Home/Blog2023 Was the Warmest Year In the 45-Year Satellite Record
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2023 was +0.83 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the November, 2023 anomaly of +0.91 deg. C.
The 2023 annual average global LT anomaly was +0.51 deg. C above the 1991-2020 mean, easily making 2023 the warmest of the 45-year satellite record. The next-warmest year was +0.39 deg. C in 2016. The following plot shows all 45 years ranked from the warmest to coolest.
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).
It might be partly coincidence, but the +0.51 deg. C number for 2023 from satellites is the same as the surface air temperature estimate from the NOAA/NCEP/NCAR Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS). Note that the CDAS estimate is only partly based upon actual surface air temperature observations… it represents a physically consistent model-based estimate using a wide variety of data sources (surface observations, commercial aircraft, weather balloons, satellites, etc.). [UPDATE: it appears the CDAS anomalies are not relative to the 1991-2020 base period… I recomputed them, and the CDAS anomaly appears to be +0.45 deg. C, not +0.51 deg. C]:
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 24 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 | +0.02 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.49 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.16 | +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 | +0.02 | +0.60 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.07 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.47 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.85 | +0.56 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.32 | +0.25 | -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 | +0.44 | +0.21 | +0.05 | +0.17 | +0.94 | +0.05 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.50 | +0.52 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.02 | -0.34 | -0.20 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.13 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.09 | +0.17 | +0.00 | -0.10 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.17 | -0.13 | -1.43 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.26 | -0.03 | -0.37 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.40 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.07 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.88 | +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 | +0.63 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.91 | +1.01 | +0.82 | +1.03 | +0.65 | +1.16 | +0.42 |
| 2023 | Dec | +0.83 | +0.93 | +0.73 | +1.08 | +1.26 | +0.26 | +0.85 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for December, 2023, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days:
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
As our resident “expert” Clint has officially declared the “HTE” over, this anomaly clearly indicates where we currently stand in a less-than-strongest El Nino. It also indicates that the total effect of his “HTE” was at most +0.1.
Sorry Ant, but the HTE varied. At a peak, it was probably about +0.6C, and at a valley, about 0.0C.
Please share your calculation/reasoning for that figure.
Also share when these peaks and “valleys” occurred.
Of course you won’t be able to, so will say “you would’t understand” instead. Because of course, only you are permitted to make claims without justification.
Exactly Ant. You’re starting to get it.
You can’t understand because your mind is closed to reality. That’s what cults do to a person.
You actually believe Earth is 33K warmer than it’s supposed to be!
That ain’t science.
All you had to say was “I have no such calculation and pulled that figure out of my ass”.
Instead you pull your usual trick of trying to deflect the argument sideways.
No calculation needed, Ant. It can be easily observed from UAH Global.
But you can’t understand because your mind is closed to reality. That’s what cults do to a person.
It’s amazing how all you cultists have such an anal fetish.
Please explain how you arrive at this “inference.”
In doing so, please account for the fact that UAH monthly anomalies during the 97/98 El Nino were also about 0.9C higher than a year earlier. Did the “HTE” also exist back then?
Ant, you just want to tr0ll here. You have no problem with your “inference” of +0.1C, but you have no ability to go anywhere else. Your mind is closed.
No, I’m looking for answers. Answers you are clearly incapable of supplying.
Fact: The rise in temperatures from pre-eruption to now is pretty normal for a strong El Nino. The only difference is that that rise is being added to a higher baseline.
Are you trying to claim that anomalies would only be +0.3 during this strong El Nino if there were no “HTE”?
“No calculation needed, Ant. It can be easily observed from UAH Global.”
Clint admits that he is looking at the effect: global T rise, and simply correlating to his assumed cause: the HTE, and that is the totality of his evidence.
It is purely correlation = causation.
Weak.
The difference, child Nate, is I described the cause and was able to use it to accurately predict.
THAT is science.
“The difference, child Nate, is I described the cause and was able to use it to accurately predict.”
Nope, you just looked at how much it warmed, then claimed afterwards that you predicted that.
And you speculated on a cause that made little sense and offered no evidence to support it.
THAT is not science.
Wrong again, child Nate.
I was able to predict the large rises because I was monitoring the PV. You weren’t paying attention, as usual. Go back and find my predictions.
You make false accusations, believing you can pervert reality.
THAT is cultism.
Go back, find, and show us your ‘predictions’, so that we can judge if they actually came prior to the outcome.
The circulation pattern of the upper atmosphere is incredibly complex, with the wild meanderings of the jet stream, the PV, and their complex interactions with the troposphere, stratosphere, and water in the stratosphere. Their effect on surface temperatures is quite uncertain.
None of that can be guessed or intuited, as you claim to have done.
It requires sophisticated computer modeling, which you certainly have not done. Nor do you cite other researchers having done that. Even with that capability, predictions beyond a week are incredibly difficult.
So your fantasizing about having predicted any of this is just that, fantasy.
Nate says:
”The circulation pattern of the upper atmosphere is incredibly complex, with the wild meanderings of the jet stream, the PV, and their complex interactions with the troposphere, stratosphere, and water in the stratosphere. Their effect on surface temperatures is quite uncertain.”
But Nate is certain that this complexity stops altogether after a period of time when we can change the word from weather to climate.
Uh huh. . .
Nah, I don’t.
Because, although adding energy to the system definitely results in warming, how that is distributed in the system is harder to predict because of the complexity.
But computer modeling is helpful.
Nate says:
”Nah, I dont.
Because, although adding energy to the system definitely results in warming, how that is distributed in the system is harder to predict because of the complexity.”
Nate backradiation is not an addition of energy to the system.
Willful ignorance.
When are you going to learn about the First Law of Thermodynamics?
the only thing putting energy into the earth system is the sun nate.
Nothing but NET.
“The first law of thermodynamics is often formulated as the sum of contributions to the internal energy (U) from all work (W), done on or by the system, and the amount of heat (Q) supplied or withdrawn from the system in a thermodynamic process.”
Nate says:
The first law of thermodynamics is often formulated as the sum of contributions to the internal energy (U) from all work (W), done on or by the system, and the amount of heat (Q) supplied or withdrawn from the system in a thermodynamic process.
And you feel that description allows you to beg the question as to backradiation providing what? Work? Net energy input?
Where is the evidence of any alleged backradiation contributing to that? Yet without any evidence you just declare: ”Willful ignorance. When are you going to learn about the First Law of Thermodynamics?”
Lets see how willfully ignorant you are in coming up with a source that proves your claim?
“And you feel that description allows you to beg the question as to backradiation providing what? Work? Net energy input?”
Bill, the description makes clear that both the INPUT heat flow and the OUTPUT heat flow matters for the warming of the Earth.
Why play dumb?
You are supposed to know all about this, since we are currently discussing the GHE and how it affects the heat flow OUTPUT from the Earth.
Well obviously if input is greater than output you get warming. But that does nothing at all to prove the input is greater than the output.
The it is at least settled that restricting energy output can cause warming.
yes as long as energy limits have not been met which for a 1360w black body radiator would be any place on the surface of a blackbody object would be 393k.
raising the question as to of what use is a blackbody curve for determining anything in regards to what temperature something is expected to warm to when insolated by a non-blackbody sun onto a non-blackbody object. and you haven’t answered that question nor have you established that a greenhouse effect exists. thats true because a baseline for a greenhouse effect hasn’t been established.
in order to do that properly would require a significant effort probably costing billions if not trillions of dollars.
bottomline is warming is proceeding at a slow pace and we have not ruled out the contribution of natural causes for that.
So going back to the original thing you disputed:
This
“Because, although adding energy to the system definitely results in warming, how that is distributed in the system is harder to predict because of the complexity.”
is valid after all.
“what use is a blackbody curve”
Lots of experiments have tested its validity.
Your claim that it is invalid was unconvincing.
i am sure sb tested it supposedly with a black box as i understand was coated with lamp black.
of interest here would be an experimental test of equilibrium temperatures for non-black bodies exposed to sunlight.
that was the purpose of my post directed to folks like you claiming to know the answer so you can provide evidence.
but you have exposed yourself as a faker with no science support for your beliefs. so just sit back and lets see if anybody else has any science to support your belief which at the moment is looking like a religion.
Nate says:
”The it is at least settled that restricting energy output can cause warming.”
”Can” is the correct word. ”Will” would be incorrect.
but to actually do that one has to fully understand all avenues of energy movement through the atmosphere.
And of course if that had happened we could read about how it was proven that it had happened. . .and you Nate would not be handing out papers that admits to uncertainties while trying to argue that they prove there are no uncertainties.
“but you have exposed yourself as a faker with no science support”
Pfffft, other than ALL the science I have shown to you….
“of interest here would be an experimental test of equilibrium temperatures for non-black bodies exposed to sunlight.”
What do you think is so special about sunlight that the laws of physics don’t apply to it?
‘Non-black bodies’, yes these are called grey bodies, and have emissivities < 1.
And? You think there are no laws of physics that apply to these?
That would be quite ignorant.
The issue with your analysis of the Moon's temperature is that you don't know all the factors very well, such as local albedo, local solar flux, T measurement method and error, with certainty.
You cannot overturn laws of physics with such poorly known parameters in an experiment.
‘Can is the correct word. Will would be incorrect.’
So in your view, a system that has a net heat input, and no work done on it, might gain, or might not gain, internal energy.
1LOT says it is ‘will gain’.
Now of course in the Earth system, some of that will distribute as sensible heat: T gain, and some as latent heat, melt of ice or evaporate water.
Empirically we have seen that the vast majority has gone into T gain of the ocean, which was expected.
Nate says:
” ”but you have exposed yourself as a faker with no science support”
What do you think is so special about sunlight that the laws of physics dont apply to it?
Non-black bodies, yes these are called grey bodies, and have emissivities < 1.
And? You think there are no laws of physics that apply to these?''
———————–
Which laws of physics establishes the expect maximum equilibrium applies to grey bodies Nate. The Stefan Boltzman law only applies to black bodies.
right off the bat you have proven you are a faker.
what happened to you? did somebody grab you out of some homeless shelter and employ you to as a human sandwich board salesman on different blogs?
what you need to do is bone up on why the molecules in the thermosphere can reach temperatures of 2000C and more in thermosphere in violation of what you believe to be laws of physics that you believe would prevent that. and after learning all about that bring forward the science supporting the reason the moon is the temperature it is. I realize this is a blog where people share their opinions on matters but don't falsely flatter yourself that your opinion on this matter has anything even remotely to do with science.
Quick question, Gill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Why do you keep saying that the SB Law has only an emissivity of one?
What does Stefan-Boltzmann law state?
The law states that, ”The total energy emitted/radiated per unit surface area of a blackbody across all wavelengths per unit time is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature. ”
A blackbody has an emissivity factor of 1.0
It’s a simple equation, Gill. Even I can get it.
Perhaps you prefer the detailed explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Detailed_explanation
Hope this helps.
Willard says:
”To find the total power, P P, radiated from an object, multiply the radiant exitance by the objects surface area, A:
P = A ⋅ M = A ε σ T 4 ”
well i can only assume that you know how to solve for T, given that P=342w/m2 and ε=.7
solve first then check the answer below.
answer: its 278.7k and not the 255k that is the base number provided by your daddy that claims a 33k ghe with current temperatures at 288k
> Willard says
Two mistakes in two words, Gill.
Well done!
Yes I posed the wrong question and gave an answer to another question. But I did notice you didn’t solve the problem so I will solve both problems for you.
The answer to the first problem posed above is 304.7K which doesn’t apply to really anything.
The correct problem is solve for T
when:
P=239.5w/m2 (which is the radiation at TOA)
and ε=.7 (which is the emissivity at TOA, the inverse of Albedo)
The answer is the temperature at TOA is 278.7K
Your daddy though pretends ε=1.0 and comes up with 255k when we know that emissivity is not that of a blackbody.
Gill I did not say what you said I said. I quoted thy Wiki. There are citations behind many sentences I quoted.
Now that you know that the SB Law applies to more than blackbodies, do you understand a little better what Norman and Nate are trying to tell you?
Correct Willard thus by the SB Law via your interpretation the actual GHE is only 9.3k
And what would be my interpretation, Gill?
I thought you were trying to guesstimate the temperature of the Moon.
“P=239.5w/m2 (which is the radiation at TOA)
and ε=.7 (which is the emissivity at TOA, the inverse of Albedo)”
As repeatedly discussed, Bill, albedo is for sunlight, ie mainly VISIBLE light wavelengths.
Emissivity is NOT for sunlight. It is for THERMAL IR wavelengths. And emissivity is strongly wavelength dependent!
So emissivity is NOT the inverse of Albedo!
When are you going to get this straight?
nate the equilibrium temperature of the surface at 282.6w/m2 giving a 5.4k ghe is for solar input, not longwave input! you are already in this pool way over your head!
longwave is output not input. you properly worked the equation just fine and you said my doing it like your daddy was a mistake!!!
now you are going to try to change your story? you just fell for the oldest trick in the investigator trick book. . .and thats the reason why you should never answer investigator questions. you need to act like your daddy and not engage in debates. . .they already know what the dangers are.
nate the equilibrium temperature of the surface at 282.6w/m2 giving a 5.4k ghe is for solar input! you are already in this pool way over your head!
longwave is output not input. you properly worked the equation just fine and you said my doing it like your daddy was a mistake!!!
Nate says:
Input = 1361 W/m^2*(1-albedo) = 1198 W/m^2.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1591203
——————-
you even corrected me by you writing the equation correctly.
when being questioned you aren’t supposed to confess.
Bill,
The science in your posts is getting increasingly errant, and when people correct you, you go into denial mode.
It doesnt help your credibility.
“way over your head! longwave is output not input.”
Think about what equilibrium actually means.
Yes indeed:
Input = 1361 W/m^2*(1-albedo) = 1198 W/m^2.
But for some reason you left out the next line,
“Output = sigma*e*T^4 = input = 1198 W/m^2.”
Hint: Why do I mention both input and output? And why are they equal?
Notice Output includes emissivity (e).
Albedo and emissivity are NOT for the same wavelengths, and thus you cannot get one from the other.
If you can’t understand these basic concepts, and refuse to learn them, then you have no business posting about it!
Nate says:
” ”way over your head! longwave is output not input.”
Think about what equilibrium actually means.”
———————-
Output cannot be more than net input.
Nate says:
So emissivity is NOT the inverse of Albedo!
When are you going to get this straight?
——————————
it is for 100% opaque objects. if its not the emissions would exceed the energy available and cool even more than if it only emitted what it absorbed. so is that still your argument?
“it is for 100% opaque objects. if its not the emissions would exceed the energy available and cool even more than if it only emitted what it absorbed.”
Again, NO that is wrong. Repeating the same mistakes over and over is a sign of impairment or insanity.
Kirchhoffs law equates emissivity to absor.btivity, which is 1-reflectance, but only for the SAME WAVELENGTHS!
So we can have WHITE PVC, that reflects visible sunlight quite well, but has an IR emissivity near 1.
“Albedo is the fraction of SOLAR radiation reflected from a materials surface. Concrete has an albedo of 0.4”
https://gccassociation.org/essential-concrete/albedo/
Emissivity
Concrete …0.94
https://www.transmetra.ch/images/transmetra_pdf/publikationen_literatur/pyrometrie-thermografie/emissivity_table.pdf
Notice for concrete
1-albedo = 0.6
while emissivity = 0.94
They are not equal.
Nate says:
” ”it is for 100% opaque objects. if its not the emissions would exceed the energy available and cool even more than if it only emitted what it absorbed.”
Again, NO that is wrong. Repeating the same mistakes over and over is a sign of impairment or insanity.
Kirchhoffs law equates emissivity to absor.btivity, which is 1-reflectance, but only for the SAME WAVELENGTHS!”
LMAO!
OK I get your drift.
But two questions:
1) how does one distinguish between LW emitted versus reflected? Seems obvious that if you measure the LW coming off the ocean that could well include reflected LW from the atmosphere.
2) how would the atmosphere, with only oxygen and nitrogen, be cooled with oxygen absorbing bands of UV, Visible and near IR if there were no cooling GHGs?
HTE warming is still affecting the climate and will only slowly subside. Solar cycle 25 max also has a small warming effect.
The current change from Nov. occurred due to the increase in Antarctic sea ice relative to average. Since we normally see El Nino have its strongest warming influence in Dec/Jan/Feb, some folks may have been surprised by this “cooling”.
Please explain how you “KNOW” what caused the drop. Prove to me that it is more than guesswork.
You also give no mechanism for how it is still affecting the climate. Please provide this mechanism.
I have previously checked the correlation between sunspot counts and UAH temperatures. The correlation is marginally NEGATIVE.
Of course you will likely hide behind Flynnson’s inevitable emetic thread-suffocating say-nothing response to this request. After all, that is his “purpose” here.
Never claimed to “KNOW” anything. Just providing the most likely reason for the small drop. I also said nothing about “sunspot counts”. I’m referring to TSI which varies almost 0.1 C between minimum and maximum. CMEs may add on a little more.
The HTE put lots of water vapor high into the atmosphere. Are you denying that would be a warming effect? Water vapor also reacts with ozone which would lead to more UV reaching the surface. I estimate the two effects could cause 0.2 C additional warming.
All of this is sitting on top of a +AMO which probably adds another 0.3 C of warming.
The last significant influence is the long term millennial warming from the depths of the LIA. From historical data that could be as much as 0.5 C of warming.
“The current change from Nov. occurred due to the increase in Antarctic sea ice relative to average.”
In what sense is that anything but a definite statement? It contains ZERO doubt.
.
.
.
Clint flatly denies that the “HTE” has anything to do with water vapour, because he knows that would be a concession to the greenhouse effect. Are you saying Clint is wrong, and which of you two should we trust?
What data are you using to claim that stratospheric water vapour levels are still elevated? Because that would be the only way to claim “the HTE is still affecting the climate”, right?
.
.
.
Heads up … TSI is NOT measured in degrees Celsius. It is measured in Watts/square metre. (Which Gordon will try to claim are units of energy.)
TSI varies about 0.1 PERCENT between minimum and maximum.
And don’t you think TSI is strongly correlated with sunspot counts?
.
.
.
Where did you pull that 0.3 from for the AMO, and why did you not also factor in the negative PDO? It seems you only manage to find factors that suit your argument.
Richard,
Ozone high in the atmosphere is formed by high energy UV interacting with oxygen. That’s why none of the high energy UV reaches the surface. It gets absorbed in the process of creating ozone.
Even the US EPA now accepts reality, and says –
“Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally through the interaction of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation with molecular oxygen (O2). The “ozone layer,” approximately 6 through 30 miles above the Earth’s surface, reduces the amount of harmful UV radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.” A few weasel-words there – true, but not telling the whole truth.
Here’s a snippet from the WHO –
“Short-wavelength UVC is the most damaging type of UV radiation. However, it is completely filtered by the atmosphere and does not reach the earth’s surface.”
Feel free to believe whomever you want. The chances of a UV-C photon from the Sun getting through the Earth’s atmosphere and reaching the surface are slim to none, as far as I know.
