – you are just putting words in my mouth. I’m pointing out reality. You dont have to accept reality. Go on, be a Dingleberry, and claim that “surface temperature” is the temperature of the surface!
That’s about a daft as claiming that the “greenhouse effect” has anything to do with greenhouses, or has any effect at all!
Others will no doubt form their own opinions, and may even value yours!
Keep at it – nothing wrong with a bit of unintended humour.
So you could not point out any specific flaws in their work.
Thus your generic complaints were just a bunch of hot air!
No surprise.
“…specific flaws in their work…”
Nate, start with the fact that fluxes don’t simply add or average.
That simple fact destroys your cult’s EEI nonsense.
“Nate, start with the fact that fluxes dont simply add or average.
That simple fact destroys your cults EEI nonsense.”
Nah, we have been over this dozens of times, and you never make any sense.
Again, can you do simple arithmetic or not?
Measure all energy inputs to, and outputs from the Earth.
Total energy input -total energy output = NET energy gain.
Now divide NET energy gain by the area of the Earth.
Can you do that simple math?
Then you have the Net energy flux to the Earth.
Its just not difficult.
Still wrong, Nate.
There’s no way to know energy-in and energy-out. It’s all guesses, estimates, and assumptions.
And again, energy is NOT flux and flux is NOT energy. Your cult doesn’t understand units. It’s like saying the distance between two towns is 40 mph. It makes no sense, to adults.
“Theres no way to know energy-in and energy-out.”
You think we can’t measure SW and LW radiation via satellite?
We certainly can.
“Your cult doesnt understand units. Its like saying the distance between two towns is 40 mph. It makes no sense, to adults.”
Nah. Science understands units just fine, it is you who is confused.
Nate can’t learn. He is willing to believe the distance between two towns is 40 mph!
That’s why this is so much fun.
“Listen, Dingleberry, heat content is not measured in W/m2! Nobody has measured total ocean heat content, and I doubt anybody ever will.”
Obviously Swenson is clueless about energy units and rate-of-change of them.
And as usual he expresses his incredulity at what science can do, and erroneously thinks that is an argument.
It aint!
I’m glad you found it interesting Nate. I don’t know very much about the energy imbalance and the greenhouse effect, but I would like to learn. I’ll have to do some research, but I don’t know where to start.
But let me ask you some questions:
-Are you not convinced by the 1995 shifts he mentioned? It seems to add up.
-Is there anything that could convince you that modern climate change is NOT dominated by CO2?
“I don’t know very much about the energy imbalance and the greenhouse effect, but I would like to learn.”
Maybe this will help, Walter:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1568069
“-Is there anything that could convince you that modern climate change is NOT dominated by CO2?”
Not unless all the evidence, some mentioned here, can be explained away.
“-Are you not convinced by the 1995 shifts he mentioned? It seems to add up.”
As he notes, correlation is not causation.
And 0.1 W/m^2 of global geothermal heat flux needs to have increased sharply by 10 times.
Any evidence that it did?
Nate,
Dont you believe that dismissing the idea that our substantial CO2 emissions may not significantly contribute to global warming closes off opportunities to explore new aspects of our beautiful planet, Earth? Do you ever contemplate the intricacies influencing the weather in your region and its historical shifts? I hold a deep fondness for the Western United States and often find myself questioning the accuracy of claims surrounding the megadrought. This event, once emblematic of extreme weather linked to climate change, has disappeared, attributed to the exceptionally cold and wet winter of the past year. My curiosity extends to unraveling these weather patterns over a much broader timescale. Unless we presume to have a flawless understanding of climate, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to continue researching and discovering more about it? This involves not sidelining studies that question established premises and urging significant bodies, such as the IPCC, to engage in a constructive dialogue with skeptical researchers.
“Dont you believe that dismissing the idea that our substantial CO2 emissions may not significantly contribute to global warming closes off opportunities to explore new aspects of our beautiful planet, Earth?”
Setting aside the double negative, accepting the notion that CO2 has a noticeable effect on long-term global climate doesn’t interfere one bit with exploring all sorts of interesting things.
That’s obviously wrong, given the light of significant range of ECS values in the climate models.
That reply has nothing to do with what I said about what you said.
The range of ECS would imply a substantial gap in our knowledge of the climate system. It could be anywhere from 1.5C to 4C. A temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius might go unnoticed by most, while a 4-degree Celsius rise could likely be palpable and felt by people. It likely is even lower than that, given the fact that stable systems are usually dominated by negative feedbacks.
The origins of climatic events like the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Dark Ages Cold Period, and Roman Warm Period remain unclear. Some argue these were regional rather than global, a point echoed in discussions about modern warming. Despite debates on global scale, contemplating Greenland’s historical arability still prompts curiosity about the intricate factors contributing to regional climate phenomena. No sufficient answer has been given to explain that.
“Unless we presume to have a flawless understanding of climate, wouldnt it be worthwhile to continue researching and discovering more about it?”
Yes. And that is precisely what is going on right now in Climatology.
“find myself questioning the accuracy of claims surrounding the megadrought. This event, once emblematic of extreme weather linked to climate change, has disappeared, attributed to the exceptionally cold and wet winter of the past year.”
Regarding the so-called megadrought, it is my understanding that the West has always had drier and wetter periods.
The issue is whether climate change exacerbates the drought periods, because warmer T produces more drying, and thus more severe wildfires. And there seems to be evidence of that.
Another issue is whether climate change will alter the global circulation pattern, such that the West dries further and the desert regions of the southwest expand significantly. The jury is still out on that one.
The issue is whether climate change exacerbates the drought periods, because warmer T produces more drying, and thus more severe wildfires. And there seems to be evidence of that.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/uspa/wet-dry/0
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make, Walter. I thought it was that focussing on AGW disables research on other things. But plenty of research is done on ‘other things’ and papers ‘skeptical’ of AGW still pop up in the peer-reviewed literature. I don’t see a problem.
barry, please stop trolling.
Walter,
This is an drought index that accounts for rainfall and warmth.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/109/pdsi/all/11/1895-2023?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
…please stop trolling.
Strong tropical cyclone attacks eastern India. There will be heavy losses.
https://i.ibb.co/jwQPQb2/meteosat9-ir-08-B-202312041821.gif
Tropical cyclone threatens the Great Barrier Reef.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
We’ve had 108 days in a row where every single day has been the hottest of that day of the year on record.
Well done everyone!
Yes, I think we can rule out a Little Ice Age in our lifetimes.
walter…according to Zharkova, we may be heading into a similar situation soon. I hope not.
Gordon Robertson,
If I recall correctly, Zharkova’s prediction will is due soon? I am very excited to see what happens following the spike.
Walter,
Best stay away from Greenland -.
From Nature –
“Greenland ice core records suggest that the onset of the YD occurred rapidly in possibly as little as 3 years and that the termination occurred over ∼60 years.”
Prestigious journal, peer reviewed and all. Luckily, the word “suggest” allows the authors the luxury of being right, even if they’re not.
What the heck, it’s only weather, after all. A 3 year cold snap.
Walter,
Best stay away from Greenland -.
From “nature communications” –
“Greenland ice core records suggest that the onset of the YD occurred rapidly in possibly as little as 3 years and that the termination occurred over ∼60 years.”
Prestigious journal, peer reviewed and all. Luckily, the word “suggest” allows the authors the luxury of being right, even if they’re not.
What the heck, it’s only weather, after all. A cold snap.
Swenson,
I stand corrected. You are aware that solar cycle 25 is currently more active than the previous correct?
Walter,
No offence intended. I hope you took none.
The point I was trying to make is that the future is unknown, and sometimes doesn’t go the way you assume or want.
None taken. But yea… whatever this spike is could easily be followed by a large drop. Its hard to see and easy to doubt after decades of warming, but natural variability has a very large and probably dominating role as evidenced by the past half year.
None taken. But yes, one should not underestimate natural variability’s likely dominant role; this year is case in point.
Walter,
Never trust Mike Flynn about citations:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9061
Wandering Wee Willy,
Are you disagreeing with the nature communications quote?
Or are you just being silly?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
What “record” is that?
What’s your point? Have you applied for membership of the Association of Dingleberries?
You are doing very well, if so. You provided a completely meaningless comment – are you lying, or just being obscure for no particular reason?
Yes, thermometers respond to heat. Put one close to a fire, if you don’t believe me.
Are the other Dingleberries as clever as you?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
What?
Yes, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 543.1 km/sec
density: 13.07 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Dec 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 107
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 148 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.10×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.0% Low
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2023/04dec23/coronalhole_sdo_blank.jpg
Big coronal hole at Sun’s equator
Solar wind
speed: 616.5 km/sec
density: 1.49 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 113
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 138 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.97×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.7% Low
A small spot {northern} coming from farside and spots leaving nearside. It seems spots near and coming from farside are weak, and could fade, giving a chance of spotless day in next 2 weeks.
And have wondering when Thermosphere become neutral rather than warm
or at or less the 18.00×10^10 W. Most 24 Max was neutral, with the second peak getting up to Warm, though peaking as high as 25 has done.
I am guessing Dec will be around 100 spot number.
The pros:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
04 December – 30 December 2023
Solar activity is expected to be low with a chance for M-class flare
activity (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) throughout the outlook period. “
Solar wind
speed: 570.8 km/sec
density: 1.22 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 133
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 138 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.97×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.7% Low
The little spot coming from farside, grew a fair amount, and another small spot coming from farside. And 3501 is leaving nearside, but many days before any others leave.
Solar wind
speed: 491.8 km/sec
density: 1.55 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 07 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 125
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 130 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.85×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.5% Low
Nothing coming from farside or leaving to farside.
The two spots which came from farside are growing,
they could grow more or fade in next week.
Sun seems to have low activity, and could get lower.
Solar wind
speed: 309.3 km/sec
density: 4.41 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 Dec 23
Sunspot number: 87
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 126 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.48×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Low
barry…”The change in NOAAs global temp record 1998-2012 went from 0.039 C/decade to 0.086 C/decade when they adopted the new SST dataset”.
***
As I have pointed out all along, NOAA are cheaters. UAH and the IPCC saw no trend from 1998 – 2012 yet NOAA manufactured a trend. Barry has just revealed the chicanery at NOAA. According to the error margin produced by the IPCC, the trend could have been slightly negative.
How does one explain a 15 year period with no warming when the anthropogenic theory needs a constant linear trend to explain the relationship between a claimed ever-increasing concentration of CO2 and warming?
Yes, there was a time when most of the publicly available datasets displayed the pause.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/a-first-look-at-possible-artifacts-of-data-biases-in-the-recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus-by-karl-et-al-science-4-june-2015/
Neither Had.CRU4, HadSST, GISS or N.C.D.C seem to have a pause. All the running means are higher in 2014 than 1998.
No trends are given for each of these graphs, so the reader is left to wonder/pin their own biases on them.
Same old one-eyed bull from you Gordon.
UAH didn’t have a flat trend from 1998 – 2012, until they changed their data. Check it out.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2013/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2013/trend
UAH5.6 +0.05 C/decade becomes UAH6.0 -0.08 C/decade
That’s a change in trend 0.13 C/decade compared to NOAA’s change of 0.05 C/decade.
No problem for Gordon. The huge change is good science!
But the small change – that’s dodgy!
“Barry has just revealed the chicanery at NOAA”
By detailing what the change was? Then I’ve also revealed UAH chicanery with exactly the same method, right?
“According to the error margin produced by the IPCC, the trend could have been slightly negative”
NOAA’s trend for that period also has an error margin that means it could be slightly negative (0.086 +/- 0.146). So what the hell is problem?
The problem is that you know so very little about the actual facts and keep venting these falsehoods over and over again.
Bumbling barry,
Are you trying to say something?
Flynnson
Unlike you, the arrogant, contrarian ignoramus who is all the time in each post trying to say something, but actually never says anything relevant: barry posts valuable, interesting comments.
You should see a psychiatrist soon.
Binny,
You are entitled to your opinion. I support unfettered free speech, unlike you. Maybe somebody values your opinion. Another SkyDragon cultist, perhaps? Or someone of low mentality, gullible, or extremely suggestible.
Which psychiatrist should I see, and what leads you believe they will benefit from seeing me? Who pays me – you, or the psychiatrist?
Contact me when you figure it out.
barry
… is 100% right, we see it even better when superposing UAH 6.0 and UAH 5.6 in the same graph:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/uah5/mean:12/offset:-0.14/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2013/trend
*
After 2005, 5.6 keeps above 6.0 till its end in 2017.
{ The 6.0 curve has to be displaced by 0.14 C: this is due to the average anomaly difference between 5.6’s reference period (1981-2010) and that of 6.0 (1991-2020). }
*
But equally relevant, in my opinion, is the fact that McKittrick’s guest post at WUWT ‘coincidentally’ appeared some time after Roy Spencer’s announcement of a UAH move from rev. 5.6 to rev 6.0:
Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade
April 28th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
As a recall: at transition time, UAH 5.6 LT gave a trend of 0.14 C.
*
I doubt that McKittrick would have published his WUWT guest post in June 2015 without being backed by the new UAH revision!
**
The chicanery is as usual on Robertson’s side:
– he simply knows nothing valuable, hence fills the blog with his gut feeling a la ball-on-a-string, together with thoughts of the authorities he often enough wrongly appeals to, beginning with Bohr and Wood;
– he apparently suffers of a pathological hatred to all climate institutions – except UAH of course but only because they operate a transition to far lower temperature measurements in the lower troposphere.
Instead of
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/uah5/mean:12/offset:-0.14/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2013/trend
read
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/offset:0.14/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/uah5/mean:12/offset/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2013/trend
and
” … but only because they operated… “
Do you know the reason for the UAH6 adjustment?
Walter R. Hogle
You only need to carefully read abstract and intro in Roy Spencer’s head post whose access link I mentioned in my comment above
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
Im asking if you know.
Do you mean LT or the whole, i.e. LT / MT / TP LS ?
LT
But another question: why would you say I doubt that McKittrick would have published his WUWT guest post in June 2015 without being backed by the new UAH revision! The WUWT article showed almost all datasets displaying the pause at the time. The UAH v6 adjustment also brought it closer to the RSS trend at the time, but they too adjusted their data later on.
Above all, what I know about the processing of atmospheric data can be found in Spencer/Christy’s, Mears/Wentz’s, Po-Chedley’s and Santer’s papers: anybody can google for such stuff.
Of special interest because covering both a comparison of various satellite series to the IGRA2 radiosonde dataset and a discussion about satellite sounding issues:
Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research
Christy & al. 2018
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
{ It’s sometimes a bit difficult for the layman to live with the apparent circular reasoning, from Christy/Norris’ alignment of radiosonde data to that of satellites’ in 2006, over Haimberger’s later use of C/N’s work for the satellite-based RICH/RAOBCORE reanalysis of radiosonde data, finally used in recent satellite comparisons to… radiosondes. }
*
Zooming into UAH’s LT, one can see a big difference between
– the former, 100% microwave sounding-based technique used in their preceding revisions
and
– the current one which is a synthetic evaluation of the layers above LT, according to the formula visible in the document cited above:
” The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU2,3,4 or AMSU5,7,9 (aka MT,TP, LS):
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS ”
*
Until last year, I thought this linear computation would be kinda guideline for a LT cleanup. This was wrong: the four zonal/regional anomaly files published each month by Roy Spencer show that regardless which zone/region you look at in these four, the data found in
https://tinyurl.com/4n4hnjtj
is – apart from tiny discrepancies due to the low resolution of UAH data (only 2 digits atdp) – exactly identical to the combination of the data found in the corresponding files for the three layers above LT, according to the formula above:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
*
Even when using UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data (e.g. the NINO3+4 region, or the single grid cell above the university at Huntsville), you see the exact match.
*
Until now, I couldn’t find any Christy/Spencer paper explaining exactly how the somewhat ‘ad hoc’ looking coefficients were determined.
You just need to change the coefficients according to the formula used by NOAA STAR V5 to obtain changes in the entire UAH LT time series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11SFfVcuOjFPa8ak_Qgk-AvqpWULoMLPm/view
*
That’s what I know.
barry is obviously impressing the other members of the Association of Dingleberries.
He wrote –
“Despite the needless huffing about who said what the point remains that climate is stable and quite predictable, while weather is not.”
Unfortunately, he forgets about a body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which stated unequivocally that it not possible to predict future climate states.
IPCC –
.The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”
After admitting the impossibility of predicting future climate states, the IPCC implicitly claims it can predict future climate states!
Fair enough, who would pay a fortune teller who said he couldn’t see into the future? People who run governments, obviously!
I am shocked to learn that it is impossible to predict that Summer will be warmer than Winter.
What arcane wisdom will the skeptics come up with next?
barry,
You are making an assumption. I suppose you also “predict” the sun will rise tomorrow?
Maybe you could “predict” something better than a 12 year old?
Members of the Association of Dingleberries find reality shocking.
12 year olds generally don’t.
Is only 4 Dec and already there is no signal in the noise.
I wonder if Charles Martel blathered on about the weather whilst the Islamists were approaching the gates of Paris.
” I wonder if Charles Martel blathered on about the weather whilst the Islamists were approaching the gates of Paris. ”
The people who crossed the Mediterranean and invaded Spain before also attacking France were not ‘Islamists’ but Moors whose religion was Islam.
A world separates both.
COP28 President –
“There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is whats going to achieve 1.5C.”
Maybe Greta Thunberg should have been elected as president?
Faaantastic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHk2S6XlzsU&ab_channel=FriendsofScience
Winter Berlin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEDMWm0G3Io
And that you call ‘winter’ ???
We had 50 km south of Berlin nearly no snow, one night with -10 C, three with -7 C. And in Berlin, it was way warmer – UHI!
You are really a cooling alarmist.
Warmistas are bad people, but Coolistas are even worse.
A strong higs blocking in the north ensures frost and snow in central Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/HKMb5wB/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-05-150515.png
ren,
Binny has a subjective definition of what winter is in his area is. Ill frequently see him speak of 2010, but 2010 was a winter dominated by an exceptionally low anomaly in the Arctic Oscillation index. Temperatures in Berlin during the meteorological winter range from (39F)to (28F) barring extreme cold snaps, according to a quick google search online.
Cooling of, say, 1.5C globally would have much greater consequences than 1.5 warming.
Some (trustworthy) source confirming what I until now can only view as your personal gut feeling?
My ‘gut feel’ results from reading about little ice age, particularly famine 1315 1317, and the reduction of Europe’s population by half in subsequent years. Keep in mind we don’t have much history from what happened to most of the rest of the world.
Too there is the knowledge that, in Canada at least, each 1C degree of average temperature allows for reliable farming at 1 degree latitude further North. Cooling would mean the reverse. 3C cooling would mean almost no food grown in Canada.
Bindidon,
“And that you call winter ???
We had 50 km south of Berlin nearly no snow, one night with -10 C, three with -7 C. And in Berlin, it was way warmer UHI!”
–
Winter is when you need some inside houses heating appliences on.
–
What do you do to get warm, Bindidon? A heat pump, fossil fuels burning?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
As I often enough wrote, the last winter deserving this name we had in 2010/11. (I don’t mention 1985/86, 78/79, 62/63, 55/56: all harsh & snowy winters I still remember.)
Inside house heating we need here by beginning of November.
We live here in northern Germoney, and not στη νότια Ελλάδα.
If we owned the house we live in, we would have had renewable energy installed 20 years ago, which would have helped us save a lot of gas, the price of which has been rising for years (way more than electricity generated out of… gas), especially since Russia invaded Ukraine.
We also wouldn’t be stûpid enough to have a heat pump installed in a house that’s more than 75 years old.
We live in Athens “στη νότια Ελλάδα.”
We live in a small appartment of our own, in a 50 years old house.
We were used to central heating system operation (petrol) on winter, regardless of the outside temperature conditions for cold days 7 hours.
7AM -9AM
13PM -15PM
18PM -21PM
When it was warmer, some of the hours were skipped.
–
Now we use central heating system once a day only when it is really cold outside. 18PM -21PM.
–
This year we used it only once, not now, because it is warm outside.
–
When the cold is unbearable, we use an air-conditioning unit in our bedroom. And I have a small electric heater 400W under the desk in my small study, when the temperature there is below 15 C.
–
When it is 13 C in my study, I spend the day in bed, under many warm covers. Of course I visit my study, to see what you and other friends had to comment, and then running back to bed.
–
It is 18 C were I am having the pleasure to write to you now, Bindidon, so I write at large extend. My fingers are not cold, it is a good sign it is warm enough.
–
We have a very important renevable energy application, it is the solar water heater 200 litre on the roof of the house, which saved us annually about 40% on the electricity bills.
Today the water is very hot, because we had enough sun.
–
Our building has not gas line supply, the line stopped two streets away.
The gas was much cheaper then, and we envied those who had gas for heating. Suddenly everything has changed. Gas became very expensive, electricity became very expensive.
–
Also we are getting poorer day-after-day. There are many buildings in Athens they quit central heating in winters, no matter how cold it is.