There you go again Ant, misrepresenting me.
There may be several ways H-T water and water vapor can contribute to warming, but just not radiatively.
isn’t supposed to be continued warming from the el nino for 3 to 4 months?
AQ says: “In what sense is that anything but a definite statement?”
I just write what I’m thinking. Can’t help it if you read too much into it. Maybe next time just ask.
“Are you saying Clint is wrong”.
Well mixed GHGs with concentrations over saturation levels do not cause any warming. Water vapor is not well mixed. Low in the atmosphere it has no effect due to saturation. High in the atmosphere is a different situation. It must have an effect. If Clint thinks there is no effect, then he is wrong.
My logic for the effects of HTE is based on differences between the effects of HTE and Pinatubo. We have a good feeling for the cooling effect of Pinatubo.
I assume HTE was similar for SO2 and then worked out what seems like a reasonable combined effect. The H2O and SO2 initially canceled out which means the water vapor effect should be close to the Pinatubo cooling effect.
Since SO2 it is heavier, it should fall out faster. Hence, the (H2O-SO2) difference should show up 6 months to a year after the eruption. That looked possible with the La Nina not getting quite as cold last winter. Then, when the La Nina faded, the warming occurred quickly. The only real possible cause was the H2O.
“dont you think TSI is strongly correlated with sunspot counts?”
There is a correlation but it’s not perfect.
“Where did you pull that 0.3 from for the AMO”
The AMO appears driven by a natural cycle in Arctic sea ice. It’s really the Arctic changes that account for most of the temperature difference. The AMO is a good index for those effects, but doesn’t capture the magnitude.
“why did you not also factor in the negative PDO?”
The PDO is closely tied to ENSO. Hard to factor it in when ENSO is + or -, so I ignore it at those times assuming ENSO is the stronger cycle.
The saturation argument once again:
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
2024 will be a good Climateball year!
Willard obviously has some reading problems. Here’s what his reference told him:
“directly observing the specific, global radiative forcing caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases has – to date – proven elusive.”
There’s a reason for this. After these gases’ IR bands reach saturation the warming effect goes bye-bye. It’s not saturation itself, it’s a byproduct of the state of the atmosphere.
When saturation occurs the concentration of the gases radiating energy back towards the surface is high enough that almost all the energy that reaches the surfaces comes from very low in the atmosphere.
********This induces evaporative cooling w/o warming.
The evaporation is obvious since the Earth is mostly covered in H2O. IR from these gases will increase the odds of evaporation.
The lack of any warming is because an IR emission event causes the lower atmosphere to cool while the surface warms. Because these two areas are in direct contact, the 2LOT finds this a problem and corrects it very quickly. Any energy that doesn’t go into evaporation is conducted back into the lower atmosphere.
The other important factor comes from being “well mixed”. This works with Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation to manage the upward flow of energy. Basically, the net flow is independent of the concentration of the well mixed gas.
Once a person understands all the science it becomes obvious that well mixed gases cannot cause warming. All they do to cause a little more precipitation.
Climate alarmists are the real science deniers.
Willard says:
The saturation argument once again:
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
————————-
no credibility there willard. all you have is john cook who isn’t even a physicist mansplaining why the atmosphere greenhouse effect isn’t saturated without a single scientific reference. thats why his blog is considered to be just a propaganda arm of the climate change cabal.
first the saturation issue can only apply to an evenly distributed gas causing a ghe. there are other arguments against gases even being able to cause a ghe. but i am not going into that here.
in order to understand the saturation issue the blueprint for the physics behind the ghe must be laid out in full detail. some will argue for a saturated ghe of co2 as a single convecting layer having once absorbed a em of the frequency absorbed by co2 doesn’t cause this layer to get warmer by reemitting it and reabsorbing it. in this argument the ghe is for all practical purposes saturated.
that argument is much different than many layers of co2 acting as a rigid long corridor closed off from end to end by numerous rigid oven doors slammed shut. . . as nate is trying to argue here in sync with the nutty john cook and the rest of the climate cabal.
> After these gases IR bands reach saturation the warming effect goes bye-bye.
Since there is no saturation, RM needs to beg the question.
But Gill will follow him wherever he goes, so there is a small, cuddly upside.
“Well mixed GHGs with concentrations over saturation levels do not cause any warming.”
It is a myth that saturation levels have been reached, and that the GHE ceases at that point.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
“A common argument is that the CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated (i.e., does not increase) as CO2 absor.ption of an entire atmospheric column, named absor.ptivity, is saturated. This argument is erroneous first because absor.ptivity by CO2 is currently not fully saturated and still increases with CO2 concentration and second because a change in emission height explains why the greenhouse effect may increase even if the absor.ptivity is saturated. ”
“we show that the increase of the greenhouse effect resulting from an increase of CO2 from its current value is primarily due (about 90%) to the change in emission height. For an increase of water vapor, the change in absor.ptivity plays a more important role (about 40%) but the change in emission height still has the largest contribution (about 60%).”
Nate has no evidence of the claim he made above. His biggest mistake was believing he did and offering up a paper that stated this theory is dependent upon the CO2 effect not being saturated and that the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis was false. . .a long held theorem of meteorologists in examining weather phenomena.
And yet here he is babbling away that the atmosphere is not saturated and of course he doesn’t have any source to back up his babble.
As usual, Bill can’t understand what he skims, and totally misrepresents it.
No quote no credit.
Nate needs a reminder of what he said:
”Here is a recent paper discussing the effect of the height of emission.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml”
and the thread where he said it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567
Apparently senility is setting in for Nate. Sad. Hope you get better Nate. Watch your nutrition.
Nope. Nothing relevant there.
Are you physically unable to find a relevant quote in the paper to back up your claims, and actually quote it?
No surprise.
“this theory is dependent upon the CO2 effect not being saturated and that the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis was false. . .a long held theorem of meteorologists in examining weather phenomena.”
FYI for the perpetually confused: our atmosphere has a LAPSE RATE.
Its T decreases with height. Thus is is obviously NOT ISOTHERMAL.
I don’t know how anyone can be confused about this?
The paper discusses the NOT realistic ‘isothermal atmosphere’ case simply to find the portion of the GHE that comes purely from abs.or.ption.
It then discussed a realistic atmosphere, with the added effect of the actual lapse rate on the GHE.
It finds there is a much larger GHE due to the emission from high altitude, COLDER, GHG in the atmosphere.
That is the main point of the paper. Obviously you missed it.
I think Richard M is missing the basic science. One needs to think in terms of layers, not the atmosphere in total.
The spectral bands of of CO2 are pressure broadened near to the surface, thus the optical depth is reduced. Thus, surface emissions in the wavelength range around 15 microns will be absorbed in a rather short distance. At the same time, there are emissions from the surface boundary layer as a function of temperature which will occur in both upward and downward directions. The upward emissions will not be completely absorbed by the next layer, since these bands exhibit less pressure broadening. The downward emissions from each layer will be absorbed by the next lower layer.
I think that adding more CO2 means that the modeling the effect requires more layers to characterize the process. More layers implies that the ultimate effect is a warming of the column of air, particularly the lowest layers.
Nate says:
this theory is dependent upon the CO2 effect not being saturated and that the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis was false. . .a long held theorem of meteorologists in examining weather phenomena.
FYI for the perpetually confused: our atmosphere has a LAPSE RATE.
Its T decreases with height. Thus is is obviously NOT ISOTHERMAL.
I dont know how anyone can be confused about this?
———————
the hypothesis Nate is that without pressure or water change in the atmosphere the atmosphere is isothermal. . .carbon dioxide need not apply.
What you are up against is explaining why something that doesn’t matter is placed in the conclusion of your offered proof of the GHE. Its a hypothesis that temperature doesn’t change in the atmosphere with the addition of CO2. Yet the CO2 warming hypothesis through its so called trapping of heat would otherwise cause the atmosphere to warm.
There is a kind of twisted intuitive idea that it does but I would suggest that the exhaust of a fossil burning engine emits the CO2 as hot as its ever going to get and that instead of heating the atmosphere CO2 actually slightly cools it after the initial emission warms it and that would be consistent with the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis.
Bill,
NO QUOTE NO CREDIT.
As I noted, the paper discusses the historical isothermal model, in order to separate out the effect of emission height.
” Arrhenius (1896) made the first estimate of the greenhouse effect and of the sensitivity of the surface temperature to a change in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of the atmosphere. His computation was based on a single layer model where the surface was covered by an isothermal atmosphere ”
” With this assumption, the flux at the tropopause does not decrease any more when the total optical thickness τs increases if τs is larger than 4. It is then said that the greenhouse effect ‘saturates.'”
Nobody who is science literate thinks the atmosphere is actually isothermal. Thus the paper then discusses the realistic case:
“This saturation effect almost disappears when the temperature decreases with height: the greenhouse effect continues to increase when the optical thickness τs increases, even for large values of τs. For a nonisothermal troposphere the altitude where the emitted radiation escapes to space matters. We now present how this effect of emission height can be quantified.”
Maybe read the paper and learn all about it. Then provide quotes to support your understanding.
Well it is easy to rebut Arrhenius. It was done by R. Woods, Seim et al, Vaughn Pratt and countless others.
Here is one rebuttal that specifically points out the flaws in Arrhenius’ model.
https://youtu.be/qRHn9nkVWSQ?si=zfk5SOLEQhJE4Phv
Nate one cannot just claim something to be true to make it true. History is full of such bogus theories.
“Well it is easy to rebut Arrhenius.”
Who cares? The paper makes clear that it is an outdated, simplistic model.
Nice try at distracting from the main point of the paper, which you still seem to have missed, because you didnt read it.
anybody can hypothesize anything they want. Should we believe all those hypotheses until somebody proves them to be wrong?
Maybe read the paper and learn all about it. Then provide quotes to support your assertions. Thus far you havent.
i did read it. its an exercise in logic under the assumption that some warming from co2 has already occurred. under that assumption i largely agree with its conclusion. namely that if the co2 effect isn’t saturated or if the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis is false then more warming could occur from the addition of co2 in the atmosphere.
but we have apriori matters to still resolve. the questions raised by https://youtu.be/qRHn9nkVWSQ?si=3zr_Xg38O8JYobD7 discusses some the issues not addressed by the paper you have referred to.
“but we have apriori matters to still resolve.”
Nope. They have been addressed.
Has he published it?
What specific issue not addressed by the paper you want to bring up?
E. Swanson claims: “I think Richard M is missing the basic science.” and then goes on to say “The spectral bands of of CO2 are pressure broadened near to the surface”.
Except, I didn’t miss anything. I stated, “Its not saturation itself, its a byproduct of the state of the atmosphere.”
I was covering a completely different set of events that occur because of saturation. I showed why they will create a cooling forcing. This forcing counters the warming forcing due to pressure broadening. That’s why I stated the net result was only ” a little more precipitation”/
Willard goes on to claim “Since there is no saturation, RM needs to beg the question.”.
Yes, there is saturation low in the atmosphere. In fact, there’s several orders of magnitude of saturation. It is the “low in the atmosphere” situation that is important. That means all the DWIR radiation which hits the surface originates very close to the surface.
Maybe you should have tried to understand my comment instead of going off on a tangent.
Finally, Nate jumps in with more nonsense: “It is a myth that saturation levels have been reached”
Nope, it is simple analysis using any radiation model. All this statement means is that all the available surface radiation is being absorbed low in the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with the ability of increased levels of CO2 to widen the bands.
What this tells us is 15 micron radiation doesn’t travel very far before being absorbed when close to the surface. That tells us that DWIR absorbed by the surface also comes from very low in the atmosphere.
“, and that the GHE ceases at that point.”
I said nothing about the GHE. Why is it climate alarmists have such a big problem with reading comprehension?
Richard doesnt address my point at all, other than declaring it nonsense.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588819
The paper explains clearly how the GHE actually works, primarily in the upper troposphere. Perhaps you should at least look at the abstract, if not the whole paper, and tell us what is wrong with it.
Your warming produces cooling theory is still speculation lacking evidence.
E. Swanson says:
January 8, 2024 at 11:46 AM
I think Richard M is missing the basic science. One needs to think in terms of layers, not the atmosphere in total.
I think that adding more CO2 means that the modeling the effect requires more layers to characterize the process. More layers implies that the ultimate effect is a warming of the column of air, particularly the lowest layers.
—————————–
yes thats the theory Swanson. the problem is the theory is what needs establishing by science rather than fiat.
” the problem is the theory is what needs establishing by science rather than fiat.”
So often here we find Bill declaring such things by fiat, until others set him straight on what has already been established, observed, or measured.
Richard M, the notion that the CO2 bands are saturated is an old story which has been debunked repeatedly. HERE’s a post from Eli’s site from 5 years ago. Note that Eli’s graphs are based on constant pressure, so they don’t include the effects of pressure broadening which are reduced as pressure altitude is increased.
You wrote:
And the downwelling IR from each layer above is also absorbed by the layer(s) below. Thus, the effects down at the surface are the cumulative result of what happens to the layers above from the Stratosphere downward. And, don’t forget, the convective transport from the surface to the atmospheric boundary layer above is a function of the difference in temperatures. If the air temperature increases, the surface temperature must also increase to maintain the same convective heat transfer between the two. Not to forget that there will also be an increase in evaporation, which is a non-linear function of temperature and which adds H2O, a strong greenhouse gas, to the lower atmosphere.
“Global Warming” is the result of the atmosphere warming and the surface temperature follows along as a result.
Yep Swanson everybody has a theory. The question of science always is. . .have you provided compelling and retestable evidence for the truth of theory. Thats when theory emerges from belief and is on its way to becoming science. . .though it may never arrive as often experiments can produce spurious results of you are not very careful in establishing a valid control model.
Which is the primary skeptic position. Yes most of us recognize warming is occurring and there are lots of reason for why it might be, all seen in proxy data.
Yes, Hunter guy, theories should be backed up with facts, such as the measurements of the atmospheric transmission of CO2 and H2O in the thermal IR ranges. The data is incorporated in the models, such as MODTRAN, which are used to calculate what’s happening in the atmosphere. That data has been referenced many times, yet the “skeptics”, such as you, continue to ignore it.
Eli’s presentation is based on Spectral Calc, a program to calculate the emissions line-by-line as he presented. I hope that you will read the reference, but, it’s more likely that you will continue to ignore the vast amount of real world measurements by claiming that the resulting models aren’t perfect.
Swanson says:
”Elis presentation is based on Spectral Calc, a program to calculate the emissions line-by-line as he presented. ”
Thats your claim and maybe even Eli’s. But you guys are always insisting on having such works peer reviewed and published in a respectable journal. . .which I would define as one that is independent of special interests or corporate profits.
Hunter demands peer review as an indicator of absolute truth. Yet, he has recently posted a link to a YouTube video, claiming that:
.
Is YouTube now a “respectable journal” with scientific peer review and all that, and “one that is independent of special interests or corporate profits”? Did Google (a Giga Corporation) buy YouTube as a search for scientific truth, or did they want to make a profit? How many paper publishing mills have blossomed in recent years, publishing with no evidence of strict peer review involved?
Of course, you still can’t admit that there’s strong scientific evidence behind the problem of Global Warming, in spite what you and other the “skeptics” claim.
Swanson, we are talking about the swamp here.
There is no blueprint for the greenhouse effect and thus anybody’s opinion has weight until a scientifically validate blueprint has been authenticated.
I am not telling to believe the guy in the youtube video I am just highlighting that scientists don’t agree on how the GHE operates, assuming for course there actually is one.
I tend to think there is but without validating science showing our measurements beyond a reasonable doubt demonstrate that there is, we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket.
There are big risks in life. Risks intentionally set out upon and risks that arrive by accident.
By not mandating the entire population take the intentional risk there is a risk of accident. By avoiding a risk by accident by commanding and forcing the human race to forgo fossil fuels which have dramatically improved the way of life for the mass majority of the globe’s population seems to be a much larger risk. Perhaps the wisest choice is for government to stay out of it and allow independent voices convince individuals one by one if they should use fossil fuels.
But oh no you say? I am not going to sacrifice unless the government makes everybody sacrifice. Kind of says what my position is. One I share with Svante Arrhenius:
”We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” Worlds in the Making, 1908
Turns out Svante Arrhenius nailed it. For more than a century fossil fuels have delivered all that and more than at any time in the past. Do you really think that it is no longer true?
Hunter, sorry to take so long to reply, but I’m being blocked lately from reading/posting replies during most of the day.
But, to your comment, you suggest that the greenhouse “theory” must be proven absolutely true (a “blueprint”?) before the world’s people should take action. Of course, the scientific case is quite strong, a fact obscured by the many presentations which claim to debunk it, such as the guy in your video link.
But, it’s clear that you aren’t really serious, as you wrote:
That’s about the dumbest thing you’ve written lately. Of course, some populations might think a few degrees of warming would be good and demand continued emissions. Not to forget the old saying:
There are no “independent voices” in the game and there’s a long time lag between emissions and effects. For example, paleo-climate studies tell us that ~20k years ago, the Earth was about 5deg C colder and much of the high latitude NH was covered with glaciers. If governments can’t even get it together to govern without shooting at each other, why would anyone think that a band of “independent voices” would do any better, especially if those “voices” lack understanding of the science?
Swanson NGOs do nothing but talk about impending doom on every topic under the sun. sometimes they have been right, harm was done and we corrected it. actually that is exactly how the human race has progressed for hundreds of thousands of years. if you meekly don’t test the frontiers you are doomed. we are not the first adaptable animal on the planet.
Hunter, Now you’ve drifted away from the discussion of the science again, first throwing out a mention of “risk”, then moving on to “NGO’s”.
In other words, you have no reply to Eli’s post or any other discussion or the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere. You also refuse to discuss the YouTube video you posted. Since you’ve got nothing to talk about, why bother?
Swanson said:
”why would anyone think that a band of independent voices would do any better, especially if those voices lack understanding of the science?”
Well you opened up the diversion with your conversation suggesting you know better. . .despite your failure to prove a single watt of warming on CO2.
As Will Happer once said roughly as I don’t have the exact quote: When science is settled its easy to explain why to a classroom full of new science students.
But you guys can’t even explain it to top physicists like Lindzen. And Lindzen is just the sort of person to not get pushed around or be fearful of pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.
You say there is virtually no UVC reaching the surface due to ozone. Well there is virtually no CO2 frequency surface radiation that isn’t already blocked by a variety of molecules in the atmosphere. Where is the proof of the claim that isn’t true? Oh yeah maybe a photon or two like with UVC? But you can’t seem to grok that. . .instead you just surrender to the dominate narrative which uh is a political power play.
Hunter claimed that:
Hunter’s taunt is flawed because he presents no basis in physics with which to assess it. What does he mean by “no CO2 frequency” or the phrases “already blocked” and “variety of molecules”? Besides, one can not prove a negative, which Hunter demands.
Hunter still refuses to critique Eli’s analysis, perhaps because it involves models, which Hunter can’t understand.
Models don’t prove anything. Thats backwards. Its the models that need proving.
I have been watching the TV series Outlander than involves time travel. As a kid my favorite book was A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain. That involved time travel too.
A model is nothing but a fiction until its been established as fact. A lot of science fiction over the years turned out to be prescient.
I tend to believe some ghe is possible but I am not going to call my beliefs science.
What we are dealing with here is democracy vs technocracy. Technocracy is a form of oligarchy government and any time you have such a thing you have corruption and unnecessary restriction of freedom.
IMO, the FAA is being unreasonable in its sanctions against Boeing. It should be adequate at this point in time to allow the plugs in each plane be inspected before flying again. Then if the investigation turns up something else of concern later then deal with that at that time. But over regulation seems to be the order of the day. that needs to change to something much more reasonable.
Hunter begins his rant writing:
I’ve built computer models of dynamic systems, I presume that Hunter has not. As John Christy pointed out, the only way to assess the problem of increasing CO2 is to use models but models are never “perfect”. So, Hunter can continue to ignore the problem and all the scientific research work which has been undertaken for more than a century, including the measurements of the atmospheric transmission of various gasses and the modeling which has been developed to describe same.
“But you guys cant even explain it to top physicists like Lindzen.”
Pfft. More like not even top physicist Lindzen, can explain the GHE to you guys, to your satisfaction!
“Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point ‘nutty.’ He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.”
Nate says:
” ”Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point nutty. He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.” ”
Nate you put something in quotes with no attribution nor any such quote in this comment section.
But lets go through it:
”Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science.”
I wouldn’t expect otherwise. The question is what are the tenets of climate science? What you say they are?
”He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point nutty.”
I don’t think anybody in here I am aware of are saying anything different.
”He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity.”
Well that certainly seems to be a reasonable conclusion since some of it in the atmosphere is known to be of anthropogenic origin.
”and that this should warm the climate.”
Well since all the GHGs are in the climate system and they absorb IR is this in any dispute? It says nothing about how much or where in the climate system this alleged warming is occurring. This is in large part a product of climate analysis that for feedback, negative or positive to occur, there must at least be an increase in the energy content of the atmosphere.
So once again Nate goes into the strawman business.
The quote comes from a New York Times article.
Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science.
I wouldnt expect otherwise. The question is what are the tenets of climate science? ”
Now you are just playing dum.b
The tenets of climate science, such as that there is a GHE, that it is causing GW, are things that you regularly dispute.
Then why is Lindzen labeled a denier?
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
For some reason Gill presents a URL with the S-word to whine about the D-word.
the only basic tenet of climate science is that co2 absorbs an exponentially decreasing amount of ir as co2 concentration increases.
the logic then leaps to the sky is warm and skips over proof of how it got warm in the first place and how all natural multidecadal plus changes to that warmth are all bundled up into Milankovitch orbit eccentricities presented to the public as a slow and steady smoothed process occurring gradually over 100,000 years. none of that is basic tenets of climate science thats all pure unadulterated BS.
“the only basic tenet of climate science is that co2 absorbs an ”
Shameless climate science denier Bill ‘defines’ climate science basics!
No quote no credit Bill.
Bill Hunter says:
Nate says:
” ”the only basic tenet of climate science is that co2 absorbs an exponentially decreasing amount of ir as co2 concentration increases.”
Shameless climate science denier Bill defines climate science basics!
No quote no credit Bill.”
——————————-
well unless you need a reference for the climate science tenet listed above accepted by dr lindzen. . .that means i have named and offered a reference for one tenet which is one more than you have listed and offered a reference for Nate.
its really noticeable how you try to reverse the burden of proof. so at the moment basic accepted science wrt to the greenhouse effect is the list provided above. we can leave it at that if you have nothing else to offer.
Sure, replace decades of science research, observations, experiments with ‘the logic then LEAPS’
That is how science deniers deceive themselves.
Hunter has drifted far from the posts by Richard M claiming that the CO2 absorp_tion bands are saturated. As Eli pointed out, this isn’t true for the side bands and his analysis was for constant pressure, not the real world where there’s less absorp_tion in each layer above because of the reduction in pressure. One must also include the emissions of each layer, both upward and downward to more fully describe the situation
Here’s another reference which also provides a basic description of the science. The presentation is much as I described, using stacked layers instead of a single layer of the Tropopause.
Nate says:
”Sure, replace decades of science research, observations, experiments with the logic then LEAPS
That is how science deniers deceive themselves.”
——————————
i guess nate is saying that decades of research hasn’t resulted in any new established tenets of climate science since he was unable to list any additional ones.
Sorry Bill, Lindzen fully understands that the GHE exists and warms the Earth, while you dont. A basic tenet of climate science and meteorology.
Nate by your own rule; no quote, no credit.
Already gave you a quote. None so far from you.
the only quote you gave was unattributed and from a person talking about Dr. Lindzen. Obviously not a Lindzen quote. But hey I believe GHG logically would seem to be capable of causing some warming. It is hard for me to see a reason why Dr. Lindzen would think differently. But what people believe falls far short of the science tree.
“hey I believe GHG logically would seem to be capable of causing some warming.”
As suspected. Then your ongoing efforts to deny the GHE is just you being contrary for entertainment.
Good to know.
Nate says:
”hey I believe GHG logically would seem to be capable of causing some warming.”
As suspected. Then your ongoing efforts to deny the GHE is just you being contrary for entertainment.
Good to know.
—————————–
Well its certainly always a good idea to reserve your judgement on what seems logical until science proves it to be the case. I haven’t at all denied the GHE. I have only expressed certain uncertainties about it. I have a question from you up near the top that nobody seems prepared to answer. . .which is what would the temperature of the atmosphere be if there were no GHGs. I understand the difference between radiation loss from the surface and the measure by which we measure climate change.
I get the idea of GHGs warming the radiating surface but science isn’t gauging climate change by how much the radiating earth’s surface changes. Thats a real messaging problem.
I can even agree there is an energy imbalance. But does it arise from a LIA recovery or does it arise from GHG’s.
So the argument from my perspective boils down to a few questions. the first is What would the temperature be of a pure oxygen and nitrogen (non-ghg) atmosphere be.
I can only assume mainstream climate science didn’t want to answer that as everybody is running around in here claiming it would be 3k as if it didn’t exist and instead that it was some unknown temperature made of a gas transparent to LW.
Climate science went further with this charade and actually pretended that the surface of the earth was painted with a paint that was both a blackbody and reflects 30% of incoming light at the same time.
Any accountant whose ears haven’t perked up at this point either has to have a vacuum in his skull or have chips in the game.
Accountants from day one apprenticeship are trained to look for what is missing in the records.
So climate change would never get in its current state a clean opinion based on the sum total of evidence referred to in this fora.
Of course Nate if you are aware of some proof of what the atmosphere temperature would be before introducing GHGs to cool the atmosphere by all means pony it up. Then we can move on to some other questions. But you need a real foundation first not some totally dumassed null hypothesis that has no connection to reality.
Richard Linzen has said the CO2 contribution to warming is non-linear. The contribution of CO2 doubling is less than predicted and Happer has shown (in his recent paper) that another doubling after the initial doubling will be much, much less contribution. However, Berry has shown that most of the CO2 rise is natural and not due to humans and has falsified the IPCC’s CO2 and AGW model.
Properly … most of the CO2 rise is natural, and not due to humans and so has falsified part the IPCC’s CO2 and AGW model.
Actual science has estimated the HTE warming effect to be quite small or negative.
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-022-01568-2/MediaObjects/41558_2022_1568_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL104634
So the assertion that HTE is largely responsible is not been established.
People are just invoking correlation = causation, without knowing if there actually is a causal link.
“actual science”
lmao
Yep. I have 5 publications related to the topic in my stash. All are between -0.1 and +0.1 C effect. That’s right some even think the net effect is cooling.
DOI: 10.22541/essoar.169111653.36341315/v2
DOI: 10.1038/s41558-022-01568-2
DOI: 10.1007/s13351-022-2013-6
DOI: 10.1038/s43247-022-00580-w
DOI: 10.1038/s43247-022-00618-z
And to the decimal place too!
1 significant figure…the fewest possible.
Only “5 publications”?
Surely you can find more, bdgwx. There must be hundreds of publications supporting CO2 is a “forcing”. Being wrong is too often contagious….
Do you have any publications at all supporting your view? Or are you into post-modernist ‘science’?
barry, if you can’t correctly interpret a simple chart, maybe I can’t help you. Remember, you’re the one that can’t understand “view factor”, or “ARRIVING” flux.
Called anyone a “lying dog” today?
All this may be over your head….
A simple “no” would have been honest, accurate and on-topic. Sadly…
Wrong again, barry. You don’t like “simple” or “truth”.
You’ve been exposed as just another raving cultist, now in full meltdown.
That’s why this is so. much fun.
b,
I hope the rest are better than the first –
“We use chemistry climate model simulations to assess the long-term surface impacts of stratospheric water vapor (SWV) anomalies similar to those caused by HTHH, but neglect the relatively minor aerosol loading from the eruption.”
Do you collect fairy tales due to some uncontrollable urge?
Maybe you should find some scientific research to back you up – not fantasy based on wishful thinking!
Carry on.
bdgwx says:
”Yep. I have 5 publications related to the topic in my stash. All are between -0.1 and +0.1 C effect. Thats right some even think the net effect is cooling.”
From Bdgwx article number:
DOI: 10.22541/essoar.169111653.36341315/v2
”This study
neglects the aerosol effect and examines the consequences
of large stratospheric water vapor anomalies and reveals
that surface temperatures across large regions of the world
increase by over 1.5C for several years, although some
areas experience cooling close to 1C”
Is that out of your range bdgwx???
I just glanced at them all but noted most only assessed the GHE effect from Sulphur aerosols. the one above looked at water injection and ignored the aerosols. We have know from days after the eruption that sulphur dioxide levels in the plume were low.
But did any look at ozone destruction by chlorine in the saltwater?
I didn’t see any evidence of that looking at the abstracts.
I don’t have access to even an abstract from the Science article released on Thursday this week, that I linked to this morning below, but got these quotes online:
”the research team have found that all that saltwater reacting with other chemicals in the atmosphere, resulted in breaking down O3 in the ozone layer.”
”The depletion, they found was due to ocean water reacting with molecules in the atmosphere that contained chlorine, leading to a breakdown of ozonein amounts that had never been seen before in such a short time.”
”the speed of the observed ozone depletion challenges our understanding of the chemistry occurring on the surfaces of these particles and droplets.”
And we know the chlorine as previously detailed surrounding the Montreal Protocol will be recycling themselves for decades in stratosphere destroying ozone. So we still have much more to learn about this unprecedented event. Looks like the chlorine amounts might have been the equivalent of 6 or 7 years of CFC emissions leading up to the ban since the salt in saltwater is about 61% chlorine. My rough calculation based upon the amount of saltwater injected comes up to 2.6 million tons of chlorine out of 150million tons of seawater injected.
BH: Is that out of your range bdgwx???
No. Jucker found that the global effect is only 0.035 C. I have boldened global to reinforce the concept that it is the global average temperature that UAH publishes and which Jucker’s 0.035 C figure is relevant. And just so there is no confusion when I say global I mean the entire Earth; all 510e12 m2 of it.
https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/world/2024/01/04/2022-tonga-eruption-pierced-hole-earth-ozone-layer/72106191007/
We have just had a very warm year.
But I believe that on average the early Holocene humid Optimum,the Minoan warm period,the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period were all warmer than the Modern Warm Period.
Can you post a global average temperature reconstruction that shows that? I have boldened global to reinforce the idea that it is a global temperature I am asking about. And so there is no confusion…by global I mean the entire surface area of Earth; all 510e12 m2 of it.
When there is no conclusive science folks are perfectly entitled to believe what they want.
Where is your conclusive proof otherwise bdgwx?
I don’t know of any conclusive proof that the Holocene climate optimum, Minoan warm period, Roman warm period, and Medieval warm period were all warmer than the modern warm period. It’s why I’m skeptical of Charles Best’s claim and why I’m requesting the global average temperature dataset used to support that statement.
He did say he believed that to be the case bdgwx. Just like you believe that CO2 causes the GHE.
I suspect neither of you have any proof. While we know natural climate change moves several degrees during both glacials and interglacials we can’t say with any degree of certainty what is causing recent warming or since it arises out of recovery from a mini-glacial advance if any of the recovery is due to anything unnatural.
And so we have another fishing story from Gill.
Which post are you referring to Willard?
Does Gill always have to play dumb?
A fish story usually is considered to be an exaggeration. I was wondering what you think I was exaggerating. But if you want to be obtuse, be my guest.
But if I was exaggerating that Best’s opinion was only a belief that must mean you think there is more to it than that.
Personally, I have no opinion one way or the other on that topic; I was just poking bdgwx for asking for a dataset that only exists in bits and pieces like the dataset that argues CO2 is the keystone of climate change.
Yeah, there is a different standard of evidence for GW skeptics.
They merely need to claim they believe something is true, then that stands, until disproven.
Nate,
That’s correct. As Einstein said “one experiment can prove me wrong”.
You lot can’t even say what the GHE is supposed to do, let alone describe it!
“You lot cant even say what the GHE is supposed to do, let alone describe it!”
Nah, been there and done that many times. Many people on this forum have.
Either you have only short term memory, or you are a habitual liar.
Nate is referring to his frequent frantic chicken little narratives regarding runaway greenhouse effects that can’t be reversed for thousands of years. which of course he knows is all a lie.
Tag-team tro.lling again?
Nate doesn’t like it when I point out what a hypocrite he is.
Gill is referring to his screeds against kids on his lawn.
If only he had the integrity to go live in Sierra Leone.
I don’t have a lawn Willard.
Photo or it does exist, Gill.
Obviously then Willard is making up facts.
He wants me to provide him the proof. Well I think I will settle for the obvious lack of evidence for your claim and extrapolate that to all your dialogues. Its not easy getting your credibility back. But in good spirit here are some tips:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-you-regain-credibility-after-making-mistake-mitchell-levy-ccs
Gill obviously has never heard of the Internet.
Or perhaps he’s just as literalist in his mental life than in his Climateball life.
“Kids, get off my lawn”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_kids_get_off_my_lawn!
“Or it doesn’t exist”:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pics%20or%20it%20doesn%27t%20exist
But yeah – I’ve reversed the meme to echo Gill’s peculiar evidence-gathering MO.
Gee Willard I thought Nate was getting senile. Now here you are saying he is just a child playing in this forum.
Well I wished him well with the senility issue but if thats not it I hope he has fun, concentrates on his studies, a grows up to be a contributing member of society.
We already know of your wish that kids get off your lawn, Gill…
Not at all Willard.
Anybody with half a wit understands that the burden is on you to provide the proof. The more you attempt and fail at that the stronger the skeptic case gets.
Like the interchange between Dr. Lancaster and Dr Singer on the Grandfather of Global Warming admitting 24 years after Manabe and Wetherald that the science wasn’t there yet and the brouhaha ginned up by Al Gore over that.
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939326_283.pdf
Auditors and investigators go through this all the time. When you are trying to verify something you ask questions. When you get answers you test the answers. If nothing conclusive comes from the test you ask the question why to get more evidence. If that evidence pans out you are done. If it doesn’t you ask more questions.
On sensitive issues that might cause somebody to get fired it can really get strung out but you have to be a real dog as you don’t want to expose your partners to liabilities.
In a professional setting you can only charge by the hour and not by the job as the government doesn’t want you to be incentivized to cut corners and not tighten down the bolts (alluding to a recent news story)
the more questions you can ask in public and the less evidence that comes out as answers to those questions. . .the better it is for the skeptic position.
So no I don’t want you kids off my grass. I got you right where I want you and you a preforming a public service. Its all good!
Gill has never been an auditor:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-note-about-roger-revelle-julian.html
He just plays one in Climateball.
Thats just BS Willard.
Roger Revelle has a few videos around talking about climate change. He always referred to the issue as a ”potential problem”. Singer and Revelle’s paper does not say CO2 wasn’t a problem. It only said the science wasn’t there yet to identify it as a problem
Lancaster in your link is just whining about not adequately defending Revelle. ”My entire focus was on a wrong being done to Roger Revelle’s career and Roger’s concern for the Earth environment and for humanity.”
And in the note to Eli, he carefully avoids repeating the unfounded accusations against Singer of having duped Revelle. If you ask me claiming Revelle could be duped is a slur against Revelle.
I have seen a video around that time where Revelle carefully characterized CO2 as being a ‘potential’ problem. In fact he slipped once in the video and called it a problem, but he immediately paused and rephrased it as only potentially a problem.
It seems obvious to me he would not be working on the issue if he didn’t think it was potentially a problem. But he was a great scientist and careful with his words and his imagination.
So while Lancaster is lamenting having retracted his statement he ends the entire missive without providing a single shred of evidence that his attack on Singer had any justification.
Sorry Willard. Sour grapes doesn’t add up to evidence. The man should be thanking his wife for keeping him out of deeper trouble.
Hunter, the article by Fred Singer appeared in a Hoover Institute book, published in 2003. That work included several chapters regarding risk assessment, particularly chapter 6 related to the energy industry. There’s a reference regarding the report from the NRC called the “Reactor Safety Study”, aka, WASH-1400)). At the time of it’s release, I had been working on getting an initiative on the California ballot called “the Nuclear Safeguard Initiative” while also becoming a student again at Stanford focusing on renewable energy.
I recall attending a symposium presenting on the report’s conclusions, which were subject to considerable controversy, especially so after the Three Mile Island accident. TMI was a near miss in that it could have been much worse. The clean up took more than 8 years to remove all the damaged fuel (some 20 tons), by which time, little concern remained in the eye of the public. FYI, a discussion of the TMI accident can be found in a book called “Normal Accidents”, which also includes other examples of accidents due to human failures. The recent episodes with BOEING 737 Max 9 aircraft are similar examples of human failures. Climate Change from AGW is another such problem, which was once was easily dismissed as a “potential problem”, but which now appears to be on our door step.
> Thats just BS Willard.
Gill comes out full swing with his most powerful argument.
And he’s suddenly the Defender of the Meek:
Fred Singer is not a good person, so of course he’ll defend him!
And to his imaginary tapes I will counter:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110807205947/ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/revelle-gore-singer-lindzen
E. Swanson says:
”Climate Change from AGW is another such problem, which was once was easily dismissed as a potential problem, but which now appears to be on our door step.”
I just looked out on my door step and I didn’t see it. Perhaps you can elucidate on what it looks like on your doorstep so I can look out for it.
Explicit descriptions work a lot better than something that doesn’t even give us hair color, eye color, height, weight, and complexion. Maybe you can get a police sketch of it.
Hunter:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/01/25/record-warmth-earth-climate-europe/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/01/26/airplane-flight-record-speed-pacific-jetstream/
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/26/record-warm-january-washington
Roger Revelles point was reasonable, that the evidence on AGW was not yet sufficient ….in 1991, when he died.