What they do? Some use air-conditioning units, others use electric blankets…
Thanks God, we live in Southern Greece, it is warm most of the time here, and it will be warmer as the Global Warming advances!
–
Thank you for you patience. While I was writing it started raining. It is a sign the weather changes for the colder. What to wait for, it is 5th of December, only 20 days to Christmass.
Christos…thanks for sharing your living conditions in Greece. We tend to forget here in North America how hard people have it in other parts of the world. Energy has been inexpensive but it won’t be for long if the eco-alarmists have their way.
Here in the province of British C0lumbia, we have many natural water resources for generating electrical power. It should be inexpensive if run by the government but a few years ago a right-wing government sold our government-run power corporation to private enterprise. The Federal government sold Petro-Canada, a government-run oil company to private enterprise. Now, the people of Canada have no say in the price of oil or electrical power. We sell our natural resources to international buyers at very low prices.
Still…life seems less expensive and more comfortable in cold weather here than in Greece. Good luck, my friend. I hope things get better for you but I fear the European Union does not care.
Walter R. Hogle
” Binny has a subjective definition of what winter is in his area… ”
Subjective? Are you serious, Mr Hogle?
I compare since years all winters preceding the current year (last one: 2022) in the database of my weather forecaster ‘wetteronline.de’, and have also downloaded and processed since years the temperature data provided by DWD, the German Weather Service:
https://tinyurl.com/48tphx3d grrr (d c)
leading to this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bj-ZkMcsJDVVf3C5zf22BG9p3UV9X7ZR/view
*
You are the one here whose gut feeling lets him guess about the alleged existence of a strong link between Arctic temperatures and ours here – an existence you unfortunately never would be able to scientifically prove.
Come back here when you will have done the same job by your own.
We will then see how far you will be able to contradict my ‘subjective definition of what winter is in [my] area’.
Bindidon,
Sure, I’ll do that. In which part of Germany do you reside? I’ll work on refining my estimate of the temperature change. It seems you believe anomalies reflect the change in climate.
“You are the one here whose gut feeling lets him guess about the alleged existence of a strong link between Arctic temperatures and ours here an existence you unfortunately never would be able to scientifically prove.”
Wrong. In fact, the high pressure situated over Greenland and the North Atlantic is what caused the recent record cold and snowy outbreak in Europe.
https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation/
Mr Hogle
” It seems you believe anomalies reflect the change in climate. ”
Sorry: nonsense. I don’t believe anything the like.
It seems that you love to insinuate: best fit to what other posters do here.
*
We live here in Northeast Germoney, 50 km south of Berlin.
I recently downloaded recent DWD data for a weather station near Berlin; here is the top10 of an ascending sort of the absolute temperatures (starting with Jan 1973):
1987 1 -7.86 (C)
1986 2 -7.69
1985 1 -6.10
2010 1 -5.45
2010 12 -5.33
1980 1 -4.91
1979 1 -4.48
1996 1 -4.47
2006 1 -4.45
1979 2 -3.83
The first 2023 month appears at position 131 in the sort:
2023 2 +3.12
*
I have read the document you posted a link to, and both the estimate
” However next week above normal temperatures will become more widespread while below normal temperatures will become mostly limited to Scandinavia. ”
and the forecast picture for Dec/Jan/Feb 2023/24 match exactly what I have read elsewhere at least one week ago.
*
I now come back to your condescending tone:
” Binny has a subjective definition of what winter is in his area… ”
Here is an objective series of temperature minima graphs for the station near Berlin.
1. This December 2023 till today
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=01&year=2024&metparaid=TNLD&period=4&ireq=true
2. Dec/Jan/Feb 2022/23
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=03&year=2023&metparaid=TNLD&period=12&ireq=true
3. Dec/Jan/Feb 2010/11
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=03&year=2011&metparaid=TNLD&period=12&ireq=true
4. Dec/Jan/Feb 2009/10
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=03&year=2010&metparaid=TNLD&period=12&ireq=true
*
I repeat my allegedly ‘subjective’ definition of what is here a winter, Mr Hogle:
” 2010/11 was the last winter deserving that name. ”
And, as we easily can see, 2009/10 was even worse than its successor.
*
The fact that southern Germany recently had so much snow has nothing to do with Arctic cold but with the collision of two low pressure areas – one with colder temperatures from the Arctic, one with warmer temperatures from southern Spain and northern Africa.
*
Thirty years ago, we still had here so called ‘continental winters’ – cold and dry, due to high pressure areas originating from Russia; these have been in between replaced by continuous series of low pressure areas originating from Northwest Atlantic.
*
Feel free to follow your forecaster blogs; I prefer to have a look at real data.
That awkward phase when your global climate conference is chaired by the Arab CEO of one of the world’s largest oil companies.
The president of Cop28, the 50 year old Emirati oil executive Sultan Al Jaber who is U.A.E Minister of industry and advanced technology, Head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and chairman of Masdar (State owned renewable energy company), denies being a denier.
On Monday, a defiant Al Jaber suggested that what you heard him say is not what he said, and to claim otherwise is just an effort to undermine his leadership of COP28, so stop saying what he did not say. So there!
https://youtu.be/i5yN_P3vDX4
LOL! Its funny how all the climate nerds all copy the same adjectives. ”Sultan al-Jaber defiantly denies. . .”
They are like a troop of monkeys, or crew of parakeets, or a pandemonium of parrots.
ROTFLMAO!
There’s no adjective in that phrase.
Sorry to confuse you barry with what I said, my bad. I left out adverb! The same adjectives cam also be widely mimicked a pandemonium of Parrots.
Is the adjective in the room with you right now, Gill?
Is it really the case Willard that you don’t have anything better to do?
Good question, Gill.
Have you asked that question about yourself?
you don’t add anything
A wrote –
“On Monday, a defiant Al Jaber suggested that what you heard him say is not what he said, and to claim otherwise is just an effort to undermine his leadership of COP28, so stop saying what he did not say.”
A defiant suggestion that he didn’t say what he said.
OK. And . . . ?
Bill wrote “Sultan al-Jaber defiantly denies” and said there was an adjective.
Yes, it’s probably best to ignore what Bill writes.
barry,
OK. Defiant is an adjective, you are a Dingleberry, and who cares anyway?
Have you managed to find a description of the GHE that agrees with reality yet?
I didnt think so.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
“Defiantly” is an adverb and Ahmed is an asshat.
Cheers.
Whining Wee Willy,
Who the heck is Ahmed? Is he another of your imaginary people? Are you perhaps referring to the President of COP28?
Does your pointless opinion (asshat) apply to the people who were involved in his appointment as President?
Oh well, if you don’t like Arabs, you don’t like Arabs. Maybe you should complain to the United Nations Climate Change Conference organisers.
Only joking – who would value the opinion of an asshat like you?
Whining Wee Willy,
Who the heck is Ahmed? Is he another of your imaginary people? Are you perhaps referring to the President of COP28?
Does your pointless opinion (asshat) apply to the people who were involved in his appointment as President?
Oh well, if you don’t like Arabs, you don’t like Arabs. Maybe you should complain to the United Nations Climate Change Conference organisers.
Only joking – who would value the opinion of an asshat like you?
By the way, where did I say “defiantly” was not an adverb? Nowhere, that’s where!
Asshat.
It’s just a flesh wound, Mike.
The global climate conferences are scams aimed at enabling the politically-correct to control the rest of us. The A-rabs running global oil companies are doing the same.
Birds of a feather…
A strong stratospheric blockage over the Bering Sea (here at 500 hPa in the troposphere) will draw a cold front to the west coast of North America, with heavy rain on the coast and snow in the mountains.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/12/06/2000Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-128.14,57.66,888
https://i.ibb.co/prnR2d9/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
> Water vapour is also a trace gas
You heard it first at Roy’s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_gas
If include Water vapor, it’s not a trace gas, it varies a lot, as high as 4% {tropics] and far less than 1% {polar regions in winter}.
Because we are in an Ice Age, water vapor varies a lot. Most of Earth history has not been in Ice Age. And the coldest in last few million years of this Ice Age, is even rarer, in Earth’s history.
Or a greenhouse global climate is much more common, and in greenhouse global climate, water vapor in far more uniform, globally.
> If include Water vapor, its not a trace gas,
What is *it*?
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“What is “it””?
Don’t you know?
Mike Flynn,
No, I don’t.
Do you?
Cheers.
That’s good to know that you don’t know.
At least you don’t know what you don’t know, so how would I?
Good communication and proper learning may help, Mike.
A pity you never really tried them.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Water definitely seems to satisfy the requirements of a “trace gas” in areas like the arid deserts, the continent of Antarctica, and any place with extremely low humidity.
Here’s another definition (from the European space agency) –
“A trace gas makes up less than 1% by volume of a planet’s atmosphere.” As you can see, definitions vary.”
Your Wikipedia definition seems a bit vague to me, as “small amounts” is open to wide interpretation. Given the ESA definition, argon is a trace gas.
What is your cutoff point for “traciness”?
Mike Flynn,
Seems?
Satisfy?
Requirement?
What are you braying about?
swenson…a lot less than 1%, about 0.31% in fact. WV concentration can be several percent in the Tropics but overall it is about 0.31%.
The sun was out and warm yesterday until the contrail haze set in. How is nobody else noticing it?
This is very well noticed.
But for me only because I know it exists.
We have very few international flight routes overhead and the few that we do have are not very busy.
darwin…I asked you this before. Are you sure you are not confusing airline vapour trails with a species of cloud that appears as long, narrow furrows? I have seen these clouds extending across the entire sky.
If you consider how much vapour is created by jet engines and compare that to the size of the atmosphere immediately overhead, do you really think the jet trail is capable of filling the entire sky? Any contrails I have seen break up in the vicinity of where they were laid down.
Darwin Wyatt
” contrail haze ”
You might read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_aviation
Don’t be surprised if some of the den~ier geniuses come here and tell you that Wiki is not trustworthy at all (unless it fits their personal narrative).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_-SebtoC-I
SpaceX Starship: 2nd Tower Incoming! Starbase Is Transforming To Gateway!
Hmm, should I talk about lunar crew landing or global temperature?
I was thinking perhaps rocket launches are causing global air temperature increase. We having a lot rocket launches, and we going to get a lot more.
And I am not denying the huge amount water tossed into high atmosphere {volcanic eruption} is unrelated.
But it terms of Starship and the Moon, I think a problem with NASA guesses about tanker launches needed is related to the details of how Starship could be descent and ascent lunar vehicle.
Or the entire second stage of Starship is going to land on the moon, but entire second stage doesn’t have leave the Moon.
Or with Apollo the descent stage was left on the Moon. And if plan was to leave the Moon with the descent stage, Saturn V rocket, would have needed to a lot bigger rocket.
–Why We Should Settle Mars
Space exploration will bring us inventions that benefit humanity. And it will help us avoid war.
Robert Zubrin
4 Dec 2023 12 min read —
https://quillette.com/2023/12/04/why-we-should-go-to-mars/
Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Spacefaring civilization is what I mean by open borders.
People will legally go to countries, borders crossing is outdated
and crazy old idea.
Establishing human settlements on Mars falls into one or more of the following categories:
1/ Herculean task: a task that is very difficult and requires great strength of mind or body, and courage.
2/ Sisyphean task: a task that can never be completed.
3/ Icarian task: when you have a task you know you’re going to fail at anyways, so why not have some fun with it before it all comes crashing down.
4/ Cassandrean task: when you have to deal with people you know won’t listen to you, despite having accurate information, and having to watch them fumble about when you told them the solution from the start.
5/ Odyssean task: when you set out to do a task. You keep getting distracted, turned around, or delayed. You finally finish what you set out to do…but it’s been ten years, and you can’t really explain how you’ve managed to become so disastrously late.
Well, first you have explore the Moon.
The purpose of exploring the Moon, I far as concern is
mainly about the question, can NASA explore the Moon.
So, far, it’s looking sightly better than the last 40 years that
NASA has failed to explore the Moon.
I thought NASA might start exploring Moon sometime after 1998, and they made a bit of effort, but roughly, I would say they had been late, and presently they seem to want to delay doing it.
Or Biden might have hoped we could have landed on the Moon before he tries to get re-elected, but NASA saying 2028.
But there other factors other than what NASA wants. But it might prove that since NASA can’t explore the lunar polar region, Congress could have little faith in NASA exploring Mars.
But things can turn around NASA might land crew on Moon by 2025 and might finish before 2030, so it have the support and funding to explore Mars.
Meanwhile, Musk is richest person in the world, on the brink of getting far richer, and he wants to live on Mars.
So, if NASA fails to start and finish exploring a very small part of the Moon. And therefore gets no funding to explore Mars. Musk might do something crazy, gamble on starting a Mars settlement without having enough exploration of Mars being done. Or as he said, people are going to die trying to live on Mars. There is no shortage of adventurous people- and some them are dying trying to climb mount Everest. Or simply jumping out of perfectly functioning planes.
Or riding motorcycle, or simply using a pedaled bike on roads with cars. The list is long.
With NASA I think it could save more lives, so I root for NASA to get it’s butt in gear.
So all you need, to meet every task, is a club, a rock, a chariot, bad hair, and a mast.
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
“Establishing human settlements on Mars falls into one or more of the following categories:”
One could ask, what do space settlements do?
They could do very little, a billionaire could spend a billion or two, and make a space settlement.
So, Bill Gates could decide to make a space settlement, and might ask, what cheapest way to do it.
The cheapest way to do it, is to build artificial gravity station in low Earth orbit. And to do it cheap, what the least amount of people
in a space station, which one could claim is a space settlement.
Though rather how many people, it’s better to think what the people do. Or one could have a small number people, who doing something important, which might be called a settlement. But if that’s not easy, enough, you might pick a number like 20 people. Now 20 people would have do something, it could be less important what they do.
Or 200 people, would be settlement, but Bill is trying to control his costs.
So, Bill going to start with just a few people and than grow it to 20 people, and call that a space settlement.
Of course testing and then having 20 people living in orbit, would probably be important without those people doing much. So one guy does something maybe later regarded and more significant than Apollo program. Probably worth couple billion, and you could count that as first human settlement in space. But what important is testing artificial gravity {which NASA has so far, failed to do.}
Now, Bill could do the same thing with Mars, but at moment not doable and more expensive.
But what Musk wants and Mars fans want is starting civilization on Mars and a civilization has towns/cities.
It seems to me, what activity these people will do, is a lot exploration of Mars. So, NASA does enough exploration, and people do a lot more exploration. But the focus is on, how people can live, how to make food, housing, transportation, etc. And the costs related to this.
As with California gold rush, the miners {explorers} didn’t make much money, it was infrastructure type stuff which made money.
I would think one type of gold rush with Mars is exploration and discoveries of cave systems. NASA is also going to look for “best caves” for their purposes but one could assume, there will be improvements in finding a lot more caves.
Now, I have said there has to be mineable water for settlements on Mars {I don’t mean the Bill Gates make some settlement- that’s about a having a cheaper big enough rocket- and not what meant about having settlements on Mars- though one called it that}.
Also another thing having a religion. Only religious people will start settlements on Mars.
Also, if not religious, you will become religious.
If anybody is curious why I didn’t follow Nate down his rabbit hole, and show him the location of recorded lectures which he wouldnt believe anyway, here’s a quote from Feynman’s transcribed lectures –
“First, meteorology and the weather. Of course the instruments of meteorology are physical instruments, and the development of experimental physics made these instruments possible, as was explained before. However, the theory of meteorology has never been satisfactorily worked out by the physicist. [. . . ] In many fields we find this situation of turbulent flow that we cannot analyze today. Quickly we leave the subject of weather, and discuss geology!”
Feynman addresses this in more detail elsewhere, explaining the role of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in the impossibility of predicting future atmospheric states.
SkyDragon cultists and Dingleberries even refuse to accept that the IPCC stated it is not possible to predict future climate states – the statistics, of course, of instantaneous atmospheric states over a nominal period. Their statement is based on chaos theory, but quantum theory arrives at the same conclusion.
So much for self proclaimed geniuses who perform “thought experiments” (known to normal people as fantasies, or wishful thinking.
I’m hoping someone can explain why the same uncertainty that makes weather unpredictable beyond a week doesn’t make Summer sometimes colder than Winter.
IOW, why is seasonal climate change so predictable when the atmospheric patterns within are not?
barry,
Maybe, instead of hoping, you could educate yourself.
Your question is a bit silly. Summer and winter are generally defined in terms of temperatures, or particular times of the year. What would you call “winter” in a city like Singapore?
“Singapore is situated near the equator and has a typically tropical climate, with abundant rainfall, high and uniform temperatures, and high humidity all year round. Many of its climate variables, such as temperature and relative humidity, do not show large month-to-month variation.”
As to summer sometimes being colder than winter, sometimes it is – unpredictably. 1816 is recorded as “the year without summer”. We say we know why, but we can’t predict when the next one will occur.
You wrote “IOW, why is seasonal climate change so predictable when the atmospheric patterns within are not?”. Ask a 12 year old. If you are not happy with the answer, find a better one. When you say “predictable” what do you mean? You can’t expect a 12 year old to answer your question when you can’t say what prediction you expect. Total rainfall? Average temperature to 0.1 C? Hours of sunshine? Average wind speed and direction?
What part of “seasonal climate change” do you think you can predict? Climate is normally historical weather observations over 30 years, but if you claim “climate change” is “seasonal”, you might need to find a fairly dim 12 year old.
Good luck.
Due to a dearth of dim 12 year-olds I’m throwing this out to anyone who is at least as smart if not smarter.
Why is seasonal climate change so predictable when the atmospheric patterns within are not?
Tim,
Maybe they’re confused, but here’s Nissan’s –
“e-POWER’s internal combustion engine achieves 50% thermal efficiency” Other manufacturers have their own versions.” Here’s one of the Chinese contributions – “awarded Weichai certificates for brake thermal efficiency of 50.26%.”
I haven’t the faintest idea of the efficiency my ICE sedan is, nor do I care, particularly.
I just wondered if the claimed efficiency increase of hybrids is partially due to being able to run an ICE engine at optimal design RPM.
Not terribly important, I know.
barry,
Sorry. I’ve done it again.
You asked –
“Why is seasonal climate change so predictable when the atmospheric patterns within are not?”
Can’t you find an answer anywhere else? What do you mean by “seasonal climate change”? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
If you are wondering why the Earth’s axis is inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, or something similar, it might be helpful if you at least let people know what you are really curious about.
I am surprised you don’t know why the seasons are what they are. They are not the same year after year, as many farmers can attest. For example, try to predict whether next planting season will be good, bad, or indifferent. Good luck.
Or are you just attempting a gotcha? Naughty, naughty!
Barry, Clearly Swenson has no answer to your quite straightforward question.
So he plays dum.b. Not a stretch for him.
Gordon tried to play dumb too, but at least answered the question straightforwardly.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1570402
Nate,
You are off with the fairies.
Bumbling barry posed a bizarre gotcha –
“Why is seasonal climate change so predictable when the atmospheric patterns within are not?”
The IPCC clearly stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states. I agree. “Seasonal climate change” is just more silly word salad, produced by a SkyDragon cultist trying to appear intelligent. Seasons are yearly, climate is nominally over 30 years.
Maybe someone values your opinion, but I doubt you could find another to go with them.
Carry on.
So we note that nowhere in Feynman’s quote is he linking meteorology with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
Thus it is clear that Swenson simply LIED about it.
And he DOUBLES DOWN on it here:
“Feynman addresses this in more detail elsewhere, explaining the role of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle in the impossibility of predicting future atmospheric states.”
Where is the quote?
Nate,
Go find it. All you have yo do is listen to Feynman’s audio lphysics ectures.
If you miss it, convince me that you have listened to them all, and I’ll give you the location.
Ho ho ho!
No I won’t – why should I lift a finger to help someone who wrote –
“Thus it is clear that Swenson simply LIED about it.”
I’m happy to let others form their opinion as to whether I lied or not (I didn’t, incidentally).
When I wrote “Feynman addresses this in more detail elsewhere, explaining the role of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle in the impossibility of predicting future atmospheric states.”, I was trying to avoid embarrassing you, sticking to Feynmans introductory remarks for a physics course.
You may believe what you wish. My care factor is approximately zero.
Eben
Predicted on November 21 that el Nino had reached its peak and was already diminishing.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561822
He repeated this 2 days later:
“El Nino is already past the peak , the rest will be short lived”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1563136
The NOAA results are in for November, and the el Nino anomaly is higher than last month’s.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
In the context of the controversial statements by the host of COP28, the CEO of Chevron, Mike Wirth, is a frequent guest on the financial talk shows. He makes a compelling case that his company, and the oil and gas industry as a whole, have a role to play in the future of energy production. Chevron has a large stake in world-wide LNG production as well as its petroleum business.
The fact remains that electric cars do not generate, they consume electricity, and are only slightly more efficient at burning natural gas at the power plant, than an internal combustion engine burning petroleum products. We have a very long way to go before carbon emissions stop growing, let alone decline.
Tim,
I wonder whether properly designed hybrids are actually more efficient overall. The ICE can be optimised to run at constant RPM, for maximum efficiency. Up to about 60% in theory, with >50 % currently available.