After 33 more years of GW evidence, that is no longer a reasonable position.
yeah i sent an email to nasa as to why they only referenced tydall and arrhenius on their greenhouse page. they responded in days by putting in a reference to model output.
here we can see the reliability of that. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/new-article-on-climate-models-vs-observations/
also you had the ipcc touting an increasing hotspot combined with a cooling upper stratosphere as empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect. a signature allegedly of the climate models back when they told us the science was settled.
now after no sign of an enlarging hot spot they are now trying to claim it never was a signature of greenhouse warming. but that means they were lying before and had merely imagined it without any scientific evidence. now nate is claiming they finally found the evidence. but nate apparently lost the link to it. probably just another lie on the part of nate.
Not unexpected this month, but still quote remarkable.
The warmest December, by 0.39C. That means, the last 6 months have all be records – and all by some margin.
The average over the last 6 months has been 0.82C, beating the previous Jul – Dec record, set in 2019, by 0.46C.
The big question is how long will this continue. ENSO conditions are still far below 1998 and 2016 levels, and this current heat is happening much sooner than would be expected in a usual El Nino cycle. So will things get much hotter next year, or does it mean that most of the heat has already been released?
Not at all “remarkable” given the multiple natural warming factors currently in play.
El Nino onset was earlier than normal so not at all surprising to have reached its peak earlier. We should continue to see its warming influence on UAH for 2-3 more months. What happens next will probably determine if 2024 ends up to be the “hottest year”. Looks like most models are projecting La Nina next.
If el Nino has peaked, that happened late November, and peak global temps usually follow peak el Nino by 3 to 6 months.
Still in the peak.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Happy new year to all people appreciating science.
And thanks to Roy Spencer for posting a link to CDAS’ year-to-date 2m anomaly picture – I’m not sure it’s available free of charge to anybody.
Happy New Year Bindi
Thanks Rob, happy to read from you again.
The sub-head reads: “2023 Was the Warmest Year In the 45-Year Satellite Record” — simple and correct.
All else is equivocation.
Who do you accuse of equivocation? Just don’t point at Dr Spencer. The commenters here will bloviate, others will obfuscate, none hold much of a candle to him and Christy’s work.
Christy’s work is the structure upon which the commenters hang their disingenuous remarks.
I found Dr Spencer’s site by Google – as a scientifically literate person interested in climate science, it was initially a nice find.
I would have expected (one of) the most active forums discussing global surface temperatures to be screaming about CO2 levels and fossil fuel emmissions. And that to be a fairly uniform discussion.
Nothing else adequately explains the alarming and persistent temperature rises we are experiencing. That’s what the very strong consensus says – not my words.
Imagine my shock at finding the denialst, pathologically obfuscating discussion on these monthly posts. Full of huffing, arrogant busybodies, groping at every inadequate alternative explanation under the sun.
Presumably because recognising the destructive power of fossil fuels is countercultural, ‘woke’ and socialist. Which does not sit with the middle aged ‘conservative’ men.
Humanity is heading for unstoppable calamity. Hope you feel proud of yourselves, denialists. The earth cares not for your disbelief.
Peace out.
Jay, what you’ve found here is the clash between science and cult beliefs. Notice that you avoided any real science. You mentioned consensus, correlation, alarmism, beliefs, and politics, but you avoided any science.
So, you’re at the right place. Now, all you have to do is learn. Start here:
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”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1572982
“E pur si muove”
And yet–even here at this site–it moves. No argument here in the comments is worth aven a moment’s analysis. The ‘argument’, to the extent there is one, is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Here it’s just equivocation–sometimes with links.
Just like Jay, you avoided any science. But, you got a foreign language in there. Are you Italian, or just pretending to be a phony linguist, like Bindi?
My comment was about science. If you can’t respond with science, maybe you should learn some….
Here is hard core science that shows CO2 isn’t causing climate change.
See figure 4 as it is the ‘money’ slide. If you can understand the graph you’ll realize that CO2 spectrum is saturated.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
Figure 4 of your link doesn’t say what you think it says. Among the many things that it does say are:
1/ CO2 traps a significant amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) energy.
2/ Doubling of CO2 concentration not only increases the amount of trapped OLR, it also raises the emission height to colder levels of the atmosphere further slowing the rate of emission to space.
3/ 1 and 2 above are as predicted for AGW.
A,
You wrote –
“CO2 traps a significant amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) energy.”
And the globe still cools – every night.
You’ll have to do better than that.
Ark, your lack of understanding of physics is showing.
CO2 absorbing infrared does NOT mean CO2 can “heat the planet”. Bananas absorb infrared.
You cult is seriously lacking in both science and common sense. You need to open your eyes. Beliefs ain’t science.
E pur si muove
[ibid.]
I grew up in the 1960s. What I’ve learned so far in life is that there is always somebody somewhere exclaiming that “the end is near,” or that we are heading into the “Apocalypse,” or “if we don’t change our ways, we are going to hell.” And these people always benefit financially in some way, usually by selling books.
When I was young, I was intrigued by this topic. It wasn’t until the 1970s when I asked a meteorology professor of mine at Texas A&M University about some of these catastrophic predictions. He plainly told me these predictions were without merit and unscientific. Ever since he told me that, I’ve dismissed all of these calls for the Apocalypse.
Human-caused global warming is yet another one of these New Age fads that has unfortunately caught on to a huge portion of the global population. Al Gore was a driving force behind this, and he has amassed a tremendous amount of wealth from this scam. Many others have also benefitted from the global warming bandwagon. Dr. Lindzen has stated that our climate science funding has now been completely corrupted by it.
We are in a warming trend. My reaction to this is “so?” The earth has always had warming and cooling trends. Climate has always changed in the past. It is doing one or the other. Climate has never remained static over long periods of time.
Whenever a scientist advocates for policy, that scientist has stepped out of the science. That scientist has become a politician in disguise.
100% speculation & equivocaiton.
I grew up at the same time. Tobacco companies assured us cigarettes did not cause cancer. Gas stations sold us lead poisoning. Entire industries fought against the clean air and clean water acts.
Who benefits from using the same playbook to deny the role of AGW in our increasingly unstable climate?
If you want to finger liars for money, that’s your target, not a bunch of poorly-paid eggheads in academia.
But in the end, the line moves up. None of your equivocations change that.
Tobacco, ethyl gasoline, Nixon’s EPA – all unrelated issues that have nothing to do with the human-caused global warming scam. Ethyl gas was developed during WWII to reduce aircraft engine maintenance. The US Auto industry followed because of the benefits of ethyl gas. But all leaded compounds are poisonous, and it was determined that a replacement for ethyl gas had to be found. Once the chemical engineers found that replacement, the petro-chemical industry, the auto industry, and EPA regulators cooperated with each other to implement the replacement. This was back in the days when the EPA was smaller, more efficient, and focused on the environmental issues that really mattered.
Nowadays, calling CO2 a pollutant is an absurdity that has gone completely off the charts. Dr. Richard Lindzen said it best. “What pollutant is there that when you get rid of it – you die?”
FYI
Wiki:
“Tetraethyllead (commonly styled tetraethyl lead), abbreviated TEL, is an organolead compound with the formula Pb(C2H5)4. It is a fuel additive, first being mixed with gasoline beginning in the 1920s as a patented octane rating booster that allowed engine compression to be raised substantially. This in turn increased vehicle performance and fuel economy”
Yep could be the reason why so many of the kids around here have brain problems.
Rob Mitchell,
you should send your comments to professor Dessler at TAMU. He’d love to hear from a fellow Aggie on this subject.
https://experts.tamu.edu/expert/andrew-dessler/
Whoop!
I attended a debate between Dr. Gerald North of Texas A&M University and Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT back in Jan 2010. It was at the Petroleum Club in Houston. It was the most respectful and informative debate on climate change I had ever seen. North was on the alarmist side, but not to the extent Dessler is. I learned more in that one debate than anything I’ve read or watched about climate change.
The scientific debate about climate change revolves around “positive feedbacks.” Lindzen pointed out that the earth has already done the CO2 experiment a long time ago. If negative feedbacks did not exist back then, we never would have survived.
On January 27, 2010, at the Petroleum Club luncheon event, Gerald North was asked what natural observation over the next decade would cause him, to dismiss the IPCC conclusions?
North responded that he didn’t think any trend or observations over the next 10 years could falsify the prevailing anthropogenic global warming theory, but he did say a general cooling trend – absent an obvious explanation such as a large volcanic eruption – over two decades could disprove the IPCC’s findings.
Now, by the looks of the graph at the top of this page, I’ll bet dollars to donuts that North still holds the same opinion.
Dessler pulls no punches. He gets it from his late father, Alex, founder of Rice University’s space science department, who suffered no fοοls, gladly or any other way.
Ark, you need to ask Dessler or North, or any others of your cult “Can infrared always warm an object”?
Do you have an answer?
Countercultural LMAO
MFA, I am not sure what you are selling, but people like you are part of the problem, not the solution. There is a massive amount of hype about climate. That is a fact. The true real-world effect of increasing CO2 is not well defined and cannot be calculated from basic scientific principles or modeled accurately in the real atmosphere. There is wide disagreement in the various climate models produced by actual climate change “believers”. There is not a consensus, but there is a lot of hot air coming from people such as yourself. Slogans about oil companies and comparisons to tobacco do nothing more than decrease your credibility.
“The true real-world effect of increasing CO2 is not well defined and cannot be calculated from basic scientific principles or modeled accurately in the real atmosphere.”
Say that’s true. Say that there is a very wide uncertainty on the effect of increasing atmos CO2 on global temperature.
This would mean that not only is there a possibility that the effects could be mild to non-existent, but also, because uncertainty cuts both ways, that there is a possibility that the effects could be significant and significantly deleterious.
So, we don’t know which. How should we view the risk within such wide error bars? I think it’s pretty straightforward. We can’t get off planet. We can’t reverse-engineer the atmosphere after loading it with more GHGs. We are conducting a huge geophysical experiment and we are trapped inside the test tube with our atmosphere. It seems very obvious to me that we should mitigate the risk until we understand it better – narrow the uncertainties.
Barry, I agree 100%. We should plan for the best, but prepare for the worst. What sort of message do you suggest? Should we continue to tell populations in the developed countries that it is all our fault, we can fix it ourselves, and we must panic so we can treat it as an emergency? Or, should we be honest and tell them that countries such as China, India, and the rest of the “developing” world get a free pass from the IPCC, and we should prepare ourselves to be at the mercy of these other people who we do not control?
barry, you’re avoiding the established science of physics, again.
Can infrared always warm an object?
http://climateball.net/but-china
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The real issue here is that even skeptics duped and brainwashed themself there is something or everything wrong with warmer temperature when the opposite is true, warmer is overwhelmingly beneficial,
If you keep arguing with cranks about how much warming is too much and what causes the warming you just handed it to them and lose
“warmer is overwhelmingly beneficial”
That seems overly broad and vague. How much warmer *is* better? I have no problem accepting that 0.1 C could be better; I strongly doubt that 10 C warmer is better. Pretending that any and all warming is “overwhelmingly beneficial” is just as misguided as insisting that any and all warming is terrible.
Further, even if people agree that there is some amount of global warming that is “overwhelmingly beneficial”, the *rate* of warming is also important. Rapid change means disruptions to farming, to local flora and fauna, to infrastructure, etc. Warming by 2 C in 2 centuries is very different than warming 2 C in 2 years.
you are constructing impossible scenarios, just painting boogieman on the wall
Perhaps. But no more so than you are “painting flowers on the wall”.
I am looking at the reality how life on the planet flourished when it was significantly warmer than today, you just making up nonsense
Eboy is thrilled by the possibility of a new PTME.
Flourished for who? Where?
Given that there are all different climates on the Earth, the warmest of which nobody thrives in, eg the Sahara, the whole ‘warmer is better’ meme makes no sense.
“I am looking at the reality how life on the planet flourished when it was significantly warmer than today”
And again, rate of change matters. 50 million years ago the earth’s surface was ~ 10 C warmer — perhaps ‘life flourished’ then. Temperatures slowly cooled for much of that 50 million years. That works out to and average of about -0.000002 C/decade. Certainly more or less at various times. That amounts to changes on the order of 1 C over 1,000,000 years. Not changes of the order of 1 C over 100 years.
Species evolve and adapt over 1,000,000 years. Forests grow and shift over 1,000,000. Not so much over 100 years.
My climate just changed 50 degrees F withing the last 6 month you numbnuts
I have seen the lines you typing here 100 times, all you do is regurgitate climate doomsters cult talking points, not anything from critical thinking of your own, you have no brain
“My climate just changed 50 degrees F within the last 6 month”
No. It didn’t.
Changing weather is not climate change.
Changing seasons are not climate change.
Only long-term changes in values count as “climate change”.
Tim,
Like four and a half billion years of the Earth cooling?
Climate is more than temperature, being the statistics of historical weather observations over a nominal period.
Tempered by subjective comments, of course.
According to Wikipedia –
“The concept of Mediterranean climate is characterized by mild wet winters and warm to hot, dry summers . . . ”
A concept? Completely useless, if you think that things like severe unpredictable flooding and raging bushfires won’t occur. Try and measure “Mediterranean climate” in some useful way.
I’m just pointing out that “climate” is a very vague term – like “personality”. It can mean different things to different people.
You still haven’t managed to say whether the GHE results in heating, cooling, or nothing at all. How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
Antarctica ice all melted at least once.
What are you braying about?
Makes no sense? Maybe to someone who can’t think. All of modern civilization has occurred during the Holocene. What do you think will happen to civilization during the next glacial period? If what follows is like what has been, will all of civilization be located plus or minus 10 degrees from the equator? By the way, what’s the temperature supposed to be and how do you propose we control it?
” All of modern civilization has occurred during the Holocene.”
Yep.
” What do you think will happen to civilization during the next glacial period?”
Strawman, since no one has suggested cooling back to the level of the glacial maximum would be BETTER than the T of the Holocene.
It may come to a surprise for the alarmists that during the hottest event in geological history, the PETM, there wasn’t a mass extinction.
Life flourished, primates entered America via Alaska, the only local casualties were ocean bottom dwelling cold loving critters, but even those did not go extict globally.
Extiction Rebellion has nothing to rebel against.
It may come as a surprise to Dutch contrarians that their country would not exist during the PETM unless they developed submarine technology back then. Mammals dwarfed, insects thrived, volcanoes partied like no one was watching, and the only anoxic event from the Cenozoic occurred. Paradise on Earth.
Adam MacKay may have been onto something.
But no mass extinction.
Yes there was mass extinction. 35-50% of forams in the deep oceans died due to acidification and anoxia.
The PETM mass extinction is one of the nine documented greenhouse mass extinction events in Earth’s geologic history.
Besides, perhaps our contrarian visitor should read back what I wrote. The PTME is short for the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
The question was whether warming is BETTER, not whether mass extinction results. Another strawman.
PETM is not TPME willard
As I said the only casualties of PETM were ocean bottom cold loving critters.
Primates conquered the world.
Yes, “ocean bottom cold loving critters” which decomposed and putrefied giving the ocean the consistency of gelatin with a purple oily sheen on top. The best part were the large gas bubbles belching from the bottom, hydrogen sulfide.
Enjoy!
My understanding is that during the PTME, the evidence shows that the ice sheets essentially all melted, and sea level rose 100s of meters.
Would that be better for humans?
If you know that “PETM is not TPME,” dearest Hans, why did you invoke the TPME after I said “Eboy is thrilled by the possibility of a new PTME”?
It’s PTME, BTW.
BTW,
The PETM and PTME are two separate greenhouse warming events.
PETM = Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum occurred around 55 million years ago.
PTME = Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction occurred around 200-250 million years ago.
Yes, the rate of warming is possibly the primary problem. That is always ignored by contrarians.
And yet the rate of current and past warming is something we know so little about. Similarly the rate of cooling (i.e. natural variability). The resolution issue between climate proxies (like ice cores) and modern weather is never really discussed by consensus climate scientists.
This recent spike – much as the 98 El Nino spike, are real problems for claims like ‘it’s hotter than its been in 10,000 years’ because averaging period for your signal matters! Shades of Mann’s hockey stick.
Perhaps not coincidentally, that’s also the blind spot in the ‘solar power is cheap’ narrative that is breaking power grids and electricity pricing models around the world. Sure it’s cheap near daytime solar max on a sunny day. But at midnight all that cost saving and more is lost through extra costs for transmission and storage with in a distributed network. And so we get negative electricity prices at times of peak production…that’s alright, who needs cheap, stable electricity supplies hey?
> And yet the rate of current and past warming is something we know so little about.
We should know the difference between years and eons.
Rate of warming? I’d say 1C over 180 years is not exactly fast. Considering that warming is a re-warming from the Little Ice Age, there is nothing to write home about.
Akasofu claimed the re-warming should be about 0.5C/century. That’s about right.
> I’d say 1C over 180 years is not exactly fast.
In geological times, it’s exceedingly fast.
Where’s your evidence?
Start here, grasshopper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale
A comment of utter insanity. The global biosphere is unravelling, and its supposed to be ‘a good thing’?
Is this a climate science forum or a forum for denialists?
Jay, you clearly demonstrate your alarmism. And just as clearly you don’t understand the real science.
For example, can all infrared cause warming?
a. Yes
b. No
Puffman has taken heed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1586244
It seems Jay didn’t come here to discuss science. As expected, he doesn’t know the science and doesn’t want to learn.
Jay,
You wrote –
“The global biosphere is unravelling, . . . ”
As it has done for billions of years. 99.99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.
The surface is no longer molten, and liquid water covers 70% of the surface. Are you living in a cultist fantasy, perhaps? Open your eyes – accept reality.
Or not – who cares?
Give credit where it is due. Arkady Ivanovich predicted 0.83 +/- 0.05 C.
I’d love to know how this was done.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1582803
Ark hit the bullseye, while bdgwx threw nonsense against the wall.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1583336
Puffman links to another comment he does not understand.
Where are his famous riddles?
I also wondered about that prediction as it aligned almost exactly with what I was thinking. My logic was based on increasing Antarctic sea ice. It would be interesting to know why Ark thought there would be a decrease.
What I’m most interested in is the +/- 0.05 C uncertainty. Given that UAH measurement uncertainty is +/- 0.20 C that puts a floor on any prediction. Unless…Ark had inside information or was processing the raw AMSU satellite feeds on his own and had a high confidence bead on how December was playing out.
Or unless he just got lucky. Surely we’ve all hit the bullseye at least once just by chance.
It would have to be a combination of luck and a miscalculated uncertainty.
FWIW the best I’ve been able to do is +/- 0.22. Had I predicted 0.83 I would have only had a 3% chance of hitting it exactly.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Does anyone have an explanation (other than HTE) for the sudden increase observed these past few months?
There are 4 natural warming factors:
– HTE
– El Nino
– solar cycle 25 max
– decreased sea ice in Antarctica.
There could also be a natural decrease in cloud cover for whatever reason(s) [not just solar activity].
From what I can tell the warm phases of both the AMO and PDO lead to a decrease in cloud cover. Since these are generally longer term factors I tend not to mention them. The AMO has been positive since the 1990s.
Aerosol load – esp in Strat?
Prevailing wind strength and direction (key for Pacific islander ocean navigation of cycles of several years).
We are still getting very bright, lingering yellow sunsets that only started after HTE.
I’m at -32S in probably one of the least cloudy places in earth. It’s been particularly cloudless and windy of late, but we are also one of the windiest places on earth 🙂
It frustrates me that when cloud and wind are such significant factors in air temperature that there isn’t better data on it from ground level. Perhaps modern satellites now have high resolution better data – it may be there, just hard to analyse and so ignored by people whose minds are made up. Wind direction in Perth literally makes a difference of 10C in maxima and minima at this time of year. So very small subtle shifts in the amount of easterly to westerly will easily give you 0.6C changes in average. This is at 1.5m height of course, no idea what happens at higher altitudes, I guess it’s damped, but energy balances are still in play.
Ah…that explains why Vancouver, Canada is as cold as usual this time of year. We have so much cloud we hardly ever see the Sun.
On the Canadian prairies they like to tell us, if you don’t like the weather, wait 10 minutes and it will change. Here in Vancouver we tell you, don’t get used to the Sun, it will be hidden in 10 minutes.
Here in Guelph, ON I haven’t seen even a glimpse of sun since December 21, when it was partly cloudy in the afternoon. The last mostly clear day was on December 19.
September, October and November had some fairly sunny weather.
August was cloudy.
August and November were cool. September, October and especially December were warm.
Vancouver has set multiple daily high temperature records in the last two weeks and none of the North Shore Ski fields or Whistler has snow down low. How can you say that it is as cold as usual when we are in a top 5% temperature year?
The reduction of aerosols and clouds over shipping lanes due to mandated reduction in fuel sulfur content, has been proposed as well.
But, of course, humans had nothing to do with producing the warmest year in Dr. Roy’s records (and likely the warmest year since the start of the industrial revolution.) (Snark!)
For those of you who follow (and snipe) at my climate related videos, you might find my latest interesting:
“What Tree-Rings Tell Us About Climate Change”
https://youtu.be/2_Y_Ew3NI6Q
Mark, have you been able to learn any physics yet?
For example, do you understand why a vacuum tube burning your fingers is NOT proof of the GHE?
Mark,
You wrote –
“But, of course, humans had nothing to do with producing the warmest year in Dr. Roys records (and likely the warmest year since the start of the industrial revolution.) (Snark!)”
Burning hydrocarbons produces both heat and CO2 and H2O.
Thermometers (thermo meters) are designed to respond to heat – not gases.
Maybe your attempted sarcasm missed the point? You are just confused, not necessarily unintelligent.
Swenson,
is this the level this forum has stooped to, in attempt to deny the impossibly obvious?
Jay,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
is this the level this forum has stooped to, in attempt to deny the impossibly obvious.”
I assume you are trying to disagree with something I wrote, but are too gutless to say what it is.
Am I right, or am I right?
[chortles at fact-free commenter]
And your proof that humans had anything to do with it is….?
Here you go, sealion:
https://www.ipcc.ch/
The UN is just a special interest organization still searching for relevance like any other bureaucracy without relevance tries to do.
It votes and its usually the authoritarian states versus the free states. . .though occasionally some of the states can be bought off. . .given exemptions. . .indulgences. . .payola. . .etc.
Area Minarchist Minarchizes.
being against a state that wanders into authoritarianism and corruption doesn’t make one a minarchist Willy.
I am certainly not a minarchist by any stretch of the imagination. I support quite a few social and regulatory programs but object to how many of them become corrupted and operate in the shadows with no accountability and lying about the science behind their unstated true objectives.
[GILL] being against a state that wanders into authoritarianism and corruption doesnt make one a minarchist
[ALSO GILL] I take no political stance beyond being of a mind for minimal government.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Area Minarchist Minarchizes.”
Really? What does that mean?
willard doesn’t understand English and believes minimal to be a noun.
Gill wishes away the definition of minarchism by some wishy-washy Zen in The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance handwaving.
minarchism is a noun and a particular but not the only form of minimal government. Willard must be the CEO of a strawman factory.
That would of course be a time consuming and money losing strawman company.
Perhaps Gill needs the simplified Wiki:
> Those who believe in a night-watchman state are called “minarchists” and they believe in minarchism.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
There must be a lapse rate in his understanding of how words work.
Apparently the ”anarchist” root of the word ”minarchist” soared like a dodo bird right over his head.
A night watchmen state is a state where government doesn’t do anything at all except provide security and police forces which compared to anarchy isn’t actually anarchy. . .
of course an idea about on par with as socialist that believes that a socialist government is a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. . .which is really a government with so much power it can ignore the needs of the people. . .rig elections. . .prosecute the opposition. . .you name it.
Like Iran declaring itself democratic. . .except to run for office you need the blessings of the Mullahs.
To be a anarchy where you can do anything except what the police powers shoot you for.
Minimal government isn’t a noun like socialist, or anarchist. Its a noun modified by an adjective where minimal can mean anything that’s not excessive.
Obviously Willard must be for excessive government. He will be until that government comes after him.
Maybe he ought to start by learning the language before posting.
Apparently Gill is ready to invent word roots.
Minarchism is a portmanteau made of mini and -archy
Smol gubmint.
No wonder he has so many difficulties following along.
Just as obviously Willard mistakes an adjective for a noun and perhaps unwittingly admitted as a consequence of that grammatic error that he is for excessive government.
Just as Gill can’t grok that “minarchist” is indeed an adjective that exists, he can’t grok that “archy” is the root, not “anarchy”!
Minarchism:
noun
Belief in the desirability and practicality of minimum government.
Adjective (1)
Of, relating to, or characteristic of minarchy.
Noun (1)
An adherent or proponent of minarchy.
https://dunno.ai/search/word/minarchist?hl=en
Indeed you can use any noun as an adjective. But they are more formally referred to be adjectival nouns.
Of course also minarchist government does not equal minimal government. So you are just spinning your wheels on this one Willard.
In “race car” there is an adjectival noun, like in “Sky Dragon crank.” “Related to minarchism” indicates that we’re talking about an adjective that is used as an adjective. Many “istic” endings are shortened to “ist” over time: realist, relativist, opportunist, etc.
Gill is biting more than he can chew once more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
In five days, the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will form two centers in line with the geomagnetic field to the north.
https://i.ibb.co/7QnbZQx/fnor.gif
https://i.ibb.co/Cn4f3Mv/416855536-873248828135428-5364395726179246908-n.jpg
The center of the Earth’s magnetic field over Canada is weakening and the center over Siberia is strengthening, and the north magnetic pole is moving quite rapidly toward Siberia.
Warm air from over the Atlantic will reach almost to the pole over Greenland, and a frigid high will form in eastern Europe.
Sensible temperature for March 8.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=49.4%3B21.2%3B4&l=feel&t=20240108%2F1200&w=strong&fbclid=IwAR1qkZw1vSDIFkk92qMSNJrAbeB09OUS8Z7BI2PLEU5Sw3sWxpeSrtntxbw
Sorry, sensible temperature on Jan. 8 at 1 p.m.
DR Spencer
Is there any suggestion that ENSO plays any part in the warming, as in, is the reason we are on an upward long term trend?
How could ENSO contribute if its primary role is to redistribute heat? Any discernible trend would arise from an imbalance in Earth’s energy budget.
ENSO is certainly playing a role in the current short term warming over the last several months since it has switched from La Nina to El Nio. However, the long term average and trend in the ENSO phase is neutral so it is not having an effect on the long term warming trend.
simon…we had a mini ice age from about 1300 to 1850. The planet needs to rewarm. That’s what you are seeing with the long term warming.
The SSW will also bring a harsh winter in North America, which could last until April.
https://i.ibb.co/pKMkmw9/gfs-t50-nh-f72.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f000.png
Large ice growth in the Bering Sea.
https://i.ibb.co/sqNZD3X/r12-Bering-Sea-ts-4km.png
In Scandinavia, temperatures drop below -40 C, with thick snow cover.
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/LPrX8W7/archive-2-image.png
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Swedish astronomer Anders Celcius died in 1744 at the age of 43.
His rival, Daniel Gabriel Farenheit, was still convinced that Anders was 109.
Wince.
Aaaaaargh!
Did anyone ask Kelvin?
Fwiw, I predicted this suoer el nino back in 2012, based on observed periodicity.
For 2023, I forecast a new super El Nino, in amplitude comparable with the 1998 and 1973 events and with a maximum value of 0.66 degrees. After 2023 the temperature will remain on a new plateau for another 25 years, which will be 0.163 degrees higher than the current plateau.
https://klimaathype.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/the-carbon-dioxide-thermometer-revisited/
Let me know when you get your paper peer-reviewed and published.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Let me know when you get your paper peer-reviewed and published”
What has a published, peer-reviewed paper to do with anything?
All about as silly as another commenter demanding “Please explain how you “KNOW” what caused the drop. Prove to me that it is more than guesswork.”
Non-scientists demand proof. Real scientists like Albert Einstein say “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
You GHE wafflers can’t even describe the GHE – apparently it is a god which cannot be described, only worshipped. Have you ever considered that anthropogenic heat might be causing thermometers to become hotter? All energy use produces “waste” heat. All. Energy consumption, both global and per capita has increased enormously over the last hundred years. I would expect additional heat at a temperature above the natural environment, to be reflected in increased temperature readings.
If you believe otherwise, please support your belief with facts (preferably unknown to me). Don’t start babbling about how much sunlight strikes the Earth. Half the Earth is in darkness, merrily getting rid of the heat of the day.
Over the last four and a half billion years, this has resulted in cooling.
No wonder none of you GHE donkeys can even describe this GHE you worship so assiduously. Just another bunch of religious fanatics, studiously avoiding reality.
@Antonin Querty, This was published in 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
Published in which recognised journal?
AQ,
You can find complete rubbish like this, published in what some might consider a recognised journal –
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”
From the abstract-
” . . . Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.”
GHE cultists probably accept this sort of fantasy without question.
Are you one of them?
Published as is, not peer reviewed, like science was published before 1910.
it is an observation with an extrapolation.
Take it or leave it, let’s wait what 2048 brings.
Hans, the problem is that curve fitting is not science. It’s innovative and fun, but it ain’t science.
At least it won’t be long before we know if that model is tenable! He’s predicting a massive drop in temps shortly.
IF there is a drop, the science of figuring out a plausible mechanism for a 25 year cycle AND the probabilities of such a cycle being coincidental need to be considered. To say it isn’t science isn’t fair, it is a remarkable correlation at face value, though I would rather see the data as a scatter plot than wiggle matching.
I discovered a periodicity for super El Nios of 25 years, coincidence? Who knows, let’s wait 25 years and find out. Could simply be related to the geometry of the pacific ocean, like a swing also has an eigenfrequency.
I don’t know.
I guess it’s down to how you define a “Super el Nino?” By another blogger’s definition, we’ve had SENs in:
“1877-78, 1888-89, 1972-73, 1982-83, 1997-98, & 2015-16”
No 25 year periodicity by this metric.
You “discovered” this from a sample of size …. what?
It’s a good thought Hans, thanks for sharing it. As you say, all we can do is wait and see.
I played a lot with l nin o and periodicity. There does seem to be a resonate frequency at 22 to 24 years. It wasn’t clear if this was amplification from being in phase with the PDO. Or perhaps the Hale solar cycle at 22 yr modulation of l nin o or perhaps both. But the PDO is basically a super L Nin O.
Aaron…Tsonis et al did a study into the phase relationships between the major oscillations and concluded warming occurred when oscillations were in phase and cooling when out of phase.
Re resonance. As someone who has tuned electronics circuits and witnessed the amazing response of a resonant circuit (on an oscilloscope) when excited by a resonant frequency I can only imagine such an impact with resonant conditions in the atmosphere.
Even at the atomic level, resonance is major. Electrons in atoms that absorb and emit EM do so through resonant conditions.
Nice job Mr. Erren!
Is this warming spike simply Tonga?
Don’t know, but I can tell you it is unrelated to CO2.
That’s right Gordon, the difference between this year’s temperatures and last year’s temperatures is not caused by a 3 ppm rise in CO2 concentrations. Find me a scientist who claims it is.
The what are you braying about incessantly? If you know CO2 is not causing the warming why are you an alarmist?
AQ,
You wrote –
“Thats right Gordon, the difference between this years temperatures and last years temperatures is not caused by a 3 ppm rise in CO2 concentrations.”
You are correct. No reputable, sane, scientist claims that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes surface thermometers hotter.
Nutty GHE cultists might, I suppose, but they are too gutless to claim anything at all. Just innuendo and implication – predictions of unspecified doom, by the look of it.
Correct me if I’m wrong – a fact or two might help. Do GHE cultists claim anything at all?
The evidence says no.
DOI: 10.22541/essoar.169111653.36341315/v2
DOI: 10.1038/s41558-022-01568-2
DOI: 10.1007/s13351-022-2013-6
DOI: 10.1038/s43247-022-00580-w
DOI: 10.1038/s43247-022-00618-z
The first one is about CO2 in the ocean! The second one claims a 1.5C rise due to H-T!
I stopped there.
So the sources bdgwx quickly threw against the wall run counter to his beliefs. That doesn’t matter, to cultists, beliefs out rank science.
For the lurkers…
The first is focused on the effects of the water vapor in the stratosphere as a result of HT without the consideration of aerosols. The author states the warming effect is 0.035 C.
The second claims only a few hundredths of degree rise peaking around 2026 as a result of HT.
b,
“The author states the warming effect is 0.035 C.”
Obviously a nutter mired in a fantasy. Radiative transfer models are just silly, and anybody who believes that global average temperatures accurate to 0.005 C have any basis in reality, is obviously away with the fairies.
No wonder people have to pay substantial amounts to have this sort of rubbish published. No reputable publisher would pay an author for poorly written fairytales like this.
Before the UAH “pausebuster” anomalies of 2015/16, the overall LT trend stood at 0.11 C/decade. I plotted that and added a couple of lines roughly 2 standard deviations from the mean (2014) trend and extending to the current time, to see how the anomalies after 2014 fit into that envelope.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:13/plot/uah6/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/to:2024/trend/detrend:0.14/offset:-0.0727/plot/uah6/to:2024/trend/detrend:0.14/offset:0.1553/plot/uah6/to:2024/trend/detrend:0.14/offset:0.044
barry…your amateur graphs might impress Binny, but they are quite boring to anyone who understand real science. Anyone who has tried w4t knows how easy it is to turn a negative trend into a positive trend by slightly adjusting one parameter.
Every single choice made plotting the graphs is displayed on those graphs. for all to see. If you have a complaint about what I did, please be specific.
The graph shows exactly what I said it did.
barry, please stop trolling.
What do the satellites show?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2023.png
Invariably the lowest temperature at 100 hPa.
Global temperature can only rise with a marked increase in the density of the troposphere.
The troposphere contains 75 percent of atmospheres mass- on an average day the weight of the molecules in the air is14.7 lb..(sq. in.)- and most of the atmospheres water vapor. Water vapor concentration varies from trace amounts in Polar Regions to nearly 4 percent in the tropics. Most prevalent gases are nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (21 percent), with the remaining 1- percent consisting of argon, (.9 percent) and traces of hydrogen ozone ( a form of oxygen), and other constituents. Temperature and water vapor content in the troposphere decrease rapidly with altitude. Water vapor plays a major role in regulating air temperature because it absorbs solar energy and thermal radiation from the planets surface.
The troposphere contains 99% of the water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor concentrations vary with latitudinal position(north to south). They are greatest above the tropics, where they might be as high as 3% and decrease toward the polar regions.
In winter, the height of the tropopause decreases and above 60 degrees latitude is an average of only 6 km.
Oh look … it’s the person who stated that there was NO WAY we would get an El Nino this year.
How is El Nino affecting the weather in Australia?
https://i.ibb.co/s5w37Hw/archive-7-image.png
The national average over the last 6 months is +1.7C on the 1961-1990 average.
NSW (where I live) is +2.1C.
Please explain what you believe a count of lightning strikes at one precise time on one precise day is supposed to tell me in relation to El Nino.
AQ, I thought everyone was going to die above +2.0 C (preindustrial). You even need to add another 0.5 C to your values. Are there a lot of bodies in the streets?
AQ,
Nobody at all can usefully predict future states of the atmosphere.
Anyone who believes otherwise is suffering from mental impairment.
Hey Ren … see what Flynnster is saying about you.
You are not that obtuse are you? Ren reports on weather predictions which are localized atmospheric phenomena. Swenson is talking about the atmosphere as a whole which he has already described as chaotic.
Taken as a whole over 30 years, we call that climate. Swenson is merely claiming we cannot predict climate.
AQ,
Oooooooh! What a zinger – or damp squib.
I’m sure you think that Ren needs your help to read my comments, but I assume he is rather more intelligent than you. Why do you think he cannot understand English?
You wrote “Hey Ren see what Flynnster is saying about you.”
Are you really that incompetent as a troll, or do you think otherwise?
Carry on.
Gordon,
Some insist the Earth is ablaze, but the truth is, most places still cycle through the usual range of temperatures, sometimes colder, sometimes warmer. Except for the higher Arctic regions, where Javier Vinos’ perspective seems to offer the most insightful take on what’s happening there.
https://judithcurry.com/2023/11/04/solving-the-climate-puzzle-the-suns-surprising-role/
What El Nino???
December ENSO3.4 average: +2.07
Oct-Nov-Dec ONI: +1.94
https://i.ibb.co/7W0M9nb/coraltemp-v3-1-global-current.png
Yet another graph from you that says nothing in relation to the comment you were replying to.
AQ,
That’s a bit harsh, surely. Your full comment was –
“December ENSO3.4 average: +2.07
Oct-Nov-Dec ONI: +1.94”
Is that supposed to “say something”?
The meaning is completely clear to regulars, except those who are irretrievably dim.
Bumbling Barry,
You wrote –
“The meaning is completely clear to regulars, except those who are irretrievably dim.”
Do GHE cultists talk in tongues, or are you aiming for the appearance of human intelligence through cryptic obscurity?
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
What Barry says is loud and clear.
You’re just playing dumb.
Cheers.
The meaning is clear only to alarmist twits.
Spoken like a true Sky Dragon crank who plays dumb about the simple concept of warming.
Silly Billy Willy,
You wrote –
“Spoken like a true Sky Dragon crank who plays dumb about the simple concept of warming.”
Really? A bit odd, in view of your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”!
Simple? You sound extremely simple. You really believe that warming (increased temperatures) is really “slower cooling” (decreased temperatures), don’t you?
That’s because you are exceptionally ignorant and gullible, I guess. Do you have any other reason?
You’re not just a bit weird, you’re very weird!
“Do GHE cultists talk in tongues”
Only sounds that way to cavemen, or the science illiterate.
barry, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Frigid air from Scandinavia is beginning to flow into central Europe. Soon the high above Iceland will bring Arctic air to western Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/1fbP5vw/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
While most Germans were celebrating the New Year, farmer Dirk Reinecke was frantically getting his three tractors ready to go and bring in 150 tons of potatoes before they rotted in the floods. That would have meant the loss of his entire winter harvest.