There are inevitable losses in getting electricity into an EV battery, and compromises and losses transforming the battery output into motive power. Maybe a hybrid is more efficient overall?
BEVs seem excellent for niche use, but for my purposes I can’t justify buying a hybrid.
So sad, too bad. Just have to put up with old technology.
Not even close. The maximum efficiency of the most advanced car engine is about 35%. The most efficient engines in the world are massive long-stroke crosshead ship engines that run at 75 rpm.
https://c2e2.unepccc.org/kms_object/improving-ship-efficiency/
“The efficiency of Wrtsil diesel and gas engines ranges between 42-52%, depending on the engine type. The peaking efficiency of 52% for the best engines is one of the highest efficiency ratings among existing prime movers”
The efficiency of all electric cars depends on using a regenerative drive to recover the kinetic energy when the car slows down. That recovered energy is put back into the battery. Trains throw away that recovered energy with resistance heaters (those big blowers on top of the engines).
tim s…”The efficiency of all electric cars depends on using a regenerative drive to recover the kinetic energy when the car slows down. That recovered energy is put back into the battery”.
***
Electric motors are highly efficient but battery output varies wildly with temperature. Most batteries become useless below 0C. I cannot see how that limitation can be overcome. In colder climates here in Canada, it is necessary to use block heaters and even battery heater blankets.
What exactly do you think an alternator does in a conventional car engine? It charges the battery up to 35 amps and without it the battery would be dead very soon. Cranking an average car requires 600+ amps and I’d estimate that keeping it running with its extensive electrical system would require 10 amps or more.
Those big blowers on locomotives are exhausting heat from the diesel generators that power the electric motors that drive the wheel motors. There is no such thing as a purely electrically-driven locomotive. They are all diesel-electric unless they are powered from an overhead line.
It’s tough to find the actual electrical consumption of an electric car motor since all the nimrods discussing it are talking about battery chargers. However, if a car motor was rated at 100 HP that would be 746 watts/HP x 100 HP = 74,600 watts of power.
Since P = EI, for a 12 volts battery that would require a draw of 74,600/12 = 6216 amps. Not practical. I have read that electrical vehicle motors runs around 100 volts, which is a lot of batteries at 2 volts per battery. So, I = 74,600/100 = 746 amps. Still high. I am sure designers have tricks to make it work.
I am trying to illustrate the difficulty of running an electric car. Commercial EV use batteries of 350 – 400 volts and some are double that at 800 volts. I have seen lead-acid batteries rated at 800 amp-hours @ 2volts. They are huge, too heavy to lift.
Gordon, I am always happy to educate where necessary. You wrote this:
“Those big blowers on locomotives are exhausting heat from the diesel generators that power the electric motors that drive the wheel motors. There is no such thing as a purely electrically-driven locomotive. They are all diesel-electric unless they are powered from an overhead line.”
The diesel engines require cooling, and the generators may require some cooling that is exhausted through blowers on the roof, but that is not the major cooling load. The only way an electric motor can apply braking is to work as a generator. Thus the term regenerative drive. As I explained, that voltage is used to charge the battery in an electric car, but in a locomotive, that voltage is used to make heat with resistance heaters, and most of the big blowers are there to exhaust that heat to increase the steady-state capacity of the engine braking.
I used the term “engine braking” when I should have stated “motor braking”. I thought of something else. The individual rail cars have brakes, but the train engineer will prefer not to use them unless necessary. It is self preservation. Just like in a tractor-trailer truck, the brakes are not rated for heavy use, and can overheat easily. They use them as a last resort, or when necessary on steep grades. The rail car brakes can also overheat and generate sparks that cause fires.
sorry…may be duplicate…
tim s…”The efficiency of all electric cars depends on using a regenerative drive to recover the kinetic energy when the car slows down. That recovered energy is put back into the battery”.
***
Electric motors are highly efficient but battery output varies wildly with temperature. Most batteries become useless below 0C. I cannot see how that limitation can be overcome. In colder climates here in Canada, it is necessary to use block heaters and even battery heater blankets.
What exactly do you think an alternator does in a conventional car engine? It charges the battery up to 35 amps and without it the battery would be dead very soon. Cranking an average car requires 600+ amps and I’d estimate that keeping it running with its extensive electrical system would require 10 amps or more.
Those big blowers on locomotives are exhausting heat from the diesel generators that power the electric motors that drive the wheel motors. There is no such thing as a purely electrically-driven locomotive. They are all diesel-electric unless they are powered from an overhead line.
It’s tough to find the actual electrical consumption of an electric car motor since all the nimrods discussing it are talking about battery chargers. However, if a car motor was rated at 100 HP that would be 746 watts/HP x 100 HP = 74,600 watts of power.
Since P = EI, for a 12 volts battery that would require a draw of 74,600/12 = 6216 amps. Not practical. I have read that electrical vehicle motors runs around 100 volts, which is a lot of batteries at 2 volts per battery. So, I = 74,600/100 = 746 amps. Still high. I am sure designers have tricks to make it work.
I am trying to illustrate the difficulty of running an electric car. Commercial EV use batteries of 350 – 400 volts and some are double that at 800 volts. I have seen lead-acid batteries rated at 800 amp-hours @ 2volts. They are huge, too heavy to lift.
Tim,
Maybe they’re confused, but here’s Nissan’s –
“e-POWER’s internal combustion engine achieves 50% thermal efficiency” Other manufacturers have their own versions.” Here’s one of the Chinese contributions – “awarded Weichai certificates for brake thermal efficiency of 50.26%.”
I haven’t the faintest idea of the efficiency my ICE sedan is, nor do I care, particularly.
I just wondered if the claimed efficiency increase of hybrids is partially due to being able to run an ICE engine at optimal design RPM.
Not terribly important, I know.
I have the perfect answer that requires a forbidden term. Thermal efficiency requires that the heat of the combustion products be recovered. The work done by an engine is related directly to heat extracted from the gases (#1 law).
Here is the fun part. That actually IS in the #2 law that you folks get all excited about! It is accomplished by using a long stroke and slow rpm to extract as much temperature from the gases as possible.
There is another angle. Formula 1 race cars use the turbine of the turbo charger to power an electric generator. Just using the turbo charger in the conventional way is not as efficient because the compressed gases (even with an intercooler) cause high combustion temperatures so the turbine exhaust is still very hot.
Tim,
Quick cur and paste from internet –
“F1 regulations also limit the cars to 110 kilograms of fuel, or the equivalent of 36.7 gallons. To achieve the necessary power and efficiency, F1 engines achieve a peak thermal efficiency above 50 percent, significantly higher than a modern passenger car’s 35 percent thermal efficiency.”
I don’t know whether this is true or not. I was involved with screwing maximum power out of given capacity (naturally aspirated) – fuel consumption and efficiency wasn’t a big consideration. Quite often, reality sabotaged good ideas.
Oh well, experience is a good teacher.
A typical ICE is 20% efficient. So it burns 5 units of Fossil Fuel energy, for every 1 unit of converted to work to drive the car.
NET 5 units FF burned for 1 unit of useful work for an ICE.
Now electricity is currently 60 % Fossil Fuel generated in the US.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Let’s say an EV loses 10% in charging losses. The power plant is 40% efficient at generating electricity, and 10 % transmission losses and another 10% engine loss in the vehicle.
So that is NET 40%*0.9*0.9*0.9 = 29%. So it needs 3.45 units of energy * 60% FF = 2.1 units of Fossil Fuel energy burned for each unit of useful work to drive the car.
NET 2.1 units of FF burned for 1 unit of useful work for an EV.
This neglects the regenerative braking and idling gains in an EV, and the fact that natural gas produces less CO2 than gasoline.
So EVs are helpful to CO2 emissions right now, but will be even MORE helpful as more renewable electricity comes online.
Not a typical ICE Nate. ”New Toyota 2.0L gasoline four achieves 40% BTE in conventional version, 41% in Atkinson cycle version for hybrid models.”
As reported by SAE International.
And idling gains are going by the wayside. A new KIA ICE doesn’t idle but shuts off instead. You can turn that feature off but its the default each time you restart the car.
Currently science estimates ICEs will be able in the future to achieve 60% efficiency. This is why the government should just stay out of this space and let the natural frugality and environmental sensitivity of customers and capitalistic innovation address the issue. Less efficiency will be achieved and is already being heavily hampered by regulation, in particular the CAFE standards that makes it impossible to by a fuel efficient pickup truck as the standards are locked into a total wheelbase footprint area such that the old small trucks are illegal in the US despite having a smaller carbon footprint. Tons of contractors who need a truck used to use these trucks more than the larger less fuel efficient ones they now need to use.
“Not a typical ICE Nate. New Toyota 2.0L gasoline four..’
A new engine is by definition, not TYPICAL.
I am also not talking about Diesel engines, I am taking about regular gasoline engines.
Diesel cars have air pollution problems in any case.
i didn’t say 40% was typical. the comparison needed is new engines vs new evs as they are all new. and the 40% number was hit 5 years ago by toyota, with estimates that 60% will be achievable.
the only worthwhile comparison are cars that people add to the road their cost, reliability, and increase in efficiency. i realize the fascists in the room don’t agree with that.
the theoretical efficiency of a diesel engine is 55 to 60 percent and commonly in cars 45 to 50 percent is achieved. Diesel is therefore by your calculations already more efficient before you add in the extra 30 percent vehicle weight of the battery pack for the equivalent EV.
Most of the calculations for EV assume that it is powered by renewable energy, which in most countries is wrong, as these do not meet the existing domestic and industrial demand. So Fossil fuels are actually powering the full electricity requirement of EVs.
Also you are ignoring the extra energy and emissions from initial manufacture.
Although vague I have seen calculations that suggest an EV charged by purely renewable electricity needs to travel 70000 miles to recoup the extra emissions generated in the manufacturing process.
Whilst I can see the advantage of them on pollution grounds in cities, their “green reputation” is exaggerated.
I was not talking about Diesel engines. But you can calculate with them.
From Wikipedia.
“The average efficiency over a motor vehicle driving cycle is lower than the diesel engine’s peak efficiency (for example, a 37% average efficiency for an engine with a peak efficiency of 44%)”
Another issue is that most cars use gasoline, and that is not likely to change.
“Crude oil is transported by pipelines and oceangoing tankers to refineries. About 45 percent of a typical barrel of crude oil is refined into gasoline. An additional 29 percent is refined to diesel fuel.”
Assuming the discussion is about reality, and not hype or fantasy, the fact remains that fossil fuels remain in the mix for a long time. My personal favorite for a long term solution is a plug-in hybrid with a small diesel generator for extended range and backup power. Biodiesel is the easiest sustainable fuel to produce, so that goes to a long range 20 to 50 year answer.
The battery remains an important issue. We still need the next generation battery to make this work. The Prius was ground breaking with the Nickelmetal hydride battery and limited electric range. Tesla went a step further with the lithium-ion battery. More can be done with energy density, but without causing overheating and a fire hazard. The Tesla Model S has an empty weight of over 4700 pounds.
Jet fuel is the most difficult because it has so many constraints. It has to be stable enough for exposure to high heat without forming slug or becoming viscous. It must remain clean enough that it will not form precipitates of any kind at extremely low temperatures. The spec for cloud point (wax precipitation) is a very low temperature.
“Nate says: Lets say an EV loses 10% in charging losses. The power plant is 40% efficient at generating electricity, and 10 % transmission losses and another 10% engine loss in the vehicle.”
Combined cycle electric plants that provide much of the baseload power in the US are about 60% efficient. Thus 40% is conservative, but is about what the gas peaker plants that meet peak electrical demand.
Assuming home charging, EVs can be configured to charge at specific times, such that they can avoid peaks in demand-based pricing which corresponds to the times these less efficient peaker plants are running.
The high efficiency power plants are cogen plants where a neighbor or internal production process can utilize low pressure steam as waste heat. Otherwise, the power plant will use a surface condenser utilizing cooling tower water to produce a near vacuum at the turbine exhaust, increase efficiency, and recover the clean condensate to use for boiler feed water. Maximum thermodynamic efficiency of a high pressure turbine with a surface condenser is about 43%. It is lower for some plants.
There is one more technology that is not ready for prime time, or maybe no time at all, and that is the ceramic engine. Metal engines have to have a cooling system because metal loses strength as it softens with temperature. The cooling system draws heat and efficiency from the engine. The pistons are the most vulnerable, and can only be cooled by the oil which also has temperature limitations.
Ceramic engines have been tested with materials that operate at the combustion temperature (1700 F or 925 C) and have magical bearings that do not require oil. There are production cost limitations that prevent them from being mass produced. Keep dreaming.
Modern high-bypass jet engines operate with improved efficiency because they use exotic metal alloys in the turbine stage that are very expensive. Composites are now used in the first stage compressor because it does not get very hot.
barry…”why is seasonal climate change so predictable when the atmospheric patterns within are not?”
***
Barry, Barry, Barry…where do you dig up this pseudo-science? A change in seasons is not climate change. It is a reflection of a change in the Earth’s orbital position.
Weather changes from season to season due to different levels of incoming solar. As the planet’s tilt causes a different intensity of solar in northern climes, for example, sometimes cutting off solar altogether, it gets colder in those areas. It gets a lot colder, not the pithy 1C change of temperature claimed by climate alarmists over 170 years, but as much as a 60C difference or more.
When the North polar regions drop to -60C and it’s still almost as warm in the tropics, that temperature difference leads to drastic changes in weather. That is not a climate change.
Same in Antarctica when the tilt produces extreme cold there.
Even here on the ‘wet’ coast of Canada, in the Vancouver area, temperatures in winter average 5C to 10C during the day. In summer, the variation is 15C to 35C, I would guess averaging about 25C. The Earth’s tilt causes such variations, not climate change.
I am beginning to understand why you are an alarmist, you have no idea what climate is, or the distinction between climate and weather. Weather is real, climate is a human definition.
Gordon Robertson: “Climate is a mathematical average of weather”
Also Gordon Robertson: “Weather changes from season to season”
Also also Gordon Robertson: “A change in seasons is not climate change”
That’s a straightforward syllogism which you have failed. Let’s try again.
If climate is the mathematical average of weather
And the mathematical average of weather changes with the seasons
Then the changes in the seasons represent changes in climate
Having fixed your bad logic, I want to thank you for answering the question.
“Weather changes from season to season due to different levels of incoming solar.”
And that seasonal change is as regular as the tilt of the Earth’s axis. Barring some extraordinary event, Summer is always hotter than Winter.
This extends to regional climate zones across the Earth. The mathematical average of weather in the tropical zone will never be as cold as the poles. The chaotic nature of weather cannot change this permanent feature. Only a radical departure from billions of years of orbital dynamics can do that.
Climate is not chaotic. Weather is.
Nate,
Your faith is touching.
You wrote –
“Climate is not chaotic. Weather is.”
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations.
These weather observations are chaotic. Their statistics are chaotic. Yes, really.
Even the IPCC sets out the reasons why it is not possible to predict future climate states “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Are you confusing chaotic with random? Do you understand the difference?
Keep praying – you might get a miracle in response to your prayers. Maybe not.
I’m not Nate, but climate isn’t random, either.
The butterfly effect is an analogy regarding chaos theory, not randomness. Someone mentioned it upthread in reply to a comment about climate.
A farmer who plants and cuts a crop at any old time of the year, believing seasonal climate to be random, will soon go bankrupt.
But go ahead and tell a farmer than she can’t rely on Summer being warmer than Winter because of one bad year in some countries 200 years ago.
barry,
Sorry for calling you Nate.
You seem confused, and unwilling to accept the IPCC stating that it is not possible to predict climate states.
You write –
“A farmer who plants and cuts a crop at any old time of the year, believing seasonal climate to be random, will soon go bankrupt.” A person who did as you say is not what I would call a farmer, but no matter.
You may be confusing assumptions with predictions. If you believe you can predict seasonal conditions any better than a 12 year old, then you are obviously off with the fairies. Ask any farmer about predicting rainfall, temperature, and so on. Preferably one who has gone broke believing forecasts.
Yes, summer will be warmer than winter – unless it isnt. Rain before planting – not too much, not too little, just when it’s needed, would be nice. And so on.
“Fruit severely injured during a freeze may drop quickly or may drop more slowly over time, but usually the external appearance of the fruit is not significantly changed”
Good luck with predicting radiation frost. The air above the ground is actually warmer than the ground! Don’t believe me? I suggest you don’t try being a citrus farmer in California or Florida!
[laughing at friend of the fairies he’s off with]
“Ask any farmer about predicting rainfall, temperature, and so on… Fruit severely injured during a freeze…”
I see the mixing up of weather and climate continues.
bumbling barry,
You wrote –
“I see the mixing up of weather and climate continues.” This from a peabrain who wrote “seasonal climate”!
In any case, who cares what you “see”?
Others can read what they like, and form their opinions as they see fit, as far as I am concerned.
Suits me – how about you?
Donkey.
[seasonal climate? snigger]
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“who cares what you see?”
I do.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tropical cyclone Jasper will cover much of the Australian state of Queensland by next Wednesday.
https://i.ibb.co/gdN360z/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-12-06-110102.png
The more renewables we have, the harder it is to add.
–
The key question is how to shield an electricity system with many renewables.
–
A first answer is batteries, pumped storage which is a battery with water, hydropower, natural gas that will be part of the mix, coal that will be also part of the mix…
–
And, international interconnections and a smarter system that the consumer can shift consumption from moments when there is not enough energy to moments when there is.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
” The more renewables we have, the harder it is to add. ”
Aha.
Here is how renewables used for (gross) electricity production developed in Germoney since 1990:
https://i.postimg.cc/sXs8kY7J/Gross-public-electricity-production-sources-Germany-1990-2022.png
Renewables’ gross numbers grew from 4% in 1990 (100% hydro from dams) up to 44 % in 2022 (wind on+off 22, solar 10.5, biowaste 8, hydro 3, …).
Gross production means: including the internal needs of the sector; excluding these leads to a more relevant comparison based on net production, e.g. for 2022:
https://i.postimg.cc/ZYsmN5G5/Net-public-electricity-production-sources-Germany-for-2022-b.png
Net renewables’s production is ~ 49%; fossile ~ 44, nuke ~ 7.
*
The major point (which is never mentioned by those who endlessly criticise the German way) is that all this stat doesn’t include even 1 kWh of renewables produced in the non-public sector (private; trade, industry), either for local use or injected in the public domain.
Apparently, there does not seem to exist valuable official data.
*
Finally, a mention on
– wind energy not used in electricity production by small windparks, due to a lack of investment will in new high voltage lines by their giant customers who are allowed to force their small suppliers to cut production whenever the old lines are overwhelmed;
– the brown coal horror due to conservatives protecting the industry and social democrats protecting jobs – both sides doing that against all odds.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Panama Canal has gotten so dry and backed up after brutal drought that shippers are paying up to $4m to jump the queue
They can wait in line for days or weeks, as low water levels limit the number of ships passing through the 50-mile waterway, carrying cars, consumer goods, fruit and fuel.
https://fortune.com/2023/12/04/panama-canal-dry-backed-up-brutal-drought-shippers-paying-4m-jump-queue
It seems if any government can control global climate, it’s the Chinese.
It seems that you really like this Bingo square:
https://climateball.net/but-china/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Solar flux cannot be averaged, because solar flux interacts with spherical surface, and not with the flat disk.
Also,
Solar flux cannot be averaged, because it is not absorbed.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I have already explained to you that your ‘flat disk’ is an illusion due to the product of latitude and longitude weighting by the cosine of the solar radiation angle varying from 0 to pi/2.
The integral of cos^2(a)da from 0 to pi/2 is 0.5, hence the pi * R^2 illusion of a disk in the equations, letting ‘skep~tics believe the writer of the equation would have ignored that Earth is a sphere, and that solar radiation hits a hemisphere.
A hemisphere is a shape, which is not a flat surface perpendicular to solar flux.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Please reread what I wrote.
I explained that when computing the total amount of solar radiation hitting Earth’s ‘visible’ hemisphere perpendicular to the radiation, the result contains a pi * R^2 factor instead of 2 * pi * R^2, due to the squared cosine in the integration.
Your reaction shows that you did not understand this at all.
Binny,
And I have explained that anybody who believes that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the amount of sunlight falling upon it is a donkey.
You don’t understand physics at all – join the Association of Dingleberries. You’ll be among friends.
… and as expected, the Flynnson donkey once more throws sand in his readers’ eyes with completely stûpid, pseudo-skep~tical, pseudo-scientific ‘arguments’.
Binny,
Well, your refusal to acknowledge reality certainly shows up, doesnt it?
Have you any facts to support you, or are you just being a sauerkraut for fun?
If you wish to deny my statement that anybody who believes that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the amount of sunlight falling upon it is a donkey, just provide even one example to demonstrate that I am wrong.
You can’t, of course, so your only course is to continuously whine, moan, and complain.
Keep it up!
Binny,
Is that why the Earth’s surface has cooled from the molten state, do you think?