Reinicke and other farmers in Lower Saxony, northwestern Germany, have been working non-stop for days, helping to seal off dykes from the floods. “I’m 58 years old and I’ve never experienced a flood like this before,” Reinecke told DW. “We normally see some flooding every four to five years. But we’ve never had water levels in the village as high as they are now.”
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-floods-farmers-fight-to-save-harvests/a-67892023
Still amazing how many newsies Ren misses.
Weather, we willy, weather. Big floods happen every now and then for some unknown reason. Can’t predict them and that means you definitely cannot predict climate.
[BORDO] Weather, weather.
[ALSO BORDO] What El Nino???
Willard,
Your gibberish generator is working well, I see.
Mike Flynn,
Keep braying, one day someone will care!
Willard,
Your gibberish generator is still working well, I see.
Maroon Mike,
That’s it.
That’s the comment.
Maroon Mike.
Willard,
Your gibberish generator is still working well, I see.
Which part of “Maroon Mike” do you not get, Maroon Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
My favourite quote so far is by Jay:
“Imagine my shock at finding the denialst, pathologically obfuscating discussion on these monthly posts. Full of huffing, arrogant busybodies, groping at every inadequate alternative explanation under the sun.”
So true.
S,
Yes, those reality denying GHE cultists are a strange lot, aren’t they?
Can’t describe the GHE, or even say what is supposed to do. Continually predicting doom and disaster, unless mankind changes its evil behaviour, stops despoiling Mother Gaia, and carefully follows the ravings of autistic teenage girls!
What a lot of dingalings these deniers are!
Something needs to be done about them, don’t you think? Re-education camps, maybe?
Mike Flynn,
You deny the greenhouse effect.
You deny having yourself described the greenhouse effect.
You deny having received multiple descriptions of it.
You deny being Mike Flynn.
Is there something you do not deny, silly Sky Dragon crank?
Wonky Wee Willard,
Your fantasy is not reality.
There is no “greenhouse effect”.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years (continuous sunlight notwithstanding), and the surface does so every night, radiating all the heat of the day to outer space.
I don’t deny that you are so mentally afflicted as to reject reality, but that’s your affair. Maybe people more gullible or less intelligent than you (a very low bar, I know), are likely to believe you.
I wish them luck – they’ll need it.
Off you go now.
Moeron Mike,
Your denial is public knowledge.
What are you braying about?
Wonky Wee Willard,
Your fantasy is not reality.
There is no “greenhouse effect”.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years (continuous sunlight notwithstanding), and the surface does so every night, radiating all the heat of the day to outer space.
I dont deny that you are so mentally afflicted as to reject reality, but thats your affair. Maybe people more gullible or less intelligent than you (a very low bar, I know), are likely to believe you.
I wish them luck theyll need it.
Off you go now.
Moeron Mike,
Why do you keep copy-pasting your comments?
Wonky Wee Willard,
Your fantasy is not reality.
There is no “greenhouse effect”.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years (continuous sunlight notwithstanding), and the surface does so every night, radiating all the heat of the day to outer space.
I dont deny that you are so mentally afflicted as to reject reality, but thats your affair. Maybe people more gullible or less intelligent than you (a very low bar, I know), are likely to believe you.
I wish them luck. They’ll need it.
Off you go now.
Maroon Mike,
Do you regret not having started your own blog, like Roy asked you to do when you commented here under your real name?
Wistful Wee Willy,
What are you braying about, little donkey?
Are you still claiming that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”, perhaps? You really arent the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
Keep trying.
[hee-haw]
Maroon Mike,
Ask me again for a description of the greenhouse effect.
Cheers.
It is bombast from the likes of Jay and stoopidb that is causing the warming. You are both full of hot air and low on scientific fact.
Enonteki airport recorded -42.4C at 6.21 UTC, the coldest January temperature in Finland since 2006. Some other reports from Lapland region:
-43.2C Kvikkjokk-rrenjarka, Sweden
-42.9C Karesuando, Sweden
-42.7C Jckvik & Naimakka, Sweden
-42.5C Nikkaluokta, Sweden
-41.8C Kautokeino, Norway
Source: SHMI, Ogimet, FNMI
https://i.ibb.co/PxQwjxf/416833806-770664178429737-5243894640263611999-n.jpg
Your point?
AQ,
Are you trying for the appearance of intelligence through brevity? It’s not terribly effectve.
You really don’t care whether he has a point or not, do you?
Oh well, maybe you can try to be gratuitously offensive for no good reason at all.
Carry on.
Palmowski is a coolista who only reports about cold temperatures.
Never would you hear from him that the nighttime forecast for Nikkaluokta on next Tuesday is +2 C.
Here we see the nighttime forecast for Europe next night:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240106&daytime=night&iid=euro
And here we see how it looks like for next Tuesday:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240109&daytime=night&iid=euro
Lulea in North Sweden moves in 3 days from -30 C up to +2 C at night exactly like Nikkaluokta.
jay…”The global biosphere is unravelling, and its supposed to be a good thing?
Is this a climate science forum or a forum for denialists?”
***
What is a global biosphere and exactly where is it unraveling? I would say Roy’s blog is largely a climate science blog even though Roy’s degree is in meteorology. Roy, being an open-minded scientist allows us to discuss a wide-range of topics.
What is a denialist? What is being denied? I would say that every skeptic on the blog dos not deny the planet has warmed about 1C since 1850, we are simply debating the cause. There is amply evidence that the so-called warming is in fact a re-warming from the 400+ year Little Ice Age that ended circa 1850. Strange that the planet started warming just as it ended, don’t you think?
To be more accurate, the LIA appears to have had peaks around the same time as two major sunspot minima, the Maunder and Dalton Minimas. Do you have any science to refute those facts or are you going to bury your head in the sand and go with your authority figure, the IPCC, who offers no proof to the contrary?
> Roy, being an open-minded scientist allows us to discuss a wide-range of topics.
From the horse’s mouth:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
Woeful Wee Willy,
I believe Dr Spencer referred to “Sky Dragon Slayers”, but you can’t help yourself can you?
That’s why you put your words “Sky Dragon Cranks” in Dr Spencers mouth, in a slimy attempt at social engineering. About your standard, as usual.
As others have pointed out, Dr Spencer allows free-wheeling comments here, whether you think he should, or not.
Maybe he has altered his views since 2013? He certainly has looked at other reasons for higher surface temperatures, apart from the mythical “greenhouse effect”. Are you upset that Dr Spencer is not bending to your will?
Diddums! Run to Mommy – she will kiss it and make it better!
You fatheaded loser!
Only joking, I don’t know your hat size, do I?
Mike Flynn,
Here is how Roy continues:
Op. Cit.
So I got to ask – why are you still braying here?
Woeful Wee Willy,
I believe Dr Spencer referred to Sky Dragon Slayers, but you cant help yourself can you?
Thats why you put your words Sky Dragon Cranks in Dr Spencers mouth, in a slimy attempt at social engineering. About your standard, as usual.
As others have pointed out, Dr Spencer allows free-wheeling comments here, whether you think he should, or not.
Maybe he has altered his views since 2013? He certainly has looked at other reasons for higher surface temperatures, apart from the mythical greenhouse effect. Are you upset that Dr Spencer is not bending to your will?
Diddums! Run to Mommy she will kiss it and make it better!
You fatheaded loser!
Only joking, I dont know your hat size, do I?
Moeron Mike,
Sky Dragon cranks did not slay anything. They are cranks.
You did not slay anything. You’re a crank.
What are you braying about?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Are you upset that Dr Spencer doesn’t seem to be taking much notice of your slimy attempts to determine who comments on his blog?
Oh dear, maybe Dr Spencer is capable of moderating his blog, all by himself.
Have you managed to convince anybody that your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is useful?
I doubt it, but correct me if I’m wrong. There will be two people I can deride.
Moeron Mike,
Do you regret not having started your own blog, like Roy asked you to do when you commented here under your real name?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Are you upset that Dr Spencer doesnt seem to be taking much notice of your slimy attempts to determine who comments on his blog?
Oh dear, maybe Dr Spencer is capable of moderating his blog, all by himself.
Have you managed to convince anybody that your description of the GHE as not cooling, slower cooling is useful?
I doubt it, but correct me if Im wrong. There will be two people I can deride.
Maroon Mike,
I’m not the one who insists on “slow cooling”:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
You are.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Are you upset that Dr Spencer doesnt seem to be taking much notice of your slimy attempts to determine who comments on his blog?
Oh dear, maybe Dr Spencer is capable of moderating his blog, all by himself.
Have you managed to convince anybody that your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is useful?
I doubt it, but correct me if Im wrong. There will be two people I can deride.
Maybe you could change your GHE description, and agree with Bindidon, that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer is simply nonsensical.
No GHE. Cooling is not heating. You are a peabrain
Carry on.
Maroon Mike,
Are you afflicted by Alzheimer’s disease?
Maybe you could try to change your own description of the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Switching to “heating” does not count.
That’s just one of your silly semantic games.
As I recall, Roy leveled his opinion at a certain extremist element of the Skydragon Slayer crowd. I don’t know, it was before my time on Roy’s site and I have no idea what the disagreement is about. I have never been associated with that group.
I have read some of their opinions and they are quite out there. However, there are good elements in the Slayer community like Philip Latour, a chemical engineer, and mathematician Claes Johnson. Those are the ones involved in writing ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ and I don’t know why Roy associated them with the rest, if he did.
There are scientists expressing skeptical views that I question. The late Fred Singer, who I admire for his work, made a comment about skeptics using the 2nd law to defeat the greenhouse effect, that their argument was wrong. Sorry, I think Fred was wrong and I wrote and laid out my disagreement. No reply.
No matter how anyone argues against the 2nd law, which clearly restricts heat, ‘by it’s own means’ from being transferred only from hot to cold, they are clearly wrong. There is no justification for arguing the opposite, that under certain conditions, heat can be transferred cold to hot.
When that appears to be done, as in an air conditioner, it is done via smoke and mirrors. No heat gets transferred from a colder environment to a hotter environment, the overall effect is accomplished by compressing a low pressure gas to a high pressure liquid and forcing it at high pressure through a cooling’ radiator that is exposed to a higher temperature.
That process represents the pressure/temperature relationship in the Ideal Gas Law and is not about heat transfer per se.
There is no way to perform such a process in the atmosphere, by it’s own means, therefore the notion of transferred heat from colder GHGs in the atmosphere to a warmer surface is pseudo-science.
The overall effect is one of cooling one room and venting the heat extracted to a warmer room but that is not a transfer of heat from cold to hot by its own means, which is the basis of the 2nd law.
I was once in touch with alarmists Stefan Rahmstorf, from whom I first heard the quaint notion that the 2nd law is not contravened if a the flow of IR from surface to atmosphere has a positive balance. Problem is, the 2nd law is about a transfer of heat and not a flow of radiation between bodies radiating EM in the vicinity of each other. You can sum those quantities to your heart’s content and it tells you nothing about heat transfer, for the simple reason that IR is not heat.
BTW, I know of no way of summing EM fields in the atmosphere. They are unrelated fields that simply pass through each other, like communications signals that are EM.
Besides, when two bodies radiate energy at each other and the bodies have different temperatures, the transfer of heat can only be from the hotter to the colder. I use the term ‘transfer’ loosely, in reality, no heat is transferred. When IR is emitted at the surface of one surface, associated heat is dissipated in the same energy conversion. If the target is cooler, then electrons in the atoms of the cooler surface can absorb the IR and convert it back to heat.
Nice word salad, Bordo.
You deny the greenhouse effect. You are a crank. That makes you a Sky Dragon crank.
Roy showed the door to Sky Dragon cranks like you more than a decade ago.
Why are you still here?
Woeful Wee Willy,
I believe Dr Spencer referred to “Sky Dragon Slayers”, but you cant help yourself can you?
Thats why you put your words “Sky Dragon Cranks” in Dr Spencers mouth, in a slimy attempt at social engineering. About your standard, as usual.
As others have pointed out, Dr Spencer allows free-wheeling comments here, whether you think he should, or not.
Maybe he has altered his views since 2013? He certainly has looked at other reasons for higher surface temperatures, apart from the mythical greenhouse effect. Are you upset that Dr Spencer is not bending to your will?
Diddums! Run to Mommy she will kiss it and make it better!
You fatheaded loser!
Only joking, I don,t know your hat size, do I?
Mike Flynn,
Have you misplaced your comment once again?
Woeful Wee Willy,
I believe Dr Spencer referred to “Sky Dragon Slayers”, but you cant help yourself can you?
Thats why you put your words “Sky Dragon Cranks” in Dr Spencers mouth, in a slimy attempt at social engineering. About your standard, as usual.
As others have pointed out, Dr Spencer allows free-wheeling comments here, whether you think he should, or not.
Maybe he has altered his views since 2013? He certainly has looked at other reasons for higher surface temperatures, apart from the mythical greenhouse effect. Are you upset that Dr Spencer is not bending to your will?
Diddums! Run to Mommy she will kiss it and make it better!
You fatheaded loser!
Only joking, I don’t know your hat size, do I?
Maroon Mike,
It’s just a flesh wound.
You’ll get over it.
Woeful Wee Willy,
I believe Dr Spencer referred to “Sky Dragon Slayers”, but you cant help yourself can you?
Thats why you put your words “Sky Dragon Cranks” in Dr Spencers mouth, in a slimy attempt at social engineering. About your standard, as usual.
As others have pointed out, Dr Spencer allows free-wheeling comments here, whether you think he should, or not.
Maybe he has altered his views since 2013? He certainly has looked at other reasons for higher surface temperatures, apart from the mythical greenhouse effect. Are you upset that Dr Spencer is not bending to your will?
Diddums! Run to Mommy she will kiss it and make it better!
You fatheaded loser!
Only joking, I don’t know your hat size, do I?
Maroon Mike,
You say –
“I believe”
Do you?
You’re more the kind of chap who denies having provided a description of the greenhouse effect.
Gordon Robertson
Heat can only transfer from hot to cold, energy transfers BOTH ways in both radiant heat transfer and conduction.
When two molecules collide, one moving faster than the other and they exchange energy the slower molecule will transfer its energy to the faster one and the faster one to the slower one.
You are stuck in a Universe of your own making with your own rules. You will not think outside your created box of ideas.
A cold object will transfer energy to a hotter one. A hot object will transfer energy to a colder one. The hot one cools because it transfers more energy than it receives from the cold one. The cold one warms because it receives more energy than it is losing.
I am wondering why this concept is impossible for you to understand. Can you explain why you think a cold object cannot transfer energy to a warmer one? I have posted experiments showing it does and to you.
Energy can be transferred from cold to hot but will not result in the hotter object becoming warmer still.
"…energy transfers BOTH ways in both radiant heat transfer and conduction. When two molecules collide, one moving faster than the other and they exchange energy the slower molecule will transfer its energy to the faster one and the faster one to the slower one."
So when the green plate is pressed together with the blue plate, back-conduction will result in the heated blue plate rising in temperature to 262 K whilst the green plate will decrease in temperature to 220 K?
“Noman” gets it all confused, again.
He believes conduction is similar to radiation. He confuses molecules with photons.
But, he inadvertently proves the GHE Is bogus — “The hot one cools because it transfers more energy than it receives from the cold one.”. Yes, the sky cools the surface.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why does “the sky” cools the Earth faster when it’s over a desert?
Oh, and how does it do – does it send cool rays?
less water vapor affecting the lapse rate Willard
Gill forgets to tell how water vapor affects anything in the Sky Dragon Crank Universe.
Heat capacity of dry vs. humid air.
Dry air cools the Earth.
Humid air _____?
We live amongst the air, not the actual ground surface itself. Humid air has a higher heat capacity than dry air, so requires more energy to heat, and is harder to cool. You now have all the information you need to understand where you went wrong.
Willard must still be on the surface backradiation theory and hasn’t caught up with advancing science.
The backradiation theory held sway for a few years before being debunked by R. Woods.
Then it popped back into common discourse for those not on the continuing reeducation programs for climate science. Surface backradiation help popularity until finally they awarded a Nobel Prize to Manabe a couple years ago. But some stuck in the muds haven’t yet recognized the shift despite years of hot spot talk.
You know the theory at 10’s of thousands of feet in the sky where its impossible to do an experiment without a NASA-sized budget. Where backradiation is still alleged to work because its colder there.
Gill must have difficulties following the logic of Sky Dragon cranks.
Humid air _____?
Bill got it absolutely right. The complete discussion:
[LITTLE WILLY] Why does “the sky” cools the Earth faster when it’s over a desert? Oh, and how does it do – does it send cool rays?
[BILL] Less water vapor affecting the lapse rate Willard.
[LITTLE WILLY] Gill forgets to tell how water vapor affects anything in the Sky Dragon Crank Universe.
[DREMT] Heat capacity of dry vs. humid air.
That’s it. You have everything you need to understand. Less water vapour affects the lapse rate because the heat capacity of dry air is less than that of humid air. Nothing to do with radiative properties whatsoever.
Bill and DREMT, thanks for babysitting silly willy.
Someone has to do it…..
[PUFFMAN] Yes, the sky cools the surface.
[ME] Why does “the sky” cools the Earth faster when its over a desert?
[GILL] less water vapor affecting the lapse rate
[ME] Gill forgets to tell how water vapor affects anything in the Sky Dragon Crank Universe.
From these two questions Graham D. Warner infers that I’m wrong.
Whacky Wee Willy demonstrates his intellectual capabilities (or lack thereof) by writing –
“[ME] Gill forgets to tell how water vapor affects anything in the Sky Dragon Crank Universe.”
A good example of Willard’s stupid attempts to deny, divert, and dissemble.
Trying to appear intelligent, he assumes he can read minds. He doesn’t indicate what the “Sky Dragon Crank Universe” is supposed to be, nor the way in which water vapour affects anything at all in it!
Wee Willy is just annoyed that Dr Spencer is taking no apparent notice of Wee Willy’s slimy attempts at manipulating Dr Spencer, and is lashing about in a juvenile fashion – with little effect.
Willard seems singularly clueless – unable to even describe his magical GHE any better than, in his words, “not cooling, slower cooling”!
There is no GHE. Over the last century or two, man-made waste heat has increased enormously, and affects thermometers, which indicate higher environmental temperatures.
Willard and his ilk prefer listening to fairytales, and denying reality. Sad.
Willard is confused. The surface temperatures he gets from his local weatherman and used to measure global warming isn’t the surface at all. Its the air 2 to 10 meters above the surface. Heat capacity in the moist air is much higher than the dry air so it cools much more slowly. But Willard is so confused that when you give him the correct answer he is completely baffled. A 3rd grader could understand this but its hard to teach old dogs new tricks.
Mike Flynn,
Speaking of deflection, how would you explain that desert nights cool faster – is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?
Cheers!
Gill teaches lapse rates to 3rd graders every week. Community services was a better option for him than doing time.
Too bad his clients did not get their money back!