Would it help to ask “the writer of the equation”?
Maybe you prefer –
“The Executive Summary of Chapter 8 of the FAR entitled Detection of the greenhouse effect in the Observations, concluded thus: –
“The fact that we are unable to reliably detect the predicted signals today does not mean that the greenhouse theory is wrong or that it will not be a serious problem for mankind in the decades ahead”” – from WUWT.
So, the IPCC can’t say that “the greenhouse theory” that doesn’t exist, and has never been described, is wrong! They would look pretty dim if they said otherwise, wouldn’t they?
Try another “equation”. Maybe 1 + 1 = 2?
Fluxes can not be simply added/subtracted/averaged. So Bindi attempts some calculus.
The cult divides by 4, claiming Earth receives 240 W/m^2, resulting in a temperature of 255K. Bindi’s method results in Earth receiving 480 W/m^2 and a temperature of 303K.
Notice Bindi’s method indicates that Earth’s systems cool if 15K!
Bindi has stumbled onto some reality. Now, if he could just learn about the simple ball-on-a-string….
Clint R,
Even worse, the donkeys think they can calculate the temperature of something by the amount of energy it is exposed to!
Here’s a few example of just how silly that is –
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
Full sunlight falls on a lens, which concentrates sunlight to a temperature of 3000 K. What’s the temperature of the lens?
Full sunlight falls on a plastic bowl of water. What’s the temperature of the water? If it contains ice?
The measured temperature anywhere on Earth is what it is. Not what it should be, would be, or could be.
Upthread, child Nate believes the distance between two towns might be 40 mph!
There’s not one responsible adult in their cult.
That makes sense, since responsible adults don’t join cults.
Clint R,
Ah sees it, but I doan believe it!
How pitifully weak-minded to fabricate the views of others in order and feel superior.
blundering barry,
You wrote –
“How pitifully weak-minded to fabricate the views of others in order and feel superior.”
Apart from your poor grammar (excusable, given your mental abilities), I don’t need to fabricate your views to feel superior.
Your unfabricated views would engender well founded feelings of superiority in any person with an IQ bigger than their shoe size, I suspect.
In any case, what views of yours have been “fabricated”? Maybe you could be a little more specific – but only if you wish to do so, of course. Otherwise, people might come to the conclusion that you are lying about others’ fabrications!
“the donkeys think they can calculate the temperature of something by the amount of energy it is exposed to!”
is a complete lie, for example.
Swenson, you lie all the time. It’s a filthy habit. The sneering prose couching your interminable lies doesn’t make you clever, I’m sorry to say, just more odious.
barry,
Off you go then – show how brilliant you are.
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
Full sunlight falls on a lens, which concentrates sunlight to a temperature of 3000 K. Whats the temperature of the lens?
Full sunlight falls on a plastic bowl of water. Whats the temperature of the water? If it contains ice?
Come on donkey, you wrote “Swenson, you lie all the time.”
Pity you can’t show any factual examples.Your opinions are not facts. Do you know anyone who values your opinions?
Swenson, if you point out, in any way, how invalid Barry’s beliefs are, he will use the word “lie”, in some form. When I pointed out that his cult believed ice cubes could boil water, he called me a “lying dog”. Even though cult member after cult member claimed ice cubes could boil water. One even provided a specific example, with formula of how that works. All fraud, of course.
Then barry had to go even more insane, claiming that “view factor” meant that ice could not boil water. Obviously he knows NOTHING about the science.
He’s been in a meltdown since.
That’s why this is so much fun.
No, Clint, no one believes that the radiation from ice cubes can boil water. If you had stopped repeating this lie you would not have been called a lying dog. But you keep barking this lie, and so you draw the epithet on you like a fly to sh!t.
Bumbling barry,
You wrote –
“No, Clint, no one believes that the radiation from ice cubes can boil water.”
Go on Barry, claim something – anything at all to do with the supposed GHE! You won’t, will you?
Now tell me that you don’t believe that the radiation from even a vast amount of ice can warm even the tiniest amount of water – and why!
See? You won’t say what you believe, or why you believe it!
What does that indicate to normal people?
That you’re a wriggling Warmist worm – that’s what!
Wrong anonymous tr0ll barry.
Your cult openly believes ice can boil water. They’ve made a tool out of you. (Wasn’t hard.)
You used to fake a level of maturity, but now that your mask has been ripped off, you’re just another immature, uneducated cultist, like your cult brethren.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint. You. Lying. Dog.
I said no one here believes the radiation from ice cubes can boil water.
And you replied by omitting the word radiation.
This is why you are not just a lying dog, but a filthy lying dog. A dirty little cheat.
I have witnessed people saying ice can boil in certain conditions, such as a completely different pressure around it. Which is true. And this is what you are referring to.
But this is not the basis of your repeated accusation, that because people (correctly) believe fluxes sum then they also believe radiation from ice cubes can boil water.
Because no one ever said that the radiative flux from any number of ice cubes can boil water. In fact, some of us have gone into detail with you on why that cannot be.
You’ve done it again, woofer. You can’t help it. There is something wrong with you. You have no intellectual integrity whatsoever.
But hey, I wouldn’t want to deny you an opportunity to prove that you are an honest person.
All you have to do is provide a link to anyone here saying that the radiation from ice cubes can boil water.
Because if you can’t, you know what that means.
barry, you keep denying the fact that your cult believes you can boil water with ice cubes. You’ve tried to obfuscate with “view factor”. Now, you’re trying to play semantics.
It’s been explained to you before. The fraud was started with the claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING a surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2, at a temperature of 325K.
That is utter nonsense. I pointed out that if that were true, you could boil water with ice cubes.
Now, you may continue your meltdown. I’ve already noticed your devolution into anal fetish. Let’s see if you can sink to the level of Norman.
The lie is exposed once again. You couldn’t find a link to anyone here saying the radiation from ice cubes can boil water.
And you have confirmed that it is indeed about radiation and not pressure or triple point of water.
So you continue to lie like a dog.
No one here believes radiation from ice cubes can boil water. But you say that people do, because you are a bare, white-faced liar.
Even after people have explained that the difference between radiosity and irradiance is why ice cubes can’t radiatively raise the surface of any object above the temperature of ice….
You still continue to lie and lie and lie, and you do it shamelessly.
Clint:
“The fraud was started with the claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING a surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2, at a temperature of 325K.
That is utter nonsense. I pointed out that if that were true, you could boil water with ice cubes.”
Oh dear. You have as usual confused the 315 W/m2 emitted by the ice cube with the flux received by the surface.
The flux received by the surface of a cupful of water from an ice cube an inch away would be much less than 315 W/m2.
You’ve never understood this. It’s a fundamental error and you are utterly blind to it.
“…fluxes ARRIVING a surface…”
Thank you for repeating your confusion.
An ice cubes emit 315 W/m2 FROM its surface.
But you have the same 315 W/m2 from an ice cube ARRIVING at the surface.
That’s why you don’t understand any of this.
barry, you’re obviously immature and uneducated. Consequently, there’s the very real possibility you won’t ever understand this. But, maybe you know of a responsible adult that can help you. If so, here’s some help:
There are two issues. One issue is an ice cube emitting 315 W/m^2. The other issue is 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at a surface. The two issues are NOT the same. You keep trying to connect them.
When I say your cult is trying to boil water with ice cubes, it is to show how ridiculous your beliefs are.
It is very possible to bring 315 W/m^2 to a surface. It is very possible to bring a second 315 W/m^2 to the same surface. But the surface would NOT then be emitting 630 W/m^2.
It is even possible to bring four 315 W/m^2 fluxes to the same surface. By your cult’s nonsense, that would result in 1260 W/m^2 being emitted and a temperature of 235F (113C, 386K), plenty enough to boil water.
If fluxes really added like that, you could indeed boil water with ice cubes. Even if the flux was reduced by the time it reached the surface, you simply bring in more ice!
I’ve wasted enough time on this nonsense. But, it was important to see you reduced to a ranting child, like Norman.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“It is very possible to bring 315 W/m^2 to a surface.”
But not from an ice cube, unless the entire field of view of the receiving surface is filled with that ice cube. Otherwise a portion the 315 W/m2 emitted from the ice cube will go elsewhere.
“It is very possible to bring a second 315 W/m^2 to the same surface.”
But not from a second ice cube, if the field of view of the receiving surface is already filled with the first ice cube. It’s physically impossible. As several of us have already explained to you many times.
And that is why no one here believes that the radiation from two ice cubes can sum to boil water.
Yeah, you’re STILL confused about the two issues.
Find a responsible adult to explain things to you.
Whatever you think is wrong with that description, Clint, it has been explained once again to you that the radiation from two ice cubes cannot boil water.
And it is for this very reason that you are a liar whenever you say that anyone here believes differently.
Even though I’ve just told you I don’t believe what you say I believe, you will be back tomorrow to lie about that.
You just can’t help it, woofer.
Bumbling Barry.
You wrote –
“Whatever you think is wrong with that description, Clint, it has been explained once again to you that the radiation from two ice cubes cannot boil water.”
I agree. How many ice cubes do you think are required to boil water?
To make it even easier, how many ice cubes would be required to raise the temperature of a drop of water by 0.000000001 C?
Come on, donkey, how hard can it be?
barry, you’re STILL confused about the two issues.
It’s YOUR cult that believes ice can boil water. Your cult also believes CO2 can warm Earth’s surface. At least they’re consistent — consistently WRONG.
Now I’ve got another one for you. Your cult must believe the distance between to towns is 40 mph. That comes from your not understanding units. That’s why this is so much fun.
Find a responsible adult to explain things to you.
(And, your childish insults and false accusations are like meritorious awards to me.)
Clint, you even lie to yourself:
Clint R:
“There are two issues. One issue is an ice cube emitting 315 W/m^2. The other issue is 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at a surface. The two issues are NOT the same. You keep trying to connect them.”
Also Clint R:
“It’s been explained to you before. The fraud was started with the claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING a surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2, at a temperature of 325K.
That is utter nonsense. I pointed out that if that were true, you could boil water with ice cubes.”
So you DO believe the flux from an ice cube ARRIVING at a surface is 315 W/m2. Otherwise how could two of them achieve a combined ARRIVING flux of 630 W/m2 and boil water?
It’s not me who makes this faulty connection, Clint. It’s you, over and over.
Let’s have you speak for yourself again. Clint.
Clint R: “[Some science: An ice cube at freezing temperature emits about 315 W/m^2.]
Folkerts’ flawed “thinking’ would then mean that a third such flux would result in a total of 945 W/m^2. And, a fourth 315 W/m^2 would result in 1260 W/m^2. A flux of 1260 W/m^2 would result in a steady-state temperature of 386K (113C, 235F), well above the boiling point of water. So Folkerts is essentially saying that 4 ice cubes can boil water!”
Yes, you really do believe 315 W/m2 leaving an ice cube is the same 315 W/m2 ARRIVING at the surface from an ice cube. That’s why you multiply 315 W/m2 by 4 to derive the blackbody temp of the receiving surface and say that 4 ice cubes can boil water.
Let’s hear from you again, woofer.
Clint R:
“* An ice cube emits 315 W/m^2
* You believe two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface add to 630 W/m^2.
* If that surface has emissivity = 1, and is perfectly insulated on the back, it will be emitting 630 W/m^2 at equilibrium, you believe
* That means the surface is at 325 K, due to the two 315 W/m^2 irradiances
It follows then that three 315 W/m^2 fluxes would result in 945 W/m^2 and then, 359 K. And 4 315 W/m^2 fluxes would result in 1260 W/m^2, 386 K.
386 K = 113C = 235F, is plenty enough to boil water.
Yep, it’s confirmed – you really do believe that an ice cube emits 315 W/m2, and that this is exactly what ARRIVES from the ice cube to the surface.
You’ve even provided the math to show us what you think.
So, no, it is you who makes this connection, not me or anyone else. And we get to see it in your own words.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Yes barry, you’re still confused about the issues.
As I stated, that’s because you’re immature and uneducated. Keep proving me right. I can take it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1571137
Yep, Barry, on-target exposure of the fraud that Clint perpetuates.
Child Nate stumbles in trying to support his cult brother.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Oh Clint, you can’t keep your story straight. I went and searched for previous quotes of yours that I hadn’t saved.
Clint R: “Folkerts once said two ice cubes, each emitting 315 W/m^2, could raise the temperature to 325k, because the fluxes would add!”
Yes, you really believe that the 315 W/m2 LEAVING the ice cube is the same 315 W/m2 ARRIVING.
As a bonus, Folkerts reply to that comment is familiar.
“Nope! Never said that. I can ignore most of what you write, but the outright lies/errors get annoying enough to respond to occasionally.”
Everyone sees it, Clint. Not just me.
Let’s quote you a bit more, shall we?
Clint R: “Folkerts, got a valid reference for your 315 W/m^2 fluxes raising a surface to 325 K?
That’s like two ice cubes heating something to 125F.”
125F = 325K, Clint. You really do believe that the flux leaving the ice cube is the exact same flux that arrives at the surface.
So when you state,
“There are two issues. One issue is an ice cube emitting 315 W/m^2. The other issue is 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at a surface. The two issues are NOT the same. You keep trying to connect them.”
It is definitely YOU who have connected these ideas, over and over. Including upthread in the last 24 hours.
Reading back on those old posts was fun! You really can’t keep your story straight, Clint.
Folkerts: “A flux of 315 W/m^2 is emitted from an ice surface @ 273 K. That flux as measured when it hits some other receiving surface will be:
A) Still 315 W/m^2.
B) Any value between 0 W/m^2 315 W/m^2, depending on the geometry of the emitting and receiving surfaces.
Clint R: “C) Some value less than 315 W/m^2 depending on distance from source, according to the Inverse Square Law.”
But you keep saying the arriving flux from an ice cube is 315 W/m2.
And you haven’t even got the answer right. The ARRIVING flux is also calculated from geometry (view factor), which includes the area size of the surfaces.
The Reciprocity Rule
The view factor Fij is not equal to Fji unless the areas of the two surfaces are equal.
http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
Perhaps you keep lying about what other people believe in order to mask your hopeless misunderstanding of this topic.
Vournas
Look at Flynnson’s and Clint R’s genial reply posts.
And if he doesn’t?
Blather, blather, blather again and again.
How boring.
Binny,
Do you spend a lot of time choosing to be bored?
To each his own, I suppose.
ChinaScience
China space authorities name Elon Musks SpaceX an unprecedented challenge
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3244086/china-space-authorities-name-elon-musks-spacex-unprecedented-challenge
The SpaceX boilerplate Starship booster did have all 33 engines going
and did boost the massive boilerplate second stage.
And we wonder when it will launch again, some say before end of year, others the first quarter of 2024.
But it seems launch cadence will increase in coming year, maybe 6 more launches before the summer of 2024??
And whatever number, it adds to Musk “plan” to launch 144 rockets next year. With quite a few Falcon Heavy rockets, and largest operational rocket if don’t count SLS {which is suppose to launch once ever 2 years}. Falcon Heavy is cheapest rocket in world, and Falcon 9 is second cheapest launch in the world. And whole idea of Starship is to become the biggest and cheapest rocket the world has ever seen.
Coming soon is Falcon Heavy launch of secret Military space plane/small shuttle. Which has been launched by the Falcon 9 in past, and people wonder why needs the Falcon Heavy {is going to GEO or what?}.
Oh, btw, GEO takes more delta-v than going around the Moon, so one could also guess the plane might go around the Moon.
–NET December 10 Falcon Heavy USSF 52
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida–
“A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket will launch the USSF 52 mission for the U.S. Space Force. The Falcon Heavy will launch the experimental X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle on this mission. This will be the seventh flight of this spacecraft on a mission also known as OTV-7. This will be the first launch of an X-37B using a Falcon Heavy rocket. Delayed from October 2021 and 2nd Quarter 2022. Delayed from October 2022 and June 23, delayed from July 6 and Dec 7.”
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
So, some time in next 4 to 5 days.
Poor old Nate has great faith in predictability.
He would probably say “Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!” If I said it is not possible to predict exactly what will happen in any circumstance.
If he took the time to look it up, he would find “Another most interesting change in the ideas and philosophy of science brought about by quantum mechanics is this: it is not possible to predict exactly what will happen in any circumstance.” – Richard Feynman.
Feynman goes into detail much later on, but Nate cannot even accept the unpredictable nature of Nature, so there is not much point in overwhelming his tiny brain with reality at this time.
I best leave him alone. His head might otherwise explode.
barry…”UAH didnt have a flat trend from 1998 2012, until they changed their data. Check it out”.
***
Barry…enough of the mindless drivel. When UAH changed their range that amended the baseline, the entire set of anomalies went down. Therefore, any flat trend would remain flat.
I am not interested in the fiction you have created in your alarmist dementia at W4trees. You are a craven alarmist who will say or write anything to further your contemptuous propaganda.
Observing his reply to my interaction with Nate would be quite intriguing.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1570503
“Barry… enough of the mindless drivel. When UAH changed their range that amended the baseline, the entire set of anomalies went down.”
Not just that, the new version changed the data relative to each other.
So the trend 1979-2014 went from 0.14 C/decade in UAH5.6 to 0.11 C/decade in UAH6.0.
And the 1998-2012 trend changed from 0.05 C/decade to -0.07 C/decade.
woodfortrees takes the data direct from the UAH website every time it creates the graphs. Did you not know that?
It remains astounding that you still don’t know this stuff. After Roy posting about it when the v6.0 data came online, and after the years since that the trends between versions have been compared on this board many times.
Roy Spencer: “The new LT trend of +0.114 C/decade (1979-2014) is 0.026 C/decade lower than the previous trend of +0.140 C/decade”
That doesn’t come from a baseline change, it comes from a change in relative values of the data.
Roy Spencer: “Note that in the early part of the record, Version 6 has somewhat faster warming than in Version 5.6, but then the latter part of the record has reduced (or even eliminated) warming… This is partly due to our new diurnal drift adjustment, especially for the NOAA-15 satellite.”
Every new revision to UAH has resulted in changes in trends between the old and new version.
How can you not know this?
But the point is – if the fact of changes in data means that there is fudging going on, then that means UAH is ‘fudging’ the data.
That is the logical consequence of you daft reasoning.
barry,
You quoted Dr Spencer “The new LT trend of +0.114 C/decade . . . “, which is completely meaningless as it stands. It tells you nothing about when (or even if) the trend will inflect.
Maybe you believe the trend will continue until the seas boil – around 6,500 years hence, if my arithmetic is correct. Not me, and not Dr Spencer, I dare say.
After four and a half billion years, the surface has cooled, and the seas don’t appear to be boiling any more. What leads you to think that whatever process resulted in the Earth cooling, will stop, reverse, and cause the Earth to get hotter? A momentary mental aberration, perhaps?
This habit of following me into every thread is starting to get creepy, Swenson. Could do scratch your itch with someone else, please?
barry, it will only get worse for you.
You can’t hide from reality. It will get you every time.
Called anyone a “lying dog” yet today?
bumbling barry,
You wrote –
“This habit of following me into every thread is starting to get creepy, Swenson. Could do scratch your itch with someone else, please?.”
You can run but you can’t hide.
Wow. You are not just a creep, you’re proud of it.
If you say so, barry, if you say so.
What mental aberration lead you to believe that anyone values your bizarre opinion?
Mike Flynn,
The answer to your silly question is simple –
Because people tell Barry that they care his opinions.
I’m sorry this never happens to you.
barry
Robertson’s, Flynnson’s and tr0ll Clint R’s endlessly repeated stûpid nonsense becomes more and more boring.
They never stop discrediting and denigrating all what they dislike on this blog: exactly because they all are unable to scientifically contradict what they dislike.
No wonder when you read Flynnson’s request for ‘total freedom of speech’.
None of them would ever have enough guts to disrupt Judith Curry’s Climate Etc the way they disrupt this blog.
Binny,
What’s your point?
Flynnson
Think! It could be a completely new, really amazing experience for you.
Binny,
So you have no point, is that it?
Very clever – nobody can contradict what you don’t say, can they?
Typical SkyDragon cultist.
Bindi will learn some science about the time gb lands on Mars!
I won’t hold my breath….
I repeat, for those who always write before thinking:
” None of them would ever have enough guts to disrupt Judith Currys Climate Etc the way they disrupt this blog. “
Is Curry involved in science? Does she know any physics or thermodynamics?
Her CV indicates she has a degree in geography.
Of course, that’s more science than you could understand….
Hey Pupman,
Riddle me this –
What’s the latest book Judy wrote, besides her ebook?
Binny,
You wrote –
“None of them would ever have enough guts to disrupt Judith Currys Climate Etc the way they disrupt this blog.”
I haven’t noticed Dr Spencer complaining about disruption. Are you commenting on his behalf, or just venturing your opinion?
Isn’t that the same sort of nonsense you used to spout about Wattsupwiththst?
How did that work out for you?
I understand why you dont want to address the non-existent GHE. You would look even sillier.
Carry on whining.
“Her CV indicates she has a degree in geography.”
Yeah, but what has she done lately?
You might not want to judge someone with a PhD on what their undergraduate degree was.
Also you might want to read one of her over 100 published papers to see if she know her shit or not.
And then, she had a chair, but gave it up.
With a geography degree, she likely knows you can’t measure distances in units of speed. That puts her decades ahead of your cult, bob.
Riddle me this, Pupman –
https://www.amazon.ca/Thermodynamics-Kinetics-Microphysics-Professor-Khvorostyanov/dp/1107016037
Which names do you see on this cover?
“With a geography degree, she likely knows you cant measure distances in units of speed. That puts her decades ahead of your cult, bob.”
At the speed of light, the Earth is 8 minutes away from the Sun.
Barry…
… is of course once more 100% right.
Neither ignoramus Roberson let alone his friends in denîal know anything about the difference between
– UAH’s transition from revision 5.6 to revision 6.0 in April 2015;
– UAH6.0’s reference period transition from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 in January 2021.
Graph for rev. 5.6 versus rev. 6.0:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:12/offset:0.14/plot/uah6/trend/offset:0.14/plot/uah5/mean:12/plot/uah5/trend
Trend 5.6 till mid 2017: 0.16 C / decade
Trend 6.0 till mid 2017: 0.13 C / decade
*
And despite not having a bit of a clue of what barry told about, the brazenly insulting ignoramus Robertson posts:
” I am not interested in the fiction you have created in your alarmist dementia at W4trees. You are a craven alarmist who will say or write anything to further your contemptuous propaganda. ”
*
It is evident that Robertson doesn’t know that prior to 2015, UAH had a quite different vision of the lower troposphere than nowadays.
One hardly could behave more stupîd.
*
Let us recall that solely the transition from 1981-2010 10 1991-2020 has shown an increase of 0.14 C in the absolute data, what of course has let the anomalies move down by the same amount.
**
By the way, it’s interesting to see how Mr. Walter R. Hogle peu à peu develops into Robertson’s butt-kisser :–)
lmao ok
Thats funny coming from you.
Cooling Begins In 2030
https://notrickszone.com/2023/12/06/leading-russian-polar-scientist-cooling-begins-in-2030-climate-crisis-a-globalist-scam/
I hope not but there is good, similar evidence from Zharhova we must heed. Due to this warming propaganda we may miss the opportunity to prepare for the opposite and we’ll be caught in a very difficult situation.
Last time this happened, there were crop failures extending down to Florida and Texas. People began to starve. Same in the Highlands of Scotland in the 1790s.
There will definitely be no one sailing through the NW Passage and people who built along glacier pathways will be wiped out. Sea levels will drop but the irony is that so will CO2 levels and the alarmist ijits will take credit for it while they deny the cooling. NOAA will adjust whatever they need to adjust to show a warming.
Some “top polar scientist” we got there:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrey-Fedotov-2
Willard
No one of the pseudo-skep~tical geniuses discrediting all the time the climate scientists they dislike would ever put Fedotov’s climate science qualification in question.
Starting with (No?)TricksZone chief poster Gosselin and all the people who credulously follow his persistent garbage.
I just found this article posted by the Moscow Times (MT):
Climate Skeptics Muddy Russians’ Understanding of Warming Planet
Oct. 18, 2023
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/10/18/russias-climate-skeptics-muddy-public-understanding-of-warming-planet-a82752
*
Of course, what is interesting is not whether the MT agrees with the AGW or not, but rather the connection between Russian climate skeptics and the leading thinkers of the Soviet era.
Well done.
Some dimwit attacking the man, rather than the facts.
Even an inconsequential pseudo-philosopher like your namesake, Willard Quine, has probably heard of the term “argumentum ad hominem”, a device used by dummies like you to wriggle out of facing reality!
You bury yourself in ordure – yet again.
Mike Flynn, whose namesake is not far from being a traitor,
Don’t know what’s an ad hominem, do you?
Care to read the Pierre’s title again?
Cheers?
Cheers!
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Care to read the Pierres title again?” What are you babbling about? What’s a Pierre in this context?
You take obscurity to a new low.
Morgon Mike,
What mirror?
Where?
What are you braying about?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Care to read the Pierres title again?” What are you babbling about? Whats a Pierre in this context?
You take obscurity to a new low.
What mirror, Mike?
Where?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
christos…”Solar flux cannot be averaged, because solar flux interacts with spherical surface, and not with the flat disk”.
***
I think the problem may be more complex. The solar flux at TOA is claimed to be 1300+ w/m^2. I don’t know where that figure comes from but if it is calculated based on the estimated solar surface temperature of about 5000C, it could be wrong.
The Sun’s temperatures ranges from 1 million C near the core to 5000C near the surface. That means nearly 1 million C needs to be dissipated between the core and the surface, and that is highly unlikely given the nature of super-heated plasma.
A good deal of modern science is still based on old thought processes that have gone unchallenged for a century. Even though Bohr fundamentally changed the way we look at the origins of electromagnetic energy, much of modern climate change theory is still based on older beliefs dating to well before Bohr.
The current notions we have about the Sun date back to the 19th century and are based on Kircheoff’s 1850 claim about black body theory, which was intended for bodies in thermal equilibrium only. Although the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is based on real data produced by Tyndall, the data was gathered in a specific temperature range from about 500C to 1500C. That has not stopped modern scientists from applying it incorrectly to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures to solar temperatures.
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/FsnLTjM/archive-1-image.png
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Next time a Sky Dragon crank asks –
“Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?”
remind that crank of Pictet’s experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictet%27s_experiment
Then watch them bray again.
We already know you are clueless about the science, silly willy.
Now find something else you don’t understand.
Riddle me this, Pupman –
Have you finally distinguished Science from Truth?
Riddle me this, Willard,
Are you congenitally unable to accept reality, or is this a result of your SkyDragon cult involvement?
Riddle me this, Mike Flynn –
Haven’t you read anything by my avatar?
Riddle me this, ridiculous Willard, what are you babbling about?
Who (or what) is your avatar?
If I don’t know to whom you are referring, how would I know whether I have read anything they may have written?
You can be really silly, Willard. Would that make you a silly billy, or a silly Willy?
Riddle me this, Mike Flynn –
Don’t you know who my avatar is?
Riddle me this, ridiculous Willard, what are you babbling about?
Who (or what) is your avatar?
If I dont know to whom you are referring, how would I know whether I have read anything they may have written?
You can be really silly, Willard. Would that make you a silly billy, or a silly Willy?
Who?
What?
How?
You sure like to bray, Mike!
Wonky Wee Willy,
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? That would be right.
There are many otherwise intelligent people who believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object from the radiative flux falling in it!
Must be SkyDragon cultists to believe such nonsense, eh?
Why do you bother appealing to authorities who support me, rather than you –
“Addition of a very cold object adds an effective heat sink versus a room temperature object which would not, in the net, cool or warm a thermometer in the other focus.” – from your reference!
No, you cannot add fluxes from colder objects to heat warmer objects.
Failed again, Willard.
Mike Flynn,
Have you ever tried to measure the temperature of a mirror?
No?
Not a handyman, are you?
How about an IR thermometer – ever tried one?
How would you proceed to measure the temperature of a mirror?
Any idea?
None at all?
Can’t even think of measuring it from behind?
Not a very serious chap, are you?
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again) –
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies – like you.
Mor-on Mike,
You don’t know who’s Pierre?
You haven’t read the exchange, have you?
Do continue, Mor-on Mike!
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again)
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies like you.
Mike Flynn,
Do you have Alzheimer?
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again)
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies like you.
Mike Flynn,
You don’t know who’s Pierre.
You unsurprisingly don’t know anything about flux.
What are you braying about?
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again)
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies like you.
Mike Flynn,
It’s possible to measure the temperature of a mirror.
Cheers.
Willtard discovered cold rays
Eboy discovers ankle-biting.
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again)
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies like you.
Mike Flynn does not rediscover ankle-biting.
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again)
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies like you.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Worried Wee Willy,
Again (and again)
Full sunlight falls on a mirror. Whats the temperature of the mirror?
No answer? Why am I not surprised? As I said, some donkeys believe that they can calculate the temperature of an object by the radiative flux falling upon it.
Quite mad, they are. Off with the fairies like you.
Mike Flynn,
Is there something you want to say?
Now is the time.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
AccuWeather
From gusty winds to dangerous thunderstorms and even snow, a massive storm will affect 180 million people in the eastern half of the US this weekend.
https://i.ibb.co/7K3xvmz/406468488-740633031254679-3094610946423865731-n.jpg
It should be assumed that, without atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth would be well below 0 C and a frozen ball covered in ice and frost (sublimation and refreezing). This would result in a greatly increased albedo (>0.8) exacerbating the situation further.
–
I’ll try to calculate Earth’s Effective temperature with albedo
a =08
So = 1362 W/m
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴
ε =1
Te = [(1-α)S/(4εσ)]∕ ⁴
Te = [(1-0,8)1362/(4εσ)]∕ ⁴ = [0,2*1362 /4εσ]∕ ⁴ =
Te = (1.201.058.201)∕ ⁴ = 186K or -87 C
–
This Earth’s Te =186K or -87 C ( a uniform surface blackbody temperature)
1362 W/m *0,2 /4 = 68,1 W/m (a uniform surface blackbody IR EM energy emission )
–
It is a paradox.
Clearly there is something very wrong here. A real body
at -87 C never emits 68,1 W/m, because it doesn’t happen.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It should be assumed that, without atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth would be well below 0 C and a frozen ball covered in ice and frost (sublimation and refreezing).”
Earth without an atmosphere would be like Mars with more sunlight reaching surface.
The Moon and Mars has no “meaningful” or “significant” air temperature.
The ground surface temperature on Mars has been measured at 20 C. And within 1 meter air above ground surface “air temperature” decreases a lot. It’s not like Earth.
Earth with it’s atmosphere {and everything] is presently cold because it’s in an Ice Age. And it’s cold because the polar regions are cold. And it gets colder, because the polar regions can get even colder.
So coldest Earth has been was about 20,000 years ago with ice sheets going down to New York. The polar regions and near the polar regions were cold.
The Tropics was about same as our current Tropics.
So going back to Mars, in polar region in winter it snows a lot of atmospheric CO2 {and ice cap, grows- and it will shrink in summer]. One could count the falling snow as being cold- though one could also count it as added insulation- as roof doesn’t need any air below it in contact with it.
So Earth without atmosphere will have it’s polar regions get cold. Earth with atmosphere has atmosphere warming it, when there is no sunlight reaching it.
But what mainly warms the polar region when not in Ice Age, is the warmer ocean. Our cold ocean only warms it a bit and air could be warm it more than Ocean. But outside polar region, mostly the ocean.
Vournas …
” It should be assumed that, without atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth would be well below 0 C… ”
… and gbaikie
” Earth without an atmosphere would be like Mars with more sunlight reaching surface. ”
*
You are both wrong.
The iceball looking Earth with all of the water vapor having precipitated down to surface (and, in the following, CO2 becoming less and less present in the atmosphere too) still has 78% N2, 21% O2 and 0.9% Ar which all do not precipitate at all.
*
While the albedo of fresh snow is between 0.4 and 0.85, that of ice is between 0.3 and 0.4:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Albedo-e_hg.svg/800px-Albedo-e_hg.svg.png
and that of very old ice is (said to be) 0.3.
Thus, surprisingly, the albedo of an iceball Earth is similar to the current global albedo average (0.31):
https://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/background-ice
*
Finally, Vournas’ equations above are 100% incomprehensible.
Bindi doesn’t know that “without atmosphere” means without atmosphere.
Blinny is a fish.
I thought he was a sauerkraut.
A bored sauerkraut at that.
I repeat for the ignoramuses:
” The iceball looking Earth with all of the water vapor having precipitated down to surface (and, in the following, CO2 becoming less and less present in the atmosphere too) still has 78% N2, 21% O2 and 0.9% Ar which all do not precipitate at all. ”
People like Clint R really believe that an atmosphere with ‘78% N2, 21% O2 and 0.9% Ar’ is the same as ‘no atmosphere’.
Oh Noes.
Bindi, “without atmosphere” means “no atmosphere”, which means no N2 or O2.
I predict you STILL won’t understand.
Sorry, trôll Clint R
You are the one who didn’t understand my objection to Vournas’ post.
You should read comments sequences with more attention, instead of simply scanning them for presence of what you dislike resp. absence of what you expect.
Bindi, I sure hope you’re enjoying your meltdown as much as I am.
Don’t go away like several of the other incompetent cult children have. Pretty soon we won’t know what cult children look like….
Binny,
You wrote –
“You are both wrong.”
Are you saying that in the absence of an atmosphere the water on the Earth would be frozen, or not?
Come on, take a punt – no atmosphere – just like the Moon or not? Maximum temperature around 125 C?
Go on, say something definite for a change.
tim s…”Thermal efficiency requires that the heat of the combustion products be recovered. The work done by an engine is related directly to heat extracted from the gases (#1 law).
Here is the fun part. That actually IS in the #2 law that you folks get all excited about! It is accomplished by using a long stroke and slow rpm to extract as much temperature from the gases as possible”.
***
Not following your logic here, Tim. The 1st law relates external work and heat with internal work and heat, the latter known collectively as internal energy. Clausius wanted to specify internal work and heat as such but succumbed to the stoopidity of Lord Kelvin, aka Thompson, who secretly despised Clausius, no doubt, out of professional jealousy. In other words, Thompson was not as smart as Clausius, who in his spare time, invented the kinetic gas theory as well.
Work done by an engine is related to the gas pressure produced by the explosion of a compressed gas with heat being a wasted byproduct of the explosion. That heat has useful purposes, like heating the water that circulates through the car’s internal heater, but how can recovering the heat improve the efficiency of the engine?
Efficiency is basically the power you put in versus the power you get out. The power in factor has to be in the exploding air/gas mixture when ignited and the power out is how much of that power exists, after detonation, can be transferred to the crankshaft via the pistons.
This is far more complex than a simply application of the 1st law. The engine has to do work on the gas to compress it in the cylinder, and if you have worn rings and valves, they will leak off some of that pressure, reducing the power in the piston stroke after detonation. So let’s just focus on the process after compression when the spark plug ignites the mixture.
This actually become a reversal of the 1st law since internal energy created by the explosion is now doing work and producing heat. In this case, the heat is a byproduct and not really related. It’s a reversal in the sense that we normally think of the 1st law in the sense of heat producing work and vice versa. In this case, the internal energy is producing work and heat at the expense of the internal energy, which is lowered drastically.
That’s why engines have flywheels, which maintain the momentum created by the exploding gases. In a 4-stroke engine, the power stroke from the exploding gasoline is only one stroke. The next stroke clears exhaust from the cylinder and the next compresses fresh gas/air mixture, then the following stroke is another power stroke.
I simply don’t get the fun part, as you put it. The 2nd law has nothing to do with that. It tells us merely that the heat of the explosion must move from hot to cold, which it does. It enters the cylinder walls, mainly where it is cooled by circulating water from the water pump.
How can recovering that heat possibly affect a process that has already passed? Getting rid of the heat as efficiently as possible has more impact since machines tend to run more efficiently at lower temperatures.
Just for the curious – Mercedes F1 PR –
“An overall efficiency of around 50 percent can be achieved by the Power Units internal combustion engine due to its high thermal efficiency. Half of the chemical energy introduced into the system is finally converted into torque at the crankshaft. The efficiency of conventional combustion engines is less than 40 percent.”
1.6 L, v6, 15,000 rpm, >1000 bhp
Power. Efficiency. Just what I need to get to the supermarket and beat the crowds!
Interesting. DO they say how the increased efficiency is gained?
An electric motor, which has an efficiency in the 90 percentile range is hampered by the lack of a battery that can run it for no more than a few hours before recharge is required. That lack of ability increases as temperatures drop to the point where the chemical action in the battery can no longer produce a viable charge.
I may be interpreting Tim S incorrectly, but he seems to be suggesting that heat produced by motors can be recycled to make them more efficient. That parallels the reasoning that heat in the atmosphere can be recycled by GHGs to raise the temperature of the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by solar energy.
Gordon,
One way of utilising exhaust heat that would otherwise be lost to the system is to drive a turbocharger, and design the engine to take advantage of it.
No free lunch, and a lot of trade-offs involved. Another system involves using a small turbo generator spinning up 125,000 RPM to charge a battery to keep the turbo spinning when off throttle to avoid turbo lag, and so on. Engineering marvels.
All in all, resulting in using the least fuel to create the most output. Thermal efficiency. Theres plenty of documention, with great numbers of acronyms. Good luck figuring them all out!
A little googling reveals an answer. They recover energy during braking and use it later for accelerating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_recovery_system
You need to also look at charging efficiency as batteries age.
Batteries age relatively fast compared to a ICE.
As they age charging time increases and battery capacity decreases. And old battery creates more resistance that generate more heat loss over longer charge cycles.
”According to a study conducted by the US Department of Energy, electric vehicle batteries can lose up to 20% of their capacity after just 3 years of use. Furthermore, a report by the International Council on Clean Transportation found that electric vehicle owners who charge their cars to 100% capacity every time have a battery pack that lasts, on average, two years less than those who only charge to 80% capacity.”
Avoid charging your battery to 100% capacity every time try to keep the battery charge at around 80%.
Avoid letting your battery go below 20% capacity, as this can also damage the battery.
Avoid exposing your electric vehicle to extreme temperatures, both hot and cold.
Some recommend depletion to only 30%
so actually it only wise to use only 50% of the battery capacity, a big range reducer to maximize the electrical efficiency over time.
Battery depreciation for somebody driving 15,000 miles/year and a $15,000 battery that lasts 10 years works out to about $40 per full charge in battery depreciation.
so that adds 10cents per mile in fuel costs for 400 miles per full charge.
Since you can easily buy a ICE car that gets 32 mpg or 12.5 gallons.
National gas price average per AAA $3.185 or about $40 per 400 miles or $0.10 per mile.
So essentially the premium you pay for an EV is every dime you pay for electricity to keep it charged.
Perhaps you save 5 to 20% on oil changes for the ICE depending upon who does them so its probably not all that bad. But I don’t know what kind of weird costs you might run into owning an EV.
Gordon, I can explain your confusion with the Kinetic theory of gases. The pressure is pushing on the piston and doing the work. In the process, kinetic energy of the gas is delivered to the piston. The piston then does work by moving the crank shaft.
Let’s back up. What is kinetic energy in a gas? It is temperature. The sonic velocity of a gas is a function of temperature. As the gas does work, it gives up kinetic energy and therefore loses temperature. For any given combustion process, the efficiency is gained when the most heat (kinetic energy) is removed from the gas.
Another factor involves the fuel stoichiometry. Hydrogen is the only fuel that reduces the molecular number when it burns. One mole of oxygen and two moles of hydrogen yields two moles of water. Three moles of reactant yields two moles of product. For methane it is CH4 + 2.5 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O 2.5 yields 3.
One of the advantages of diesel fuel is that the high molecular weight produces a large number of gases. C20H42 + 30.5 O2 -> 20 CO2 + 21 H2O 31.5 reactants yields 41 products.
I screwed that up:
CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O Three moles yield three moles. No change.
Earlier, a somewhat confused barry wrote –
“But not from an ice cube, unless the entire field of view of the receiving surface is filled with that ice cube. Otherwise a portion the 315 W/m2 emitted from the ice cube will go elsewhere.”, apparently trying to assert that a colder body can raise the temperature of a warmer (as GHE believers think a colder atmosphere can raise the temperature of a warmer surface).
Well, SkyDragon cultists love “thought experiments” and “scenarios”, so I’ll help bumbling barry out.
First, a drop of water totally surrounded by ice will not get hotter. End of “field of view” distraction.
A block of ice completely submerged in water will not raise the temperature at all. All the radiation of the ice is impinging on the water.
Now, neither barry, nor any of his bumbling compadres can hazard a guess as to where the photons emitted by the ice go – in either case. That’s because they suffer from a sever lack of knowledge.
No GHE. The Earth has cooled. The surface is no longer molten. The surface even cools each night, during a solar eclipse, when a cloud passes overhead, etc.
“First, a drop of water totally surrounded by ice will not get hotter. End of field of view distraction.”
No, that is just the START of field of view discussion.
“It is very possible to bring 315 W/m^2 to a surface. It is very possible to bring a second 315 W/m^2 to the same surface.”
But that is NOT possible using ice as the source. A “drop of water totally surrounded by ice” can get 315 W/m^2 when “totally surrounded.” But you can’t “totally surround” the drop twice to get 630 W/m^2.
You can only get a ‘second’ 315 W/m^2 if the radiation comes from a hotter surface.
“But the surface would NOT then be emitting 630 W/m^2.”
This brings your confusion into focus.
Either:
A) you have two hotter sources that can each independently provide 315 W/m^2 and the drop of water will indeed radiate 630 W/m^2 when steadystate is reached. (in which case you are not talking about ice)
b) you get 315 W/m^2 from ice and the drop will radiate 315 W/m^2 (in which case you are not talking about 630 W/m^2).