"But Willard is so confused that when you give him the correct answer he is completely baffled"
Exactly, Bill…and he just keeps going. He just keeps digging himself in deeper. It’s quite something to watch.
> Can you explain why you think a cold object cannot transfer energy to a warmer one?
Looks like Puffman now accepts that it can:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1587486
LOL!
Wee Willy is definitely a strange lad.
He probably admits that putting ice in your soup cools the soup.
His inability to understand English prevents him from accepting the reality that when the surface is exposed to something cooler – the atmosphere, say, – the surface cools.
He seems astonished that somebody might say “Yes, the sky cools the surface.”, but might not express the same astonishment if somebody said “the ice cools the soup”.
Willard even manages to lose at “silly semantic games”!
What a donkey he is.
Maroon Mike keeps braying.
It’s quite something to watch.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Its quite something to watch.”
Without all the entertainment what actually would get posted here?
Willard especially, it doesn’t matter what is said he simply believes it all adds up to what his Daddy told him.
Whatever the topic, Gill will boldly go wherever Graham D. Warner goes.
Rubber stamping is his mission, however fraudulent it may be.
Yeah, I guess it’s entertaining, Bill…but it would be more rewarding to see him actually learn something.
Not going to happen, though. The more we show him the truth, the more he runs in the opposite direction.
Thats because his daddy has him on a leash and knows how to correct him to keep him going the direction his daddy is headed.
Graham D. Warner’s patting means all the world to Gill.
Too bad he can’t face facts:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588088
He still just keeps going. He still just keeps digging himself in deeper. It’s still quite something to watch.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Never have, never will.
“No matter how anyone argues against the 2nd law, which clearly restricts heat, by its own means from being transferred only from hot to cold, they are clearly wrong. There is no justification for arguing the opposite, that under certain conditions, heat can be transferred cold to hot.”
And it is a strawman.
There is simply NO NEED for heat to transfer from the cool atmosphere to the warm Earth surface in the GHE, since the Earth’s surface has its own heat source. Yet changes in the atmosphere can result in the heated Earth surface getting warmer.
Just as there is no need for heat transfer from the cooler oven door to a warm oven, since the oven has a heat source. Yet closing that door enables the heated oven to get hotter.
No one would claim a 2LOT violation in that case.
nate invokes the insulation argument but still refuses to condemn the 3rd grader radiation model. this demonstrates he holds uncertainty on his claims precisely like a guilty man denying his dishonesty having told the story multiple times while the facts change to fit the holes in his argument. which is it nate? insulation and the sun not having a blackbody limit as described by the Anthony Fauci of the corrupt climate change bureaucracy or is it backradiation? please explain in detail.
Gill parades his ignorance that the SB Law includes an emissivity parameter that can vary between 0 and 1.
Sounds like Willard is ready to accept that the GHE is closer to 10C than it is to 33C. I don’t see anybody in the mainstream science community recognizing the emissivity parameter in estimating the GHE and here we have Willard declaring we should.
Looks like Gill finally took a look at the equation all by himself.
Why else would he try to squirrel his way out of another dead end?
“nate invokes the insulation argument but still refuses..”
Bill has no rebuttal of this straightforward logic. So he tosses out chaff, and dives down familiar rabbit holes.
Nate lives in a world where facts are cherry picked.
Deal with these facts Nate while you support your cherryished ideas of what a GHE is.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588820
Gill portrays his riddle as fact.
A riddle that sinks his lapse rate explanation to boot.
What else is new?
Bill’s lapse rate explanation is correct regardless of whether there’s a GHE or not. Even if there were a GHE, it would just be an additional reason why the sky cools the Earth faster when it’s over a desert. The lapse rate explanation would still apply. Certainly nothing has “sunk” it, nor could it.
Graham D. Warner, like Gill, fails to account for the fact that the Moon has no lapse rate at all.
In what way does the absence of a lapse rate on the moon affect the reality that Bill’s lapse rate explanation applies to the Earth?
Graham D. Warner must be asking the void, for he’s not supposed to be addressing me.
Sky Dragon cranks can believe that greenhouse gases block radiations on their way in, but not on their way out.
The path of a Sky Dragon crank is not a consistent one.
Little Willy attacks another straw man.
[GRAHAM D WARNER] Sky Dragon cranks have no problem with clouds reflecting sunlight, we have no problem with this part of the explanation.
[ALSO GRAHAM D WARNER] You cannot “trap” OLR. You can only slow its progress into space.
By that logic, Sky Dragon cranks might as well argue that clouds cannot “reflect” sunlight!
Clouds are not GHGs, and reflection is not absorp.tion/emission. Your ignorance is mind-blowing.
“Bills lapse rate explanation is correct regardless of whether theres a GHE or not.”
What is Bill ‘explaining’ with it?
I’ll bet he is focusing on one fact while ignoring many other relevant ones.
…your ignorance is mind-blowing.
Nate says:
”Ill bet he is focusing on one fact while ignoring many other relevant ones.”
So you are in denial that water vapor cools much slower than say co2?
Water vapor not only has a specific heat more than twice that of CO2 it also carries more than 2,000 times the specific heat of CO2 per degree C as latent heat that is released as the water vapor condenses. That changes temperatures at altitude resulting in slower cooling.
So not only does water vapor carry vastly more heat into the atmosphere its concentration in the atmosphere is far greater and it has a much shorter life span in the atmosphere of 8 to 10 days versus co2 of about 5 years. So the delivery of heat from the surface to the atmosphere is like many orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emissions.
Gill accepts the greenhouse theory out of a sudden.
There is hope!
Besides:
> per degree C
ROFTL!
“So you are in denial that water vapor cools much slower than say co2?
No. Air containing water vapor contains more thermal energy (enthalpy) than dry air. It takes more solar energy to heat air or soil with water in it.
Hey Willard. Take note Nate agrees with my explanation. That makes the score now 3 for and just you against.
“Hey Willard. Take note Nate agrees with my explanation. That makes the score now 3 for and just you against.”
Notice Bill is confused and misrepresents my post.
I did not agree that the lapse rate is the key factor.
then nate doesn’t agree that the key signature of warming occurring due to emissions occurring at a higher and colder place in the atmosphere is the hot spot theory.
the other condition that from the view of the surface that the effect is saturated is a view already held by the mainstream that for all practical purposes a single layer model of co2 in the atmosphere (i.e. saturated single layer) already exists (give or take a few tenths of a degree).
…ignorance is mind-blowing.
“then nate doesnt agree that the key signature of warming occurring due to emissions occurring at a higher and colder place in the atmosphere is the hot spot theory.”
Mixing up different phenomena.
Bill claims to have read the paper that thoroughly explains how the GHE works, but can’t tell us what specifically it has done wrong.
Your ignorance Nate is astounding.
Trump method.
Whatever his failings, which are many, he just accuses his opponents of having them.
Doesnt work for you.
Tropical tropospheric hotspot is, oddly enough, predicted for the TROPICS.
And it has nothing to do with the basic increasing emission height explanation of the AGW.
As I said you are mixing up different phenomena.
And in case, it has been observed, according to some papers.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007
Nate we already knew that water can change the lapse rate and in the tropics large amounts of water and water variation is found in the atmosphere.
You need to follow Willard’s advice to get away from the water and do the work in the desert instead.
“Nate we already knew…. ”
Obviously you did not, cuz you mixed it all up with the height of emission explanation of the GHE.
It is increasingly apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.
When are you going to realize that it hurts your cause for you to post about science that you have not bothered to learn, and then have others point out the BS?
nate lies again. we know water changes the lapse rate. nws has been using different moist and dry lapse rates in weather forecasting since long before i learned about in the 1960’s.
all you are in here for is to obfuscate for your daddy and you really aren’t doing a good job of it at all.
Did you not say this?
“then nate doesnt agree that the key signature of warming occurring due to emissions occurring at a higher and colder place in the atmosphere is the hot spot theory.”
As i noted, that is WRONG. You are mixing up different aspects of the theory of climate change.
There is the hot spot theory that has to with the increasing water vapor causing faster warming of the troposphere, in the TROPICS.
I showed you a source for this.
And this arises from ANY warming mechanism, not only an increasing GHE. So it is seen during an El Nino, for example.
Then, independently, there is the increasing GHE due to emissions from the increasing GHG, occurring at higher and colder elevations in the atmosphere.
That is an entirely DIFFERENT phenomenon! I also showed you a source explaining this.
Naturally you have mixed these things all together.
Nate says:
”Did you not say this?
”then nate doesnt agree that the key signature of warming occurring due to emissions occurring at a higher and colder place in the atmosphere is the hot spot theory.”
As i noted, that is WRONG. You are mixing up different aspects of the theory of climate change.
There is the hot spot theory that has to with the increasing water vapor causing faster warming of the troposphere, in the TROPICS.
I showed you a source for this.”
———————————
Thats fine Nate. But how does CO2 make the sky warmer during the day? Seems to me that the sun is doing that by shooting a 1361-1380w/m2 solar constant through the atmosphere heating up clouds, ice, water vapor, and CO2 more than 12 hours a day. . .and you expect a colder surface to do that?
The isothermal atmosphere hypothesis is a recognition that if CO2 and other molecules weren’t cooling the upper atmosphere to space (as outlined by Roy) then the atmosphere would be isothermal.
If its not via heating that area of the atmosphere then exactly how does that work? Provide source please I don’t want to hear your jibber jabber without support.
“nate lies again.”
“thats fine nate”
So just to clarify, I didnt lie, correct? Just you being cranky.
“The isothermal atmosphere hypothesis” is a red herring.
You don’t seem to know what the word isothermal means. If you did, you would realize that the atmosphere is not isothermal.
the science paper you produced didn’t say the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis was false. Instead the analysis his analysis of the prospects of a decrease in emissions was conditioned upon it being false.
So for the purpose of describing how warming might proceed it if was false he just assumed it to be false.
And that makes perfect logical sense. The hypothesis essentially states that if cooling of the upper atmosphere is overridden by a greenhouse gas warming effect the atmosphere will trend toward hydrostatic equilibrium and an isothermal state. If that occurs then obviously there will be no reduction in outgoing emissions due to an increase in height of emissions.
If you want to call that the Dr. Lindzen’s theory of emerging phenomena that works. And of course Roy has repeatedly stated that the only reason the upper atmosphere is cooler than the lower atmosphere is because of greenhouse gases cooling the upper layers of the atmosphere.
“the science paper you produced didnt say the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis was false.”
Nor did it say the atmosphere contains oxygen.
Because both are basic facts that every reader should know. Why don’t you?
“The hypothesis essentially states that if cooling of the upper atmosphere is overridden by a greenhouse gas warming effect the atmosphere will trend toward hydrostatic equilibrium and an isothermal state. ”
No it does not. This makes no sense.
Again, NO QUOTE NO CREDIT.
Again Nate. If just above current TOA we have CO2 there reducing the cooling effect of GHGs at TOA that means current TOA will get warmer Which is a movement toward an isothermal atmosphere.
You need to understand that is why there is no blueprint for this effect, namely because as your source stated there is uncertainty.
That doesn’t mean we know what will happen. . .because we don’t.
If you want to argue that yes we do know then you need to provide a source that shows the observation of what you expect occurring. Not the paper you thought was proof, which was only a theoretical discussion. In the case of the paper you offered the author had the integrity to note the uncertainty. Not all scientists maintain their integrity. . .most do though.
Actually Nate, Willard is starting to get it here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588774
Greenhouse gases are making the nights warmer and the days cooler.
Can you think of a better recipe for reducing both deaths from heat and cold?
And thats what Svante Arrhenius said also:
”By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind”
What caused the narrative to change? More people hating? Particularly of other people?
“Again Nate. If just above current TOA we have CO2 there reducing the cooling effect of GHGs at TOA that means current TOA will get warmer Which is a movement toward an isothermal atmosphere.”
So after I point out that your claims about what the ‘isothermal hypothesis’ is supposed to do:
“No it does not. This makes no sense.”
And again pointed out a big issue with your claim:
“Again, NO QUOTE NO CREDIT.”
Then do you provide a quote? NO.
Because your claim was pure unsupportable nonsense, as usual.
FYI, the warming of the global troposphere has been ~ 1C, comparable to the surface warming, as predicted.
Thus there has been negligible change to the lapse rate, which is -6.5 C/km, giving ~ -60 C @ TOA, and thus negligible tendency toward an isothermal atmosphere!
That’s why I said your claim ‘makes no sense’.
Hunter (and Nate), Please be aware that the TOA is not the Tropopause. TOA is outside the atmosphere where satellites can fly instruments which are able to acquire global data. The UAH data is derived from one such data stream provided by the MSU/AMSU instruments.
Hunter, one projected result of greenhouse warming is an increase in the altitude of the tropopause, which has been reported. Another result is a cooling of the Stratosphere above the Tropopause, which has also been observed. Do try to learn some physics, won’t you?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
It is definitely interesting that despite 2023 being the warmest year according to satellite records the arctic ice sheet is the 7th largest since the year 2000.
” … the 7th largest since the year 2000. ”
*
Oh, really?
Here is a descending sort of all December records for the Arctic sea ice extent (15%+ ice) and area (100% pack ice):
Year: extent; area (Mkm^2)
2000: 12.64; 10.96
2002: 12.61; 10.64
2003: 12.59; 10.80
2004: 12.55; 10.98
2001: 12.49; 10.55
2008: 12.36; 10.97
2014: 12.35; 10.89
2005: 12.23; 10.56
2009: 12.20; 10.59
2013: 12.18; 10.87
2021: 12.15; 10.74
2011: 12.15; 10.63
2015: 12.04; 10.64
2007: 12.03; 10.18
2012: 12.01; 10.45
2023: 12.00; 10.31
2006: 11.95; 10.17
2019: 11.90; 10.52
2022: 11.89; 10.27
2018: 11.86; 10.45
2010: 11.83; 10.43
2017: 11.74; 10.26
2020: 11.73; 10.16
2016: 11.46; 9.62
Position 16 of 24 for the extent, and 18 for the area.
Maybe you show us your source?
*
By the way, let’s have a quick look at the Antarctic…
Year: extent; area (Mkm^2)
2007: 11.98; 8.38
2014: 11.93; 8.21
2013: 11.85; 8.34
2008: 11.51; 7.39
2010: 11.27; 6.94
2011: 11.20; 7.40
2002: 10.79; 7.61
2009: 10.74; 7.09
2015: 10.66; 7.09
2020: 10.57; 6.61
2003: 10.56; 7.20
2012: 10.39; 7.38
2001: 10.35; 6.36
2004: 10.23; 6.93
2000: 9.91; 6.95
2006: 9.85; 6.48
2005: 9.68; 6.33
2017: 9.48; 6.23
2019: 9.41; 6.59
2021: 9.24; 5.48
2018: 9.19; 5.59
2022: 8.84; 5.23
2023: 8.67; 5.84
2016: 8.28; 5.51
Position 23 of 24 for the extent, and 20 for the area.
*
Sources
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/monthly/data/N_12_extent_v3.0.csv
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/monthly/data/S_12_extent_v3.0.csv
{ Sorry: the https access to this data for browsers apparently is not available. I use ‘wget’ on a UNIX system to download.}
Ooops?!
Should read
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/N_12_extent_v3.0.csv
instead.
Should read
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/N_12_extent_v3.0.csv
instead.
Funny thing how climate shysters managed to bamboozle retarded masses that more ice is better for the planet
https://youtu.be/1vHl-mSn99E
As always, the ankle-biting dachshund aggressively insults instead of moderately thinking.
As far as the development of the weather situation is concerned: hardly anything worries us here in Western Europe more than the loss of sea ice in the Arctic, because it brings us more turbulence in the northwestern Atlantic, which has had a negative impact on our weather for years.
”It is evident that the reduction in sea ice cover has increased the heat flux from the ocean to atmosphere in autumn and early winter. This has locally increased air temperature, moisture, and cloud cover and reduced the static stability in the lower troposphere. Several studies based on observations, atmospheric reanalyses, and model experiments suggest that the sea ice decline, together with increased snow cover in Eurasia, favours circulation patterns resembling the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation. ”
sea ice loss has greatly accelerated ocean cooling in the downwelling zones that keep the ocean bottom much cooler than any of the layers of the earth system that surrounds it. this massive loss of heat to the atmosphere results in more snow for Europe completely destroying the myth of global warming, being spread at the turn of the century, bringing an end to White Christmas there.
goldilocks whining has shifted from to little snow to too much snow
Yeah, that’s him – Bindiclown
Not sure why anyone would think the sea ice extent in December would be a useful metric for tracking temperature. Also, people often overlook other possible influences on Arctic Sea Ice such as cloud cover, atmospheric circulation (like the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation), and underwater volcanoes. The same goes for temperature, and that’s why averaging temperature is a completely pointless exercise; the Global Average Temperature is not representative of the climate but just a bunch of averages.
The claim was “the arctic ice sheet is the 7th largest since the year 2000,” Walter.
If you want to bite Binny’s ankles, at least be able to follow.
Hogle isn’t at all interested in following but merely wants to show off with egomaniacal, condescending, non-committing blah blah.
No wonder that he calls me a monkey, just like Eben calls me Bindiclown, or Robertson an idîot. I can pretty good live with that.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Hogle isnt at all interested in following . . . ”
Have you any facts to back up your assertion, or are you just having an ad hominem rant?
Maybe you are annoyed. After all, you wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote ” Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Exactly. You now claim that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (between the Sun and a thermometer), does not make the thermometer hotter.
In your words “I never would ever believe such nonsense.” Neither would I. There is no GHE.
Swenson,
It seems I’ve ruffled Binny’s feathers. He’s not a fan of being playfully referred to as a monkey. But maybe he doesn’t know the concept that December temperatures have little to no bearing on Arctic sea ice, especially when they’re comfortably below 0C up there. He also reminisces about his ‘epic cold childhood winter’ from the bygone era of the Korean War or whatever, believing it to be the norm. A quick Google search unveils Berlin’s winter temperatures hovering between 32F to 41Fenough potential for both snow and rain. Binny portrays Berlin as if it’s nestled in the high mountains.
Walter,
Bindidon believes that the future can be determined from rigorous examination of the past. He simply refuses to accept that a chaotic system’s output cannot be determined in any useful fashion. The approximate present does not determine the approximate future in such a system.
Even the IPCC has stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
GHE believers have to keep believing that they can predict the future. Otherwise, their lives become totally without meaning, and they might as well line up behind each other, and march off a high cliff, onto the rocks below!
Then they would find that nobody cared, anyway, and the world just kept going without them.
Like much “science” today, just a glorified sheltered workshop for those who can’t do any better.
[me, cynical?]
In a previous thread, ‘Professor’ Hogle wrote about me:
” When I discussed Arctic sea ice with him on this blog, we disagreed about the significance of September in determining the Arctic sea ice trend. ”
I don’t know exactly where Hogle discussed with me the relevance of any specific month with regard to sea ice measurements.
Maybe he’ll finally start to post links to the exact places he means?