You can’t have it both ways. You cant have radiation from ice AND have 630 W/m^2 reaching the drop.
Tim Folkerts:
”You can only get a second 315 W/m^2 if the radiation comes from a hotter surface.”
It must be come to Jesus week.
The question for the atmosphere is without something cooling its upper surface that isn’t as proficient as cooling its bottom surface simultaneously (i.e. no GHGs) the atmosphere would warm uniformly to the same temperature as the surface via convection and conduction.
And since it can’t cool at the top, and convection causes hot air to rise, and conduction though very slow will transport heat up entirely by collisions and diffusion around the same rate it distributes CO2 into the atmosphere.
How exactly is the 3rd grader radiation model going to heat up the atmosphere sufficiently to heat up the surface?
Folkerts appears to be babbling incoherently, to himself.
When it comes to meltdowns, it’s each to his own I guess.
“It must be come to Jesus week.”
This is exactly what I have been saying for years. (And what physics texts teach). But I am glad you agree.
“The question for the atmosphere is without something cooling its upper surface that isnt as proficient as cooling its bottom surface simultaneously (i.e. no GHGs) the atmosphere would warm uniformly to the same temperature as the surface via convection and conduction.”
This is (basically) true but incomplete. Without GHGs the surface would be ~ 255 K on average (simple radiation energy balance). So yes, the atmosphere and surface would be the same (or at least similar) temperatures. But that temperature would be ~ 255 K, not ~ 288 K.
Now Folkerts is running away from his “fluxes simply add” nonsense.
But he still holds on to his cult’s “255 K” nonsense.
One baby step at a time….
“Now Folkerts is running away from his “fluxes simply add” nonsense.”
Not running away from anything. If you understand it, it is simple. Fluxes arriving at a surface do simply add. If 10 sources each supply 100 W/m^2 to a surface, then together they supply 1000 W/m^2.
Folkerts that depends upon no overlap which in lighting design is essentially impossible to achieve.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lighting-design-lumen-method-examples-hasan-tariq
Tim,
You are endeavouring to substitute fluxes for temperatures, as silly Skydragon cultists do on a regular basis. All part of the scam.
If you have 1000 100W/m2 sources from ice, you cannot heat even a microgram of water!
Start whining about how you couldn’t do it with ice, but then imply that you could with something hotter! IR is light, regardless of frequency.
Concentrate the 100 W from 1m2 of ice into 1 mm2. No, it’s not impossible – suitable parabolic mirrors and lenses are made to focus light of all frequencies. Now you have 100 W concentrated into a millionth of a square meter – an energy flux of what, 100,000,000 W/m2?
Still cant heat any water at all! Correct my mental arithmetic if you like, but don’t deny that light can be concentrated! Any child starting a fire with a hand lens will prove you wrong.
Keep blowing your own horn, Tim. Someone might value your opinion, but at the moment it’s certainly not me!
No Folkerts, you’re running away from your own nonsense. Now you’re only referring to a mathematical addition. You no longer claim 1000 W/m^2 will be emitted by the surface.
I’m on to your tricks.
Looks like Gill forgot step 4 of his cite:
Fixtures seem to add.
“If you have 1000 100W/m2 sources from ice, you cannot heat even a microgram of water!”
And there is the crux of all the misunderstandings! This is true but it is NOT what I was claiming.
Flux FROM an EMITTING surface is different from flux TO a RECEIVING surface. That bears repeating since people fail to grasp this simple point. “To” and “from” are two completely different concepts.
1000 100W/m2 fluxes radiating FROM 1000 cold EMITTING surfaces cannot be combined to provide 100,000 W/m^2 TO a RECIEVING surface.
They could provide 1 W/m^2 TO a RECEIVING surface.
They could provide 10 W/m^2 TO a RECEIVING surface.
They could provide 99 W/m^2 TO a RECEIVING surface.
They could provide 100 W/m^2 TO a RECEIVING surface.
This limit is due to geometry. If your EMITTING sources are all 100 W/m^2 e, then the most they can provide any RECEIVING surface is 100 W/m^2
On a completely different note, 1000 fluxes of 100 W/m^2 arriving AT a RECEIVING surface do add. So for example you could have 1000 small sources at 1150 K that are EMITTING 100,000 W/m^2. At sufficient distance, the inverse square law could reduce that to 100 W/m^2 arriving AT a RECEIVING surface. By carefully arranging 1000 1150 K sources, the 1000 sources could each provide 100 W/m^2 to the receiving surface, for total of 100,000 W/m^2.
So yes, 1000 fluxes of 100 W/m^2 from 1050 K surfaces all arriving at a receiving surface DO and can warm drop of water above 0 C.
Tim,
I see. So you can’t add fluxes from 270 K ice, but you can add fluxes from 1050 K objects.
You wrote – “1000 100W/m2 fluxes radiating FROM 1000 cold EMITTING surfaces cannot be combined to provide 100,000 W/m^2 TO a RECIEVING surface.”
But then wrote “By carefully arranging 1000 1150 K sources, the 1000 sources could each provide 100 W/m^2 to the receiving surface, for total of 100,000 W/m^2.”
So 270 K fluxes don’t add, but 1150 K fluxes do? What’s the cut off point? 300 K? 500 K?
Not to worry Tim, you then demonstrate your vast knowledge (ho ho) of physics by coming to the not-so-astonishing conclusion that yes, a temperature source of 1050 K can warm a drop of water!
Maybe you could clarify what you are claiming – if it that the radiation from a colder body cannot raise the temperature of a hotter, no matter how much of it there is, then I agree.
If you are claiming that you can raise water from 0 C to a higher temperature by exposing it to an iron bar heated to glowing orange heat, I would also agree.
If, however, you are claiming that radiation from a colder atmosphere (no matter how much there is) can raise the temperature of a hotter surface, then you are obviously off with fairies.
Mike Flynn,
By chance you clarify –
“Not to worry”
For one second I was worrying that you had no idea what you were talking about once again!
Carry on.
Swenson,
I see. So you cant read.
All fluxes ARRIVING at (and getting absorbed by) a surface add. It doesn’t matter if the sources are 270 K or 6000 K or lasers or LED lightbulbs. If 100 W/m^2 gets absorbed from a 270 K source and gets absorbed from a 1000 K source and 100 W/m^2 gets absorbed from a 3000 K source, you add them all to get 300 W/m^2.
Or if 100 W/m^2 gets absorbed from a 270 K source and gets absorbed from a 2nd 270 K source and gets absorbed from 3rd 270 K source, you add them all to get 300 W/m^2.
The problem is not that you cannot add the fluxes. The problem is geometry. There simply is not room to place 10 sources @ 270 K that can all supply 100 W/m^2 to a surface.
This is really not that difficult.
Tim,
Here’s what you wrote –
“1000 100W/m2 fluxes radiating FROM 1000 cold EMITTING surfaces cannot be combined to provide 100,000 W/m^2 TO a RECIEVING surface.
By carefully arranging 1000 1150 K sources, the 1000 sources could each provide 100 W/m^2 to the receiving surface, for total of 100,000 W/m^2.”
Are you mad? 1000 100W/m2 sources cannot be combined, but by “carefully arranging” 1000 100 W/m2 sources, they can?
Rubbish. You want to be able to measure temperatures using W/m2, like other climate clowns pretend they can.
If you are skipping around claiming that surrounding the Earth with a thin, cool, gaseous sphere will make it hotter, just say so. I’ll laugh all the more.
Off you go.
“Are you mad? 1000 100W/m2 sources cannot be combined, but by carefully arranging 1000 100 W/m2 sources, they can?”
You still can’t read. Come back when you have digested the implications of “to” and “from”. The implications of “emitting” and “receiving”.
The fact that you left these ideas out when you paraphrased above suggests you have no clue about the actual issue here.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Come back when you have digested the implications of “to” and “from”. The implications of “emitting” and “receiving”.
No Tim. No “implications”. Here’s what you wrote –
“1000 100W/m2 fluxes radiating FROM 1000 cold EMITTING surfaces cannot be combined to provide 100,000 W/m^2 TO a RECIEVING surface.
By carefully arranging 1000 1150 K sources, the 1000 sources could each provide 100 W/m^2 to the receiving surface, for total of 100,000 W/m^2.”
I suppose you are going to try to weasel out by saying that “emitting surfaces” are different to “sources”, depending on temperature?
OK, you want to play your “silly semantic games”, go ahead.
The only inference anyone sensible is likely to draw, is that you are a clueless SkyDragon cultist, either incompetent at expressing your ideas, or intentionally doing so, trying to perpetuate a fraudulent illusion.
Come on, Tim, try to describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality. You can’t or won’t – either a fool or a fraud.
Carry on.
It is really incredible how people fail to grasp this.
“Are you mad? 1000 100W/m2 sources cannot be combined, but by ‘carefully arranging’ 1000 100 W/m2 sources, they can?”
This is what Folkerts said.
“1000 100W/m2 fluxes radiating FROM 1000 cold EMITTING surfaces cannot be combined to provide 100,000 W/m^2 TO a RECIEVING surface…
By carefully arranging 1000 1150 K sources, the 1000 sources could each provide 100 W/m^2 to the receiving surface, for total of 100,000 W/m^2.”
How did you figure that the 1150 K sources were emitting at 100 W/m2? Could you explain that?
Actually the equilibrium temperature of a surface according to Stefan Boltzmann with a .3 albedo is the same as one with zero albedo.
Getting to his conclusion runs roughshod over science. Yes there are special materials that won’t follow Stefan Boltzmann with diffused solar radiation but there is no science that suggests that 255K is the result of a Goldilocks Zone planet with a .3 albedo and that puts all the rest of his theories at risk as the amount of warming from the doubling of CO2 is at least in part built on that fiction.
Not to speak of course the theory of how a few watts of CO2 controls all the water vapor in the atmosphere with a 1370w/m2 that fluctuates between that and zero watts doesn’t put any water vapor in the atmosphere. How gullible can people be?
then when they argue the point they immediately point to a snowball earth completely ignoring the sublimation of water vapor directly from ice. And Tim who should know better is in here ignoring all that and misinforming the public and probably misinforming the kids he teaches if he brings any of this at all up in his classroom.
“Actually the equilibrium temperature of a surface according to Stefan Boltzmann with a .3 albedo is the same as one with zero albedo.
Getting to his conclusion runs roughshod over science.”
And common sense.
Most people know from the sensory experience of their bare feet, that a low albedo surface, like asphalt, gets hotter in sunshine, than a higher albedo surface like fresh concrete.
Well that depends upon whether your sampling program is in the warming phase or the cooling phase. After the asphalt hits its maximum temperature the low albedo surface is still warming. Then when cooling the low albedo surface cools more slowly and you have the opposite effect.
Nate, you knucklehead,
Place samples of whatever you like with whatever albedo you like in an environment of constant temperature.
Wait for thermal equilibrium. All the objects and the environment will be at the same temperature, emitting precisely the same frequency photons. I didn’t say at the same intensity, of course. Some people leap to that conclusion, but they are wrong.
Bill was right, you were wrong. Suck it up.
Bill says: “Then when cooling the low albedo surface cools more slowly and you have the opposite effect.”
Almost! It is true that emissivity controls both how well a material absorbs radiation and how well it emits radiation; And what you say would be true if the surface was heated with thermal IR.
The problem is that emission and absor.p.tion depend on wavelength. In particular, visible light and thermal IR can have very different properties. Black paint and white pant emit thermal IR almost identically, but absorb visible light very differently. Black painted surfaces will have higher maximum and higher average temperatures than similar white painted surfaces.
Tim,
Well, that was much ado about nothing, wasn’t it?
Do you realise how ignorant you appear when you wrote “And what you say would be true if the surface was heated with thermal IR.”
Appealing to your own abysmal authority?
Still claiming that a GHE exists, and that you are prepared to be specific about what its effects are?
Fat chance. All mouth and no trousers, that’s you.
“Well that depends upon whether your sampling program is in the warming phase or the cooling phase. ”
I think people know what I am talking about, at the peak heat of a sunny day, their feet can tell them the albedo of the surface.
Not sure why you dont get, Bill.
“Wait for thermal equilibrium. All the objects and the environment will be at the same temperature”
And Swenson apparently doesnt get out much. Obviously he never got into a car sitting in the sun in summer.
Nate says:
Well that depends upon whether your sampling program is in the warming phase or the cooling phase.
I think people know what I am talking about, at the peak heat of a sunny day, their feet can tell them the albedo of the surface.
Not sure why you dont get, Bill.
——————-
So essentially is your argument about albedo is that the atmosphere objects switch from black during the day to white at night? So that the mean is different over 24 hours? I think that argument is just about as contradictory as your argument that involves objects under going multiple motions simultaneously that have an object going in multiple directions at one time.
“So essentially is your argument about albedo is…”
Again you shamelessly invent an argument for me that I have not made!
I was just making fun of your thoughts on how black vs white would affect the GHE.
Black warms faster and cools faster. White warms slower and cools slower.
How does that affect the mean temperature? Please none of your usual declarations Nate, just some reliable sources.
“Black warms faster and cools faster. ”
Warms faster and reaches a higher temperature. My feet don’t lie.
Cools faster? Why?
A black object does not need to have a higher IR emissivity than a white object.
But it does always.
Evidence?
Of course not.
White paint has high IR emissivity.
In any case, you neglect convection which doesnt care about color.
“There are several causes of an urban heat island (UHI); for example, dark surfaces absorb significantly more solar radiation, which causes urban concentrations of roads and buildings to heat more than suburban and rural areas during the day;[2] ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Bill you are just being a contrarian without a good cause.
Well since it really requires specifically engineered paints to target emissions through atmospheric window and target reflective surfaces that favor SW over LW, that has very little to do with UHI.
It almost certainly is the lack of transpiration of surfaces in cities. An effect that has very little effect on the climate but a big effect on how the surface temperature record is put together.
Green vegetation has a very high ability to absorb light like the cities but the cities lack the evaporative cooling at virtually every level right on down to artificial turf and low water use vegetation that is now being mandated in many cities which adds in another element not entirely connected to population as it affects existing population. Actually the element that removes the last of the highly transpiring plant life in cities. Plus you have citations being issued for washing your car of letting water spray on the roadway or sidewalks.
”2.6 megajoules of energy to evaporate 1 kilogram of water at room temperature, which translates to around 8.7 kilowatts over 5 minutes.”
For a well tended lawn that equates to 27megajoules of cooling per square meter of lawn per day. Its just a fact that over the past 5 decades lawns in new housing developments have been getting smaller and smaller and with water shortages they plan on having few lawns.
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-much-energy-is-needed-to-evaporate-1-liter-of-water-in-5-minutes.399908/
That brings up another point. They measure ocean SSTs with water drawn below the surface. The actual evaporating surface of the ocean has a sharp cooling gradient the steepness of is dependent upon surface turbulence.
The source makes clear that:
“There are several causes of an urban heat island (UHI); for example, dark surfaces absorb significantly more solar radiation, which causes urban concentrations of roads and buildings to heat more than suburban and rural areas during the day;[2]”
The reality here is that albedo is a key factor in everybody’s calculation of the temperature of planets, even ones without an atmosphere.
This position you have taken, that albedo doesnt matter wins the stoopidity prize!
But it illustrates your MO: Take a contrarian position and than endlessly argue for it, no matter how ridiculous it is.
No I have only objected to those that treat albedo as 100% at reducing temperature and and turn around when it suits them and treats surfaces with albedos as blackbodies. . . as Trenberth et al do in their various radiation budgets.
Fact is mean global albedo by various reanalyzes varies by 20w/m2, yet you say that reanalyzes convinced you that .9w/m2 imbalance of Trenberth et al is a fact.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml
“Fact is mean global albedo by various reanalyzes varies by 20w/m2”
No it isn’t a fact. Quote your source!
“No I have only objected to those that treat albedo as 100% at reducing temperature”
FALSE
Your bizarre claim was:
“Actually the equilibrium temperature of a surface according to Stefan Boltzmann with a .3 albedo is the same as one with zero albedo.”
You continue to post erratically.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Without GHGs the surface would be ~ 255 K on average (simple radiation energy balance).”
Complete nonsense. You are not actually suggesting that you can determine the temperature of something by the amount of radiative flux falling upon it, are you?
You are quite mad, if so.
When you say “simple radiation energy balance”, are you off with the fairies? Denying that the surface of the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years? What “balance” are you babbling about?
Quite apart from that, you ignore – “First, when we are calculating the energy, sometimes some of it leaves the system and goes away, or sometimes some comes in. In order to verify the conservation of energy, we must be careful that we have not put any in or taken any out.” – Richard Feynman, and I agree.
So, your silly “energy balance” needs to specify what “system” you are referring to. Not the Earth, obviously, because the Sun puts energy in. Not the Solar System, because most of the energy from the Sun flees the solar system, never to be seen again.
You are obviously talking about the Tim Folkerts Fantasy System, which exists only in your imagination.
Tut, tut, Tim. Address reality, and I’ll readily change my views if you give me reason based on facts.
Carry on with the fantasy.
“Complete nonsense. You are not actually suggesting that you can determine the temperature of something by the amount of radiative flux falling upon it, are you?”
As addressed in another post, if
1) you know the radiative flux falling on an object AND
2) you know the emissivity of the object AND
3) there are no other losses from conduction or convection AND
4) there are no other sources AND
5) there has been sufficient time to approach steady-state
then you can indeed make a pretty good determination of the temperature. The flux falling on the object will be the flux emitted, and emitted flux is a function of the object’s temperature.
This would be pretty accurate for a rock on the moon for example. The sunlight is known and changes slowly; there is no atmosphere.
As for your Feynman quote, you seem to have missed an important part of that chapter. Feynman was making an analogy between energy and wooden blocks. When the room is closed, the number of blocks remains constant. He even discussed adding blocks (a friend come to visit) or removing blocks (thrown out the window).
Similarly for energy, in a closed system energy remains constant. If we want to verify conservation of energy, we have to be careful to ACCOUNT FOR energy added or removed. The simple case for beginners that Feynman was discussing was that no energy was removed or added.
Read the whole chapter. Read other sources that are not an introduction for beginning students.
Finally, “energy balance” refers to the degree of energy balance between some system and its surroundings. As in:
When there is perfect balance, energy within the system remains constant. In particular, thermal energy remains constant; temperature remains constant.
When there is NOT perfect balance, energy in the system changes; temperature changes. For the earth as a whole, the degree of balance is quite good. Over the course of a year, the imbalance is typically within 1 W/m^2 (out of ~ 240 W/m^2 in and ~ 240 W/m^2 out).
**********************************
As for ‘4.5 billion years’, yes the average global imbalance has been outward, and the earth has on average cooled. T
his does NOT mean that every every individual second, day or year the balance in outward. Some individual seconds, days or years the balance can be inward and the earth can warm. As indeed has happened since Dr Roy’s data as been collected. The earth has been measurably warming.
Come on Tim you are lot smarter than to fall for the 255K
You are suggesting a planet with no atmosphere, with no snow, with no ice sheets, and no clouds.
The albedo of the planet depends heavily on all of those.
with clouds accounting for 79 watts reflection that alone puts the surface temperature at 274K.
Throw in the snow and ice and you are probably up to 277k.
thats already 2/3rds of the effect. . .so much for the CO2 control theory.
throw in Roy’s UHE, and long lived warming feedbacks from the LIA you probably end up with a warming potential for CO2 around that estimated by Roy a few years ago which came in well less than 1 degree. . .negative feedback not positive feedback.
Tim,
Maybe you don’t agree that Feynman was clear when he wrote –
“First, when we are calculating the energy, sometimes some of it leaves the system and goes away, or sometimes some comes in. In order to verify the conservation of energy, we must be careful that we have not put any in or taken any out.”
Rather than blathering about blocks, you might blather about why you disagree with Feynman.
You wrote ‘1000 100W/m2 fluxes radiating FROM 1000 cold EMITTING surfaces cannot be combined to provide 100,000 W/m^2 TO a RECIEVING surface.’
But then wrote ‘By carefully arranging 1000 1150 K sources, the 1000 sources could each provide 100 W/m^2 to the receiving surface, for total of 100,000 W/m^2.’
So 270 K fluxes don’t add, but 1150 K fluxes do? What’s the cut off point? 300 K? 500 K?
The cut off point is the temperature of the emitting surfaces.
That is the maximum that any number of surfaces at that temperature can irradiate a surface with. A thousand surfaces at 205 K (100 W/m2) can only heat a receiving surface to a maximum of that temperature. The arriving flux of each surface will be much less than 100 W/m2.
A thousand surfaces at 1150 K (100,000 W/m2) can only heat a surface to 1150 K maximum, and can do so with careful geometric placement, by each providing 100 W/m2 to a surface.
Just like Clint, you fail to distinguish between emitted and received radiation.
Barry,
I can’t quite tell what point you are trying to make. It seems that half the time you are agreeing with me and half the time disagreeing.
You seem to agree with:
“A thousand surfaces at 1150 K (100,000 W/m2) can only heat a surface to 1150 K maximum, and can do so with careful geometric placement, by each providing 100 W/m2 to a surface.”
So we seem to agree that care with geometry is indeed vital for understanding radiation.
“So 270 K fluxes dont add, but 1150 K fluxes do? Whats the cut off point? 300 K? 500 K?”
No. Fluxes from ANY temperature add. Geometry is the issue.
For example, half a dome of ice @ 270 K could provide 315/2 W/m^2 of flux TO a surface. The other half could provide another 315/2 W/m^2 of flux. We can add these fluxes from 270 K ice to get 315 W/m^2. Or we could have 100 sections of a dome and add the 3.15 W/m^2 that each provides
270 K fluxes DO add.
What we CAN’T do is have 2 domes and get 2×315 W/m^2. GEOMETRY prevents us from ever achieving more than 315 W/m^2 from surfaces emitting 315 W/m^2. By the time you have one whole dome, the radiation from any further bits of is is blocked.
I’m not disagreeing with you, Tim. I’m quoting Swenson quoting you above, and the post is to him.
Tim,
You wrote –
“But that is NOT possible using ice as the source. A drop of water totally surrounded by ice can get 315 W/m^2 when totally surrounded. But you cant totally surround the drop twice to get 630 W/m^2.”
Exactly. You cannot warm even a drop of water with the radiation from all the ice on Earth.
You cannot warm 1 mm2 of surface with all the radiation of a cooler atmosphere. No matter how many mirrors (plane or parabolic), lenses, or cunning methods of concentrating radiation you try to use.
To make something hotter you need something hotter.
No GHE. You can’t even describe what this mythical effect is supposed to do, in any way that reflects reality.
“To make something hotter you need something hotter.”
Which we have, shining its hotness on the Earth..
Did you forget about it again?
Well the sun did get hotter over the past 3 centuries.
Nate,
Yes, the Sun shines, resulting in surface temperatures between about +85 C, and -85 C.
And at night, the surface cools.
You cannot warm a warmer surface with a cooler atmosphere. No GHE – just sunlight, and the lack of it.
Exactly, Nate. The source of Earth’s heat is the sun, and the atmosphere affects the flow of the heat it provides to and from the surface.
Which is precisely why the temperature gradient is negative from the surface through the troposphere, and then positive through the stratosphere. If there was no atmosphere, this inversion would not be possible.
“You cannot warm 1 mm2 of surface with all the radiation of a cooler atmosphere. No matter how many mirrors (plane or parabolic), lenses, or cunning methods of concentrating radiation you try to use.”
But you can get temperatures in the thousands of degrees C by concentrating solar rays. The atmosphere has well-verified optical properties that influence the rate at which energy at different wavelengths flows through it, which is why the vertical temperature gradient changes sign 3 times with increasing altitude. That is purely a result of the structure of the atmosphere.
barry,
You wrote –
“Exactly, Nate. The source of Earths heat is the sun, and the atmosphere affects the flow of the heat it provides to and from the surface.”
Partially true. The oceans are heated from beneath, as is the crust upon which we live. The deeper you go into the crust, the hotter it gets. Plain fact.
As you say, “. . . the atmosphere affects the flow of the heat it provides to and from the surface.” This results in lower maximum temperatures, and higher minimum temperatures, than are found on the Moon with no atmosphere.
Are you trying to claim that a GHE (which you can’t describe) removes the necessity to accept the physical facts which you have pointed out?
What is it that you are trying to say without actually saying it?
Are you really some some evasive knucklehead, implying something by saying nothing?
There will be no shortage of rain in Australia, both north and south.
https://i.ibb.co/bddK8D7/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
Update on the Odyssean task that is the energy transition
An old fashioned border/oil/proxy war is brewing on the northern coast of South America.
The United States announced joint military flight drills in Guyana on Thursday as tensions over a contested oil-rich region with neighbor Venezuela prompted the U.N. Security Council to call an urgent meeting.
The U.N. Security Council will meet behind closed doors Friday to discuss the tensions, according to an updated official schedule.
Oil discoveries raised Venezuela-Guyana tensions. The long-running dispute over the Essequibo -which comprises some two-thirds of Guyanese territory- has intensified since ExxonMobil discovered oil there in 2015.
Venezuela’s President Maduro upped the ante in recent days when he ordered the state oil company to start a bidding process for oil leases for extracting crude in Guyanese territory. He also gave an ultimatum to oil companies working under concessions issued by Guyana to halt operations within three months.
New Cuban missile crisis brewing?
The Climate Change Cult Just Got Even Crazier
https://youtu.be/Chqcyf0Y35g
Wherever Al Gore went is was usually, unusually cold.
It seems the climate cultist are trying to prove, that God has sense of humor- and that God exists.
Oh, global climate is not weather.
Global climate is about global average surface air temperature.
Global climate air temperature is warmed from the largest region of Earth’s surface, which the ocean surface.
The average average temperature of the global land surface is about 10 C and global average surface temperature is about 15 C.
Obviously, the ocean surface is warmer than 15 C and causes the higher global average surface temperature which warmer than the average land surface temperature {which can’t cause average temperature as high as 15 C}.
And also global average surface temperature is measured over many decades of time.
So, global climate is related to a constant factor, and that constant is the average temperature of the entire ocean, which is about 3.5 C and has been about 3.5 C for decades, and will continue to be about 3.5 C for many more decades.
And average ocean of 3.5 C is why we in an Ice Age and average ocean temperature of 3.5 C controls average ocean surface temperature.
Or the average ocean surface temperature of 3.5 C is the global average surface temperature. And defines the global climate.
Typical Denialist crap. Walsh (who ever he is) goes round and round claiming that “Climate Change” is a catch all term which is unverifiable description into which any short term weather event can be used to “prove” something. For example, at 12:30 minutes, he points to weather cold extremes experienced in the US during 1994. He deftly ignores the impacts of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo which produced a well known cooling. And, of course, focusing on only one area of the Earth is not the same as a global impact.
Later, after comments on a claim by Mrs. Clinton, he claims that “in most cases the heat will not affect you that quickly or at all even in like 90 degree temperatures if you find a shady spot and have enough water to drink you can lay around outside all day and be perfectly fine actually you’d be quite pleasant…”. This comment represents a complete misunderstanding about the effects of high dew point temperatures on the human body, which cools by evaporation. If the dew point is high enough, (around ~35C), you can still experience hypothermia while sitting in the shade with a fan blowing on you because your body can not cool down. And high temperatures at night and over several days will cause other health problems as well, short of death.
That’s not to say that I agree with those politicians and media types who hype the situation, as Ms. Clinton and John Kerry appear to have done. The fact is that Climate is defined by scientists as the statistics of weather and it’s easy to cherry pick some subset of that data of bolster one’s point of view, be one either “Climate Cultist” or Denialist. It’s tough to explain the situation to the average person, who may not understand anything about the science, so attempts to do so require some simplifications. I’ve just finished reading Dr. Steve Koonin’s recent book (and some of his recent public presentations) and it’s full of errors which support his denialist stance. Both sides are guilty of abusing the scientific knowledge in order to “win” the debate.
Which climate predictions have come true? Wasn’t too late to do anything by 2016? Is the highway outside of James Hansen’s office underwater. Are polar bears extinct. Is more extreme weather really happening?
Hunter wrote:
The measurements of global temperature (not local) show a continuing increase. The warming is strongest over the Arctic, where the loss of sea-ice at the end of the melt season continues to exhibit minimums below the long term average. Data from the oceans (which do not exhibit urban “heat island” effects) continue to exhibit increasing temperatures.
But, of course, there are other influences on the climate besides increasing CO2, such as the increases in sulfate aerosols from burning more coal in China and India plus the emissions from ships used to move all that cargo from those nations to the wealthier nations of Europe and NA. That the picture is still cloudy does not disprove the basic science.
E. Swanson says:
Which climate predictions have come true?
The warming is strongest over the Arctic, where the loss of sea-ice at the end of the melt season continues to exhibit minimums below the long term average.
—————————–
It really is deceptive in climate to call anything a long term average except maybe its been warming for 300 years.
Sea ice was comparatively low in the4 1930’s on the basis of travel through the northern passages is concerned. So thats remains well within normal range within our ‘short term’ monitoring and the advances in monitoring of the same.
One could then surmise warming in the arctic in the 1930’s was also likely far greater than seen in the temperature record of the early 20th century as well.
One should not try to make to much of little blips in temperature changes and go off on some tantrum about declaring war on it.
INVESTS: Biden Invests $3 billion in Californias High Speed Rail.
https://freebeacon.com/california/biden-invests-3-billion-in-californias-high-speed-rail/
From https://instapundit.com/
“The money will help buy six electric trains and bankroll construction and design of a train station and other facilities and projects along a 171-mile stretch of rail line in Californias central valleyfar from either Los Angeles or San Francisco. So far this year the California bullet train project has also received nearly $230 million in U.S. taxpayer money through the 2021 federal infrastructure bill.
Bidens fresh money infusion comes as the high speed rail project already has a projected $100 billion deficit after spending more than $11 billion”
…
–Somebodys getting the money but, judging by the zero miles of track laid, it sure isnt people with any genuine interest in building railroads. —
Reminds me of NASA crew mission to Mars. NASA been fiddling with it for decades, but NASA’s crewed Mars program might be done, and might be a lot cheaper.
Of course, I have crazy ideas, related to it, also.
1000 km of floating breakwater. And put a under water “train” tunnel
under it or near it {hyperloop}.
2 billion dollar for 1000 km of breakwater crossing the state and about 8 billion for tunnel under water. And another 10 billion for fiddling bits, Space ports, surfing areas, connecting routes, and many ocean settlements, plus water waste treatment, and power plants.
Gordon:
“Although the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is based on real data produced by Tyndall, the data was gathered in a specific temperature range from about 500C to 1500C. That has not stopped modern scientists from applying it incorrectly to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures to solar temperatures.”
Thank you, Gordon!
Check it here: https://imgur.com/a/vgtdJx6
Let me fix that for you …
Although the Stefan-Boltzmann equation WAS ORIGINALLY based on real data produced by Tyndall IN THE 1800’s, science has, in fact, progresses in the past 150 year. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation has been show to work excellently for materials other than platinum, and for temperatures below 500 C and above 1500 C.
“The Stefan-Boltzmann equation has been show to work excellently for materials other than platinum, and for temperatures below 500 C and above 1500 C.”
–
Tim, please, how much below 500 C. It is very important!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Even an inexpensive IR thermometer can accurately read to temps as low as -25C.
S/B Law works. That’s why it is a LAW.
IR thermometers are not based on S-B, they are calibrated in a lab from real temperature siurces and the radiation give off at those temperatures. That data is then stored in the memory of the meter so radiation detected by the meter can be compared to those values.
“Tim, please, how much below 500 C. ”
Well, the law as been applied to CMBR at 2.7 K. So at least that low.
Why is the law named after two scientists?
a) the dog ate my homework
b) theoretical and experimental evidence
c) Gordon never took physics
d) Astronomers use it to guess the temperatures of the surface of stars
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is not limited to a specific temperature range. The equation is applicable across a broad range of temperatures, from extremely low temperatures in space to the high temperatures found in stars, and is a fundamental principle based on thermodynamics and electromagnetic radiation, making it universally valid.
And if you dive into the nitty-gritty, integrating Planck’s distribution law over all wavelengths gets you the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which says that the total energy density, as a function of temperature T, is proportional to T^4.
If you’re up for some reading, check out “Planck – The Theory of Radiation” (Translated by M. Masius), published in 1914.
You get this one right, Ark. Very good.
There’s nothing wrong with the S/B Law. It’s just that some people don’t understand it.
Thank you, Arkady Ivanovich.
“The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is not limited to a specific temperature range. The equation is applicable across a broad range of temperatures, from extremely low temperatures in space to the high temperatures found in stars, and is a fundamental principle based on thermodynamics and electromagnetic radiation, making it universally valid.
And if you dive into the nitty-gritty, integrating Plancks distribution law over all wavelengths gets you the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which says that the total energy density, as a function of temperature T, is proportional to T^4.”
–
What you say is complitelly right.
Now, please, read again what Gordon said.
–
“Gordon:
Although the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is based on real data produced by Tyndall, the data was gathered in a specific temperature range from about 500C to 1500C. That has not stopped modern scientists from applying it incorrectly to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures to solar temperatures.
–
Thank you again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Now, please, read again what Gordon said.”
Why? He was wrong before, and that has not changed. Modern scientist apply it CORRECTLY to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures (and lower) to solar temperatures (and higher).
Tim,
You wrote –
“Modern scientist apply it CORRECTLY to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures (and lower) to solar temperatures (and higher).”
Well, no. You can’t tell the temperature of an object by the flux (expressed in W/m2) falling on it. To think so is ignoring reality.
For example, what is the temperature of an object exposed to 300 W/m2? -1 C? 100 C? Even 1000 C (think about it). You cannot say, can you! Not without exposing yourself as ignorant of basic physics!
Buy, build, or borrow a Leslie’s cube. Equip yourself with a Moll thermopile, microvoltmeter, and a few other bits and pieces. You will find very quickly that a certain temperature may have create any radiative flux up to the maximum possible for that temperature.
You don’t want to accept that you have been gulled, fine. Reality doesnt care what you think.
“You cant tell the temperature of an object by the flux (expressed in W/m2) falling on it.”
I said scientists apply it CORRECTLY. You tell the temperature of an object by the flux (expressed in W/m2) EMITTED BY it. This is how Tyndall correctly did it years ago with hot platinum. This how scientists correctly do it now for other materials and other temperature ranges.
“For example, what is the temperature of an object exposed to 300 W/m2? -1 C?”
To quote the classic movie “My Cousin Vinnie”, that’s a bullsh*t question. You determine the temperature by the radiation EMITTED (along with info about emissivity, geometry, etc). An object could be EXPOSED to very little radiation but be very hot (eg the sun). An object could be EXPOSED to a lit of thermal radiation an be cold (eg a block of ice in a furnace before it melts).
Now, there can be a connection between (radiation in) and (radiation out). In a steady-state situation with no conduction or convection (or internal sources), then (and only then) can you assume (radiation in) = (radiation out) and use (radiation in) to determine temperature.
Tim,
Some silly people believe that the Earth “should” really have a temperature of 255 K. They claim that they can calculate this by using the amount of radiation from the Sun which falls upon the Earth.
You seem to be one of them to a degree.
You wrote –
“Now, there can be a connection between (radiation in) and (radiation out). In a steady-state situation with no conduction or convection (or internal sources), then (and only then) can you assume (radiation in) = (radiation out) and use (radiation in) to determine temperature..
Fantasy, Tim, if you are talking about the Earth.
As Feynman wrote, talking about the conservation of energy –
“First, when we are calculating the energy, sometimes some of it leaves the system and goes away, or sometimes some comes in. In order to verify the conservation of energy, we must be careful that we have not put any in or taken any out.”
Quite obviously, energy enters and leaves the Earth system, whether you accept it or not.
As to your other silliness about “. . . use (radiation in) to determine temperature.”, that’s just complete nonsense. I doubt that you can even dream up a fantasy scenario to support the SkyDragon cult conviction that they can calculate a “should be” temperature for the Earth illuminated by the Sun!
Even you agree that this is impossible in reality!
tim f…”Now, please, read again what Gordon said.
Why? He was wrong before, and that has not changed. Modern scientist apply it CORRECTLY to temperatures ranging from terrestrial temperatures (and lower) to solar temperatures (and higher)”.
***
According to modern scientists, based on the S-B equation, ice emits 315 watts/m^2 of energy. Yet, even a 100 watts light bulb, rated at 100 watts of energy, is too hot to touch without burning one’s fingers.
In fact, the element in a tungsten light bulbs has a temperature of about 3000C. That’s why you can see the emission of visible light which is similar to solar light. Modern scientists tell us, again based on the S-B fantasy that ice, at 3000C less than the tungsten filament can radiate more energy than that tungsten filament at 3000C. There is no visible light emitted by ice, and does not glow in the dark, not will it light up a room.
A few more figures based on S-B….
-68.2C -> 100 watts/m^2
0C -> 315.66 watts/m^2 (equivalent to about 1/2 HP)
3000C -> 6,508,408 watts/m^2 (tungsten filament)
5000C -> 43,842,132 W/m^2 – surface of Sun.
The same scientists tell us the emitting surface of the Sun is at about 5000C, based on S-B. Yet the core temperature of the Sun is estimated to be around 1 million C. No explanation how it cooled between core and surface through hot plasma.
Tim is willing to bow to authority figures, as well as Barry, I am not.
Gordon says: “According to modern scientists, based on the –B equation, ice emits 315 watts/m^2 of energy. Yet, even a 100 watts light bulb, rated at 100 watts of energy, is too hot to touch without burning one’s fingers.”
Gordon makes the same mistakes as the GHE cult — “…315 watts/m^2 of energy.” — “…100 watts of energy…”
Flux, W/m^2, is NOT energy! Flux is the “rate of energy flow through an area”. Saying flux is energy is like saying 40 mph is a distance.
Skeptics need to learn the science, otherwise they’re just babbling in their own confusion.
Gordon,
The 100 watt incandescent bulb pushes that 100 watts through a filament of a surface area of less than 0.0003 square metres. If that same 100 Watts was distributed over a metre square surface, the temperature would indeed be -68C (in deep space).
(100 watts going through a 0.5 square metre blackbody surface yields a temp of -30C. Through 0.1 square metre the temperature shoots up to 91 C. A blackbody filament with surface area 0.0003 square metres, the resulting temperature is 1284 C)
You erred here in forgetting to factor the radiating area per wattage received.
The S-B law is not a fantasy. You just don’t have the insight to grasp it.
Gordon,
First, I agree with Clint here – your uses of “energy” is quite incorrect here. You confuse energy (in Joules) with power (in watts = J/s).
Beyond, that, you seem to confuse watts and watts per square meter. Modern scientists tell us, again based on the S-B f̶a̶n̶t̶a̶s̶y̶ Law that ice, at 3000C less than the tungsten filament can radiate more energy than that tungsten filament at 3000C. Yep! A whole square meter of ice radiates 315 W. And 0.000048 square meters of tungsten can also radiate 315 W. So as long as the ice has at least 21,000x more surface area, it will emit more total flux.
“No explanation how it cooled between core and surface through hot plasma.”
Even high school astronomy students could explain this to you. Any time you put a heat source (like the core) inside layers of insulation (like the radiative and convective zones) the temperature at the outside of the insulation will be lower than at the inside of the insulation.
You are not even trying if you can’t find this answer on the internet or work it out on your own.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Any time you put a heat source (like the core) inside layers of insulation (like the radiative and convective zones) the temperature at the outside of the insulation will be lower than at the inside of the insulation.”
True. Due to something like this – “Specifically, an inverse square law says that intensity equals the inverse of the square of the distance from the source.”
People like Willis Eschenbach reject this law, and dream up nonsensical ideas like “The Steel Greenhouse”.
So do SkyDragon cultists, who seem to think that a colder atmosphere, less dense than the surface, and emitting less intense radiation due to the inverse square law, will make the surface hotter! As Mike Flynn pointed out to Willis, surrounding a sphere of any temperature with a steel shell (with a temperature of absolute zero), won’t make the sphere hotter!
That’s about as silly as putting a bowl of hot soup in a freezer at -40 C, and hoping the reflected radiation from the freezer walls will make your soup hotter! Being a legend in your own lunchbox doesn’t make reality go away.
“Due to something like this …”
No. Due simply to insulation. Like around your house. No ‘inverse square’ needed.
“Thats about as silly as putting a bowl of hot soup …”
That comparison shows you have no idea about the scenario or the physics involved.
Well G&T absolutely eviscerated the insulation argument to the point that no response was received on that topic by the scientists who claim to know how the GHE works.
If you have a different reference Tim please post it rather than parroting the favorite line of the non-science community.
“Well G&T absolutely eviscerated the insulation argument…”
Did they? How about a quote?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
There’s the paper. Let’s see this eviscerating argument against insulation.
barry you provided it. the entire paper runs calculations on the conductivity of the atmosphere and no one has pointed out any error other than like a child-like foot stomping. where is the paper that refutes G&T calcutions? then we can look at where G&T went wrong as you seem to be claiming. and of course if you disagree with the calculations you can do that too.
No response to G and T?
False!
There have been many, such as
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/burrow-project-gerlich-and-t-have.html?m=1
Bill,
“G&T absolutely eviscerated the insulation argument”
they spend a third of the paper talking about real glasshouses, and I can find nowhere where they focus on the “insulation argument” and present a cogent rebuttal.
They do list other explanations of the GHE, but not any described as the “insulation” argument.
That’s why I’m asking you for a quote, or even a page number where they tackle it.
Because I don’t think they tackle it at all, and instead take on other descriptions/mechanisms of the GHE.
Bill, you said that no one picked up on the topic of the “insulation argument.” I can’t find that topic within the G&T paper (still hoping for a pointer from you), but there have been a number of rebuttals to their paper.
Eg
https://sci-hub.se/10.1142/s021797921005555x
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324
Sure thing Barry. Insulation is only used in 2 instances in the document. But the topic of insulation is about conduction not radiation.
So I would suggest searching on ”conducti” without a space at the end so as to cover both conduction and conductivity. Then read those parts and the supporting papers. As G&T note in their abstract that ”thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero” because its not zero.
Nate says:
”No response to G and T?
False!”
Nate I didn’t say there was no response to G&T I said ”where is the paper that refutes G&T calcutions?”
I suppose you are an early version AI robot and didn’t pick up on the typo.
Hey Bill, I’ll remind you of what you said:
“Well G&T absolutely eviscerated the insulation argument to the point that no response was received on that topic by the scientists who claim to know how the GHE works.”
So I asked where “that topic” had been covered in the paper.
It isn’t – there are 2 sentences containing the word “super-insulation” as you saw when you checked just now.
As conduction has nothing to do with the radiative GHE theory, G&T have not covered, much less eviscerated “the insulation argument.” The fact that they devote so much of the paper to atmospheric conduction, when this accounts for a tiny proportion of total heat flow (and that they spend 18 pages describing how glass greenhouses work), is indicative of their misunderstanding of the GHE.
Barry G&T conductivity of the atmosphere is word that covers all means of heat transfer. The stated that the atmosphere does not transfer heat to the surface and then spent most of the paper talking about conduction and convection changes being set to zero in the models. . .which modelers have acknowledged they do because if they didn’t then that would be negative feedback as Roy found in his analysis.
“G&T conductivity of the atmosphere is word that covers all means of heat transfer.”
No Bill. They are talking about conduction and supplying equations specifically for conduction.
They spend very little time talking about radiative transfer in the atmosphere – and that is the basis of the GHE.
And they get a lot of things just plain wrong, like misattributing quotes, completely misinterpreting quotes, and contradicting their sources.
You should read the rebuttal papers you implied did not exist, linked upthread. And there are a couple of detailed blog rebuttals from physicists, if you’re interested.
“Nate I didnt say there was no response to G&T”
FALSE:
” no response was received on that topic by the scientists who claim to know how the GHE works.”
Bill, you are shameless.
And my link above links to detailed responses to it.
“Barry G&T conductivity of the atmosphere is word that covers all means of heat transfer.”
No it isn’t. And Barry is correct.
“I said ‘where is the paper that refutes G&T calcutions?'”
Here is an article that eviscerates G&T’s arguments on 2LOT violations:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/second-law-and-its-criminal-misuse-as.html
Eli says:
”Terry, you are missing the point, that conduction contributes essentially NOTHING to heat conduction in the atmosphere, which is dominated by convection, evaporation and condensation of water and radiation.”
that is a totally ignorant statement that has been repeated in here. Its ridiculous. without conduction there would be zero convection. Its everything to convection. Its just an academic exercise to try and separate them which is something you can’t do in the real world.
Like trying to make the moon move in two directions at once with an argument that says because you can break down a motion into two motions (like two vector forces acting on an object) that the moon will go in two directions. There might not be a better example in the world of ignorantly or diabolically elevating form over substance by a criminal over a victim. And we have some of those people in here.
But in the financial world they throw the criminals in jail and often the victim as well if he had the responsibility to prevent the crime.
“which is dominated by convection, evaporation and condensation of water and radiation.
He is correct. All those are much much greater contributors than conduction.
And back to the original point, he eviscerated the 2LOt argument in G&T.
Oh well!
He did that with what? A speculation about what would happen in a world without an atmosphere? Educate me here. Don’t hold back.
Read it. Than ask an informed question.
The surface conducts heat to the atmosphere. This occurs at the surface.
For the other 99.9% of the atmosphere, the vast majority of heat transport is done by other processes. Gases are very poor conductors.
Everybody has been saying for years its surface temperature we need to worry about.
“For the other 99.9% of the atmosphere”
Which controls the surface’s ability to cool.
This may help
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1575174
Sure Nate but convection occurs via the difference in temperature above as well and you are claiming that more CO2 up there is going to restrict cooling rather than enhance cooling up there as we know is what GHG do. They cool the upper atmosphere destabilizing it and convection occurs. And you are arguing that CO2 stablizes the upper atmosphere by preventing it from cooling.
At which level did CO2 reverse its effect? This like the boulder being lifted off the earths surface is going to transfer energy from its rotation around the COM of the earth to around its own COM. For what reason? You say its a must! And you fail to demonstrate why its a must. you advance the same logic here.
“Sure Nate”
Thanks.
The rest is another topic.
clint…Flux, W/m^2, is NOT energy! Flux is the rate of energy flow through an area. Saying flux is energy is like saying 40 mph is a distance”.
***
Clint continues to sit on a branch in a tree while he saws of the portion between him and the trunk.
40 mph describes a distance, the distance you will cover in an hour if you proceed at a certain rate of speed. You fail to grasp the import of an instantaneous rate of change. Velocity, a vector, describes an instantaneous rate of change whereas 40 mph, speed, is a scalar quantity describing a distance covered in an hour.
So, everyone is agreed that Gordon is wrong. We can now move on.
barry,
“So, everyone is agreed that Gordon is wrong. We can now move on.”
What statement is demonstrably wrong, and how many people agreed with your opinion?
You really are a presumption knucklehead, aren’t you? Maybe you looked in the mirror and agreed with yourself. That’s not “everyone”, you know.
Try again.
barry,
I apologise – I called you a presumption knucklehead.
I meant to write presumptuous knucklehead.
So sue me.
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/simply-science/canadas-record-breaking-wildfires-2023-fiery-wake-call/25303
Over 45 million acres (18.4 million hectares) have burned across Canada as of November 2023, or about 5% of the country’s forests. The fires released an estimated 400 million metric tons of CO2 into the air, nearly triple the previous record set in 2014.
Canada’s boreal forest has long served as a carbon sink – absorbing and storing carbon from the atmosphere – but this year it became a source of carbon, releasing more than it stores.
2014??? The record for forest fires here in British Columbia was set back in 1939. There are no real forests elsewhere in Canada. At least, that’s what we claim here in BC, where Canada officially exists between the Pacific Coast and the Rocky Mountains.
The warming spike will be short lived
https://i.postimg.cc/QdjHMqcL/nino34-rescaling-GEM5-NEMO.png
Interesting to see you are now relying on GCMs to forecast the future. Did you realize you were posting the forecast from a climate model?
Are you aware that global temps tend to lag el Nino spikes by 3 to 5 months?
It sure seems unlikely to me that the global temps of the last 3 months could be exceeded, but not because of el Nino. As el Nino has continued to increase over the last few months, and if things went as usual, the global temp would follow that rise up to about February.
But it seem unlikely to me that el Nino is responsible for the lion’s share of the recent temp spikes.
barry,
As Yogi Berra supposedly said “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
An understatement. Predicting the future is not possible.
Wriggling around, using many words to say nothing, doesnt make you appear any more intelligent than you are.
Try harder.
barry is talking out of his ass
Which of my comments did you disagree with?
That the forecasts you showed are from Global Circulation Models?
That global temperature lags el Nino by a few months?
Do tell.
barry,
Eben wrote –
“barry is talking out of his ass”
If you disagree, just say so, and support your disagreement with facts.
I agree with Eben, in case you are interested.
Not even slightly.
“But it seem[s] unlikely to me that el Nino is responsible for the lion’s share of the recent temp spikes.
Very unlikely. HTE was the culprit.
Are you sure enough about this that you can predict when global temperature will drop back down?
It seems to me that HTE is a long-term effect, and this high temp anomaly should remain for many months if not a couple of years.
I predict, instead, that the temperatures will drop back down to average following the course of the el Nino.
We’ll see.
barry, I would enjoy educating you on what I know about the HTE, and how I was able to accurately predict UAH results. But, you have no interest in reality. Your only interest is in perverting reality.
I’m enjoying your meltdown, however. Maybe you and Norman could start a therapy group….
So, you won’t make a prediction on when the HTE effect will subside. And thus we won’t be able to gauge whether you had a sound grasp of the situation.
Global temps will drop markedly a few months after el Nino peaks. HTE will not keep them elevated above normal, like they have been the last 3 months, because HTE is not responsible for these large anomalies. That’s my prediction.
Your problem, as usual, is you don’t understand the science. The HTE is already over. The residual warm air is NOT the actual effect, it is the “left overs”. But the El Niño is still active.
When the EN is also over, temps will fall even more.
Sol, are you saying that the HTE had an effect on global temperatures only for the last three months, and now that is over?
Could you be a little clearer? Because there is not even correlation for this causation.
barry, barry, quite contrary.
You have NO interest in science. Your interest is in avoiding science. Once I was trying to explain something to someone in your cult. They did not seem able to understand. So, I tried a different method of explaining. Then, they claimed I wasn’t being consistent!
You’ve avoided the reality that fluxes cannot simply add. When you weren’t using “view factors”, you were calling me a “lying dog”.
I no longer waste my time with such immaturity.
I am not sure Clint is right on this. The mechanism from warming from HTE that I am seeing is a depletion of ozone which would be an ongoing process of aerosols continuing to interact with ozone bringing it to low levels allowing more sunlight to actually reach the surface.
So yes HTE isn’t adding more aerosols but apparently the chemical processes are not a one off event and a single aerosol molecule can destroy multiple ozone molecules in a cyclical chemical process.
thus it is difficult to say when the production of ozone will override the destruction of ozone since no accurate figures are available about the species of chemical in the stratosphere and how that might be changing over time other than noting that the ozone hole has gotten larger and we don’t have a good measure of that total effect except on a year over year scale. Or at least one I that is readily available to the public and easy to find on the NASA Ozone Watch page.
Wild Bill, what exactly are you disagreeing with? The HTE caused a spike in temperatures. Are you denying that?
The real Wild Bill shot one of his own deputies by accident. Even though Wild Bill was fantastic with his shooter, he should have been more careful.
Bill,
There was a theorised warming from water vapour in the stratosphere, which has increased by about 10-15% from the HTE. However, as there is so little water vapour in the stratosphere in the first place (less than 10 parts per million), this warming effect was assumed to be negligible, a few hundredths of a degree, perhaps.
Of course, this theory is not going to be of interest to people who deny the GHE.
Depending on latitude, stratospheric ozone has either increased or depleted.
There is a time series tool here that can give you data for a specified lat/lon column.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/neubrew/SatO3DataTimeSeries.jsp
Stratospheric ozone has overall depleted by a couple of percent. It’s normally 0.006% of the total of stratospheric gases at the highest concentrations at around 40 km altitude.
I don’t see any correlation between stratospheric ozone changes and global surface temperature through 2022. As the mechanism is simply allowing more/less solar radiation through the atmosphere, one would expect to see a fairly immediate response.
I can think of no reason why the effects of HTE should suddenly manifest in Sep/Oct/Nov of 2023, as Clint seems to be suggesting. Absent any other correlation previously, something else is causing the recent high spikes in global temperature (and no, not CO2), above and beyond the effects of el Nino.
Well I would conclude that HTE caused a spike in temperatures if I abandoned all my skepticism and concluded not on the evidence but on the fact I can’t think of anything else it could be . . .like our CAWG mavens do daily.
The nauseating thing about ‘skeptics’ falsely saying that their opponents credit the recent spikes in global temp to CO2 is not that they are just lying, it’s the intellectual laziness. To think I continue to believe that such minds are capable of a reasonable discussion, against all evidence.
It’s not actually the “mavens” here who are fixated on AGW, it is the ‘skeptics’, who have to challenge it even when it is not being talked about, and even when someone has just said it’s not about CO2.
That kind of obsession is tedious.
barry says:
Of course, this theory is not going to be of interest to people who deny the GHE.
————————-
Well there is an infinite difference between denying the GHE/cause of GHE; and being skeptical of the GHE/cause of GHE. One term hardly encompasses much of anybody as most people are not completely devoid of skepticism.
barry says:
Depending on latitude, stratospheric ozone has either increased or depleted.
There is a time series tool here that can give you data for a specified lat/lon column.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/neubrew/SatO3DataTimeSeries.jsp
———————
Yes I have seen differences in the images of ozone around the ozone hole. But since the UN Environmental program has stated that the Montreal Protocol has saved us from a half degree of warming, I was curious what they based that calculation on.
I am not much interesting in grinding out the data grid cell by grid cell for the globe. Maybe we could convince Woodfortrees to give us access to trends in that dataset.
What we do know is UV is destructive of ozone as well so the ozone hold always develops in the fall as more UV falls on the southern hemisphere but its not clear why it peaks in September/October.
Stratospheric ozone has overall depleted by a couple of percent. Its normally 0.006% of the total of stratospheric gases at the highest concentrations at around 40 km altitude.
I dont see any correlation between stratospheric ozone changes and global surface temperature through 2022. As the mechanism is simply allowing more/less solar radiation through the atmosphere, one would expect to see a fairly immediate response.
I can think of no reason why the effects of HTE should suddenly manifest in Sep/Oct/Nov of 2023, as Clint seems to be suggesting. Absent any other correlation previously, something else is causing the recent high spikes in global temperature (and no, not CO2), above and beyond the effects of el Nino.
barry misrepresents me: “I can think of no reason why the effects of HTE should suddenly manifest in Sep/Oct/Nov of 2023, as Clint seems to be suggesting.”
Wild Bill can’t wait to parrot barry: “I can think of no reason why the effects of HTE should suddenly manifest in Sep/Oct/Nov of 2023, as Clint seems to be suggesting.”
Wild Bill, if you keep shooting your toes off, you’re not going to have any left.
That is the impression you have been giving, Clint.
You’ve declined the invitation to be less vague, so that’s the impression that will remain.
Sorry barry, but your impressions are your responsibility. Just like your opinions. When they’re wrong, it’s your responsibility to correct them.
You’ll learn all this when you grow up.
I can’t read your mind, Clint. The only person I am going to learn about your views from is you, or some source you nominate that expresses what you think.
As you have have offered nothing from either, the responsibility to do something about the deficit certainly lies with you.
But I think you don’t have a theory beyond HTE = warming, and just enjoy the attention. You certainly don’t have a theory that you would risk a prediction with, such as when the alleged HTE effect is at its strongest, when it will dissipate, etc.
One of your problems barry is you favor your opinions over facts. I have explained the HTE several times, here. It’s public. Go find it.
But, you won’t because you’re afraid of reality. And I bring reality.
Boo!
“Wild Bill, what exactly are you disagreeing with? The HTE caused a spike in temperatures. Are you denying that?”
No, the Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce thing is definitely the cause of the spike, based on Clint’s correlation = causation science.
Why does Clint keeps insisting that he knows things that nobody has yet scientifically determined?
Nope I am just still trying to figure out why we measure ozone by a once a year regional effect instead of measuring global mean units of ozone.
barry…as Clint keeps pointing out, Hunga Tonga explains the rest. There is no way scientifically that trace gases in the atmosphere have that ability, especially over the short term of a couple of months.
I disagree about HTE, and no one here is claiming CO2 caused the recent months high temp anomalies. So you can drop that strawman on the bonfire, thanks.
Barry apparently does have a skeptical streak. . .at least when his Daddy has been silent on the matter.
How about saying something of substance instead of the ill-aimed ad hom, Bill?
IOW WTF are you blathering about?
There is no ad hom there Barry.
Its a compliment.
The only thing limiting the compliment was I have seen no evidence of you questioning those on your side. Not so for me.
You are entitled to your beliefs.
I am just skeptical enough to demand real evidence from anybody. At one time or the other I have argued with all the frequent posters here. Some times we settle those arguments, sometimes those who make statements that I question don’t have evidence either. If I were to characterize my stance it would most closely match Judith Curry as she sees the uncertainty I see.
A back-handed compliment is no compliment at all, Bill. You said I parrot what I’m told.
The difference between you and me is that I’m specific and you’re general and hand-wavy, and I provide substantiation for my views and you don’t.
I’m also conversant with each side of the ‘debate’ on a range of sub-topics that I’ve informed myself about a skeptical mind since 2007.
No one on this board ever gets close to correctly enunciating what I think, and this failure happens most days that I’m here. I guess it’s easier for them to deal with a caricature in their minds than have a real conversation.
Well if you can’t accept a compliment what do I care?
At least you’re original, except for the mantras you’ve learned to chant.
Feel complimented?
Yes I do. I learned a long time ago that repetition is the only way other than valuables to move the political needle.
Well the last UAH update was 3 3/4 months since the El Nino hit its peak in since Nino 3.4 is thought of as representing the central and eastern equatorial mean temperatures according to Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1571589
That peak occurred in August when Nino 1+2 peaked at +3.4C degrees.
We will have to see if that holds up. It does seem very likely that the current global temperatures are being affected by the el nino plus something else that may well be after effects of HTE on stratospheric ozone. And of course perhaps a maximum being approached in the solar cycle as well for a triple whammy.
And of course if that’s the case it might take the better part of a decade for that cure itself.
Bottom line is, IMO, I wouldn’t be so certain of any explanation at this point.
Even worse are individuals asserting that the global temperature spike was anticipated. If I were to ask about the basis for this expectation, the likely response might involve reference to Earth’s energy imbalance.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-3825941
Walter,
Of course, the “Earth energy imbalance” crowd are unable to explain how the surface managed to become cooler from its initial molten state, in terms of “energy imbalance”.
If the Earth has an “energy imbalance”, their “conservation of energy” and “energy in = energy out” handwaving seems to be at odds with it.
The GHE knuckleheads are all over the place. Try and get them to state what they believe in – in some testable fashion.
Fat chance!
yep with ozone and 6c of uv light it blocks on average goes monster on us during solar maximums when the sun emits a lot more uv.
i once plotted the acceleration of warming against the solar cycles of the modern solar grand maximum for an almost perfect fit.
with hte, the recent ozone depletion coming roughly 2 years after the explosion as with pinatubo, solar maximum all lining up, is having an effect. also isn’t true that uah measures oxygen species and gets a cold stratosphere overlap in their data? i think i just overheard that so don’t take that last part to the bank. but is there another species in the stratosphere that would cause cooling there if depleted?
“If the Earth has an energy imbalance, their conservation of energy and energy in = energy out handwaving seems to be at odds with it.”
Strawman, as usual.
Where did anyone claim that the Earth has always had energy balance?
The observations right now are showing the Earth is out of balance. it is gaining energy, and thus warming.
When the Earth was cooling, it was obviously losing energy.
Nate says:
”The observations right now are showing the Earth is out of balance. it is gaining energy, and thus warming.”
Yeah well Nate believes that we all know that beyond a doubt.
But for some reason Nate can never explain exactly how he came to believe that. . .in terms of physics.
the only thing proven so far is that Nate can’t bring forth the physics support for his belief system to educate us simple and deplorable folks. . .despite his claims of being a physics teacher.
when asked his alter ego Willard will claim we aren’t paying for it and are just looking for a free sammich.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Where did anyone claim that the Earth has always had energy balance?”
Where did anyone claim it didnt?
Skydragon cultists never say anything definite, so they can whine about no5 having said it!
Go on Nate, has the Earth cooled since the surface was molten, or not? If you claim the surface was never molten, provide some evidence.
You really are a knucklehead?
Here’s the knucklehead belief – the Earth is getting warmer because it is surrounded with a colder layer of gas!
Now watch Nate claim he is not a knucklehead, and really doesn’t believe in anything at all!
He’s one of the peabrained knuckleheads.
Mr Hogle writes at Watts’ WUWT blog:
” The Arctic isnt reporting any unusually warm temperatures relative to the 2015 baseline… ”
That’s evident, isn’t it?
Let us look at a comparison: surface vs. lower troposphere (LT) for the satellite era:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GQJXz8Bvuf87ZIf1ssLTACNwMe4pcJKS/view
What else could we expect, when both surface and LT had in 2016 their highest temperature anomalies wrt 1991-2020, due to the 3rd highest El Nino after 1982/83 and 1997/98 (see MEI V2)?
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
“But for some reason Nate can never explain exactly how he came to believe that. . .in terms of physics.”
Oh enough with the whining that nobody has spoon-fed the science to you!
You have had it explained here many times. You have had papers shown to you.
You dont understand them. You could look up papers on your own. But you don’t bother.
And thus you remain ignorant.. That is totally your choice!
Nate,
You wrote
Where did anyone claim that the Earth has always had energy balance?
Where did anyone claim it didnt?
Skydragon cultists never say anything definite, so they can whine about no5 having said it!
Go on Nate, has the Earth cooled since the surface was molten, or not? If you claim the surface was never molten, provide some evidence.
You really are a knucklehead!
Nate,
You wrote
“Where did anyone claim that the Earth has always had energy balance?”
Where did anyone claim it didnt?
Skydragon cultists never say anything definite, so they can whine about not having said it!
Go on Nate, has the Earth cooled since the surface was molten, or not? If you claim the surface was never molten, provide some evidence.
You really are a knucklehead!
Nate says:
”Oh enough with the whining that nobody has spoon-fed the science to you!”
and nate still can’t come up with the one critical paper covering the experiment that proves the back radiation heating model that without all the rest of the science collapses like a house of cards when you pull the key card out.
still no paper.