All what I remember is a nonsense posted on November 17, 2023 at 2:14 PM:
” Remember when he got confused about the Arctic sea ice and why every month except for September is irrelevant? ”
No idea where I ‘got confused’ about the Arctic sea ice!
*
Coming back to this thread, Hogle writes in his typical condescending tone:
” But maybe he doesnt know the concept that December temperatures have little to no bearing on Arctic sea ice, especially when theyre comfortably below 0C up there. ”
I did not intentionally choose the December nor any other month, of course!
If Hogle had a bit of a clue of how to technically correct me, he would have done that, instead of superficially playing specialist.
*
So let’s do the job for him and show us all how Arctic behaved in September since 2000:
Year: extent; area
2001: 6.73; 4.59 (Mkm^2)
2000: 6.25; 4.35
2003: 6.12; 4.05
2004: 5.98; 4.39
2006: 5.86; 4.01
2002: 5.83; 4.03
2005: 5.50; 4.07
2009: 5.26; 3.76
2014: 5.22; 3.74
2013: 5.21; 3.78
2021: 4.95; 3.47
2022: 4.90; 3.47
2010: 4.87; 3.34
2017: 4.82; 3.35
2018: 4.79; 3.35
2008: 4.69; 3.26
2015: 4.62; 3.42
2011: 4.56; 3.21
2016: 4.53; 2.91
2023: 4.37; 2.79y
2019: 4.36; 3.17
2007: 4.27; 2.82
2020: 4.00; 2.83
2012: 3.57; 2.41
*
Similarly, should we not take for the Antarctic the March month instead of December?
Year: extent; area
2008: 5.28; 3.68 (Mkm^2)
2013: 5.02; 3.49
2015: 4.96; 3.45
2014: 4.90; 3.32
2001: 4.73; 3.36
2012: 4.55; 2.91
2004: 4.53; 3.16
2021: 4.48; 2.82
2009: 4.44; 3.02
2003: 4.44; 3.24
2000: 4.09; 2.67
2005: 4.08; 2.73
2016: 4.07; 2.77
2020: 4.00; 2.59
2010: 3.85; 2.66
2007: 3.83; 2.54
2002: 3.75; 2.36
2018: 3.54; 2.31
2011: 3.37; 2.26
2006: 3.21; 2.01
2019: 3.17; 2.10
2022: 2.82; 1.83
2023: 2.80; 1.75
2017: 2.70; 1.83
*
But now, another ‘specialist’ might come along, and claim:
” That’s all nonsense, Bindidon: only yearly averages can matter here! ”
OK, says Bindidon! Let’s do that at least for the Arctic sea ice extent:
Year: extent
2001 11.62 (Mkm^2)
2000 11.52
2003 11.42
2002 11.39
2004 11.25
2008 10.99
2009 10.96
2005 10.93
2013 10.92
2014 10.81
2006 10.79
2010 10.73
2022 10.65
2015 10.59
2021 10.57
2023 10.52
2011 10.51
2007 10.50
2012 10.42
2017 10.40
2018 10.35
2019 10.21
2020 10.17
2016 10.16
*
And… I repeat here what Willard correctly wrote:
” The claim was ‘the arctic ice sheet is the 7th largest since the year 2000‘, Walter.
As we can see, it doesn’t depend much on the method chosen for a sound contradiction.
*
The rest is cheap polemic, exactly like
” He also reminisces about his ‘epic cold childhood winter’ from the bygone era of the Korean War or whatever, believing it to be the norm. ”
What a dûmb, arrogant statement!
Here is my ‘belief’ to the 1956 winter ‘being the norm’ in Germany:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bj-ZkMcsJDVVf3C5zf22BG9p3UV9X7ZR/view
*
Hogle, it seems, might well be another of these vicious polemicists who love to discredit and denigrate those who disagree with their ‘theories’.
No wonder that he likes to communicate with tr0lls like Clint R (who denîes the lunar spin – does Hogle as well?) or Flynnson (who pathologically repeats his stoopid ‘Earth cools since 4.5 billion years’ in every Spencer thread).
*
So what!
So, it appears that Arctic Sea Ice has been stable since the late 2000s. My point is that the summer months in both the Arctic and Antarctica are much more relevant than October – May and April – November, respectively.
The link that goes to DWD stations has a couple of problems. Are you taking into account possible urban heat island effects? Have those records been homogenous, or have adjustments been applied to them? I did try to use the DWD one time, but I don’t speak German. And this isn’t important, but I am a bit surprised that the DWD was continuing operations even in the 1940s. Finally, anomalies are not temperatures; that graph has absolutely no representation of what has happened to Germany’s climate.
No wonder why you pick 2010, Walter:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
Perhaps you could keep these gorgeous cherries for Tony’s.
Willard,
It’s important to recognize the variability in the graph. I’m not saying there hasn’t been an overall decrease, but, lately, the rate seems much slower compared to the late 1990s and early 2000s. Does that not hold any significance?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Hogle
” My point is that the summer months in both the Arctic and Antarctica are much more relevant than October May and April November, respectively. ”
*
It seems that you keep 100% stubborn, like do Robertson, Clint R, the Hunter boy and DREMT in puncto lunar spin. { But… maybe you too are a gullible follower of their unproven nonsense, he he. }
*
I just did prove above not only that
– Josue’s claim is 100% wrong
but also that
– it doesn’t matter whether you take December, September (Arctic) respectively March (Antarctic) or even the annual averages to support the proof.
But Hogle ignores all that and does as if his wrong assumption about September/March relevance was confirmed.
How dishonest and incompetent!
By the 10th of January, the polar vortex in the tropopause will split into two centers consistent with the geomagnetic field. A harsh winter will befall North America and Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/HPKdqnP/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
” A harsh winter will befall North America and Europe. ”
*
Europe? Really?
https://i.postimg.cc/tTy6Shc8/Screenshot-2024-01-05-at-15-45-54-CFSv2-Seasonal-Climate-Forecasts-Europe.png
We will see.
*
If we look at a weather station 20 km north of us, we see that until now, the winter 2023/24
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=8&ireq=true
isn’t quite ready yet to challenge its 2010/11 colleague:
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
This winter, sea ice in the Baltic Sea may be at a record level.
https://i.ibb.co/BrBdVht/r13-Baltic-Sea-ts-4km.png
Interesting,
Planet Mars’ the measured average surface temperature is
Tmean =210K
And planet Mars’ the calculated theoretical effective temperature
is also
Te =210K
Thus for planet Mars both, the Te and Tmean are equal, or almost equal:
Te = Tmean = 210K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Now,
The planet Mars at Earth’s orbit and with Earth’s average Albedo will have the same as Earth the calculated theoretical effective temperature
Te =254K
Also for planet Mars always the Te = Tmean,
Thus, planet Mars at Earth’s orbit and with the Earth’s average Albedo would have Tmean =254K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Mars’ cp = o.18 cal/gr*oC
Earth’s cp = 1 cal/gr*oC
N.earth = 1 rot/day
N.mars = 0,9028 rot/day
******************
Mars and Earth are both smooth surface planets (Φ =0,47)
and…the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
Ok
Let’s apply the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, to calculate (via Mars) theEarth’s without-atmosphere the average surface (Tmean) temperature
Tmean.earth.
Tmean.earth /Tmean.mars1AU =
= [(N.earth*cp.earth) /(N.mars*cp.mars)]^1/16
Tmean.earth /254K = [(1*1) /(0,9028*0,18)]^1/16 =
= (1 /0,1625)1/16 =
= (6,15369)1/16 = 1,120266
Tmean.earth = 254K * 1,120266 = 284,57K
or
Tmean.earth = ~ 284,57K
**************************
planet Earth’s measured Tmean =288K
Thus, the planet Earth’s Atmospheric Total GHE can be estimated
(if there is any) as:
288K – 284,57K = ~ 3,43 C
If there is any…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> Also for planet Mars always the Te = Tmean
Wait.
Does that mean that the SB Law works out of a sudden?
Thank you, Willard.
> “Wait.
Does that mean that the SB Law works out of a sudden?”
No, S-B Law doesn’t work here either.
Also for planet Mars always the Te = Tmean.
–
Planet Mars is a unique coincidence.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CO2
Willard,
Planet Mars is a unique coincidence.
Te = Tmean = 210K
But for the smooth surface (Φ =0,47) planet Mars,
the Te =210K should be corrected as:
Te.correct =210*(Φ)^1/4 =210*(0,47)^1/4 =210*0,82799 =173,887K
Te.correct =174K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Is the SB Law a coincidence?
Enjoy your weekend!
Willard,
You too!
Wow, Wiltard believes in a Creator. Who’d have thunk it? Wiltard, would the Creator have come up with such a terrible design as CO2 causes warming?
Troglodyte disbelieves the SB Law.
Except on Mars.
Prolly just a coincidence.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
There is no frequency component in S-B.
Good morning, Christos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
The SB Law can be derived from Planck’s Law.
Good morning, Willard.
–
Would you, please, help, with the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Rotisserie
“Generally speaking, when a whole animal is being spit roasted, it is best rotated faster in the early part of the roasting, to help interior temperature rise without burning the exterior.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotisserie
Well, it is a long ago known from the million years old the human experimentation.
When using the fire for cooking meat, they used a spit turning it and cooking the animal.
When rotating slowly, the meat’s exterior was burnt, while the interior remained a raw meat.
–
The faster rotation had miraculous results. The meat was perfectly cooked the entire animal through.
There was not a burnt exterior and a raw interior anymore!
–
And they lived happily ever after…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Dig a hole in the earth. Light a fire in the pit. When you have hot coals, put a piece of meat.
You might need to wrap the piece. If you do add veggies and herbs.
Then cover your pit. Wait for a few hours.
No need to rotate anything when you don’t want to cook with air.
Enjoy!
Thank you, Willard.
“No need to rotate anything.”
–
It is the important part.
Rotisserie
“it is best rotated faster”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotisserie
“Generally speaking”
“when a whole animal is being spit roasted”
“to help interior temperature rise without burning the exterior”
“Once the exterior has started to crust, then the rate of rotation is adjusted down so as to minimize dripping”
“This allows juices and drippings to stay on, thus maximizing flavor.”
“The latter is particularly important if using a horizontal spit and coals or an open fire, in which case the drippings cannot be salvaged for basting.”
That has very little to do with the Earth, Christos!
Good morning, Willard.
“That has very little to do with the Earth, Christos!”
Yes it has to do with planet Earth and every planet we know.
–
“The speed of rotation can vary, depending on the type of food being cooked and proximity to the heat source. Large animals, such as whole pigs, are often cooked at speeds ranging from 3 rpm to 1 rpm. Ron Popeil, inventor of the Ronco “Showtime” rotisserie oven, claims that 6 rpm is an ideal speed for cooking a variety of food.”
–
“The speed of rotation can vary, depending on the type of food being cooked and proximity to the heat source.”
–
Well, let’s analyse:
speed of rotation – is N (rot/day)
type of food – is average surface cp (cal/gr*oC)
proximity to the heat source – is the distance from the sun (AU) in comparison to the Solar Constant So (W/m^2)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Do we want to help interior temperature rise without burning the exterior of the Earth, Christos?
Thank you, Willard, for a good question.
“Do we want to help interior temperature rise without burning the exterior of the Earth, Christos?”
–
I think, what we want is to help interior temperature rise without burning exterior of the Earth.
–
Because of the faster rotation, and the presence of ocean, more energy is accumulated in inner layers (“interior temperature rise”), and that is what makes Earth warmer, compared to Moon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Something tells me you’re not the cook in your house.
Is that correct?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Since 2000 cloud cover has reduced which has caused a 2 W/m
reduction in the suns thermal radiation reflecting back out to space. This is known as outgoing shortwave measured by Clouds and the Earths Radiant Energy System (CERES).
The effect
+0.6K Surface Temperature
+0.5K Mid Troposphere Temperature
+0.7 W/m outgoing long wave from the surface
+1.3 W/m outgoing long wave from mid troposphere
+1.3 W/m downwelling
I use the Alt 0178 to make all my units squared. Got robbed again..
Simply use
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
+1.3 W/m²
A year is over in Greenland too, and its ice sheet continues to show over the years its ups and downs.
At the end of 2022, some people didn’t get tired to explain that Greenland’s ice sheet is on the way to recover, and what happens?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hp59N2gopJ_0DYEcgH-XNWM0LsYO8b6E/view
Over 150 Gt less accumulation than last year! So disappointing.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ScaBo3sZvTdwFRx0xawOK9zVux88rc5B/view
I now wait for the first warmista telling us: ‘Oh look! Greenland’s SMB is falling again.’
Source
https://dataverse.geus.dk/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.22008/FK2/OHI23Z
What happens. Uber-alarmist, Binny, produces another one of his fake graphs.
And Robertson the incompetent liar continues to distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and lie – because he never was, is not and never will be able to technically contradict me.
*
See his last nonsense:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1585820
and my reply:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1586988
Who credulously sucks Robertson’s trash 100% deserves it.
How does one even know the state of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the 1840s? Even to make proper comparisons with the much more robust measurements today?
Hogle
1. Why do people like you doubt about absolutely everything – except their own gut feeling?
2. Why don’t you try to understand how the people did their work? On their web site, there is enough info about all that.
Whenever I inquire about logical aspects related to methodologies, I frequently encounter a lack of satisfactory answers. Even upon my own scrutiny, definitive answers seem elusive, leaving me with more questions. Embracing a bit of skepticism might be beneficial. It’s entirely possible to be critical of others without assuming ill intentions, just a thought for you. That’s what I am doing with the link Willard sent to the Arctic report card.
SSW is already in the middle stratosphere and will soon reach the lower stratosphere. Europe be ready for frost.
https://i.ibb.co/Btcg7vZ/pole10-nh.gif
In the past few days, frost locally in Sweden reached nearly -44 deg C., but as it turned out, this was not the apogee of the cooling wave. The highest frost of -44.3 deg. C. the previous night was recorded in Enontekio, Finland. This is the highest frost in Scandinavia in at least several decades. Previously, powerful snowstorms occurred especially in Norway and Sweden. An example is the area of the town of Grimstad, where 70-100 cm of snow fell. There is much more in the snowdrifts. Skis have become the main means of transportation. Another example is the snowdrifts that have formed on the E22 between Kristianstad and Horby in Skne in southern Sweden. Many drivers and their families were stuck in their cars overnight until help arrived.
Are these records homogenous?
According to the November UAH temperature contour maps, that area has been under a mass of low temperatures while areas around it are higher temps.
The Pythagorean Theorem today:
a2 + b2 = c2
A,
Trying to teach mathematics to GHE cultists is hard. Trying to teach them physics, even harder.
They believe in a GHE, but can’t even bring themselves to state clearly what the effect is supposed to do! Heat? Cool? Nothing?
The silence is deafening.
Hence, irrelevant attempts at diversion by such as you.
You aren’t terribly bright, are you?
A Russian proved that applies only to plane surfaces. If you place a, b and C on a sphere, the relationship is no longer true. Of course, if you’d offered that as an argument at one time, you’d have been written of by those dependent on authority figures.
Another way of stating the relationship, which requires a right angle as one angle, is using sines, cosines, and tangents. With c the hypotenuse, and a the adjacent angle, then cos theta = a/c. On a sphere of different diameters, theta changes and the relationship of the triangle sides change.
A fundamental problem is that a, b and c can define the area of the plain triangle. The same triangle mounted on a sphere has a different area. Another is that lines on a sphere are curved.
A way to visualize that is to take 3 point on a sphere that can be projected onto the surface. Joining the points with straight lines forms a planar triangle but it is buried inside the sphere. When projected onto the surface, the lines are now curved and form different angles with each other.
Cool story, Bordo.
How do you explain that spherical geometry dates back to Antiquity?
Is there a point to your question?
Yes, Bordo. There is. The Greeks worked on spherical geometry, whereas Lobachevsky, the guy to whom you are paying lip service, rather worked on hyperbolic geometry.
The Pythagorean theorem exists on a sphere, btw:
https://webpages.charlotte.edu/ghetyei/courses/old/S12.6118/spyth.pdf
Willard, you believe anything, don’t you?
Start at the North Pole of a sphere. Travel south one unit. Travel east one unit. Travel north one unit. Back to where you started. An equilateral triangle with three 90 angles!
Gee, that’s Pythagorean – not!
Which of three equal sides is the hypotenuse?
You are a gullible (and ignorant) wee Chappy.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Travel south one unit.”
What unit?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Albert Einstein
Shlomo Riskin
A,
He would have been positively stumped by the GHE believers, wouldn’t he?
Like the dim-witted ones who rush about saying “prove this!” and “prove that'”.
As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Unfortunately, GHE cultists like yourself cannot even describe their mythical GHE, which makes coming up with a testable hypothesis a complete impossibility.
Maybe you should stick with avoiding reality, and playing “silly semantic games”. That would fully absorb your limited intellect.
Give it a try.
Mike Flynn,
As Einstein once said –
“Life is like a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.”
Why are you braying the same silly talking points over and over again?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Too bad Albert did not stick around long enough to have his misunderstanding of time exposed. I’d love to have seen him trying to wriggle out of the fact that time has no existence.
I suspect Albert would have laughed at his gaffe, as did Linus Pauling, when his stubbornness prevented him winning a 3rd Nobel by identifying the structure of DNA. After Watson and Crick discovered the shape, at the expense of Rosalind Franklin (look her up), they needed Pauling to explain what they had found.
Some scientists of his era did try to expose his ignorance of time but Einstein had been anointed a science god by that time and those people were dismissed. One of them was Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock. It’s pretty sad when an expert on time tries to expose a basic flaw in Einstein’s theory and no one listens.
I doubt that Shlomo Riskin, an Orthodox rabbi, and the founding rabbi of Lincoln Square Synagogue on the Upper West Side of New York City, is in the same league, or even the same sport, as Albert Einstein.
“…time has no existence.”
I don’t know what that statement means in the realm of Physics.
Does it mean that everything happens simultaneously? That there is no progression of events such that today is yesterday, and tomorrow is too? That light travels at infinite speed?
You must be speaking philosophically.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Willard wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Speaking of deflection, how would you explain that desert nights cool faster is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?
Cheers!”
Willard is obviously unaware of basic physical laws. Setting apart his puerile attempt at a diversion – ” is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?”, maybe Willard truly does not understand why an atmosphere with less “greenhouse gases” allows both faster heating in sunlight, and faster cooling at night. Arid deserts are a good example.
I presume Willard is attempting some type of “gotcha”, in his usual mentally defective fashion.
If Willard demonstrates that he has made even a slight effort to find the answer to his question, but has either been unsuccessful or cannot understand the physics involved, I will be glad to assist the poor ignorant chap.
I could point out to Willard that the airless Moon easily exceeds the Earth’s surface temperature range, having no “greenhouse gases” at all! The same physical laws apply to the Moon as to the Earth. Maybe Willard can consult his friend the astrophysicist Ken Rice for assistance, and avoid the embarrassment of having to appeal to my authority in matters of physics,
What a loony Willard is!
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Setting apart his puerile attempt at a diversion”
Do you realize that you’re the one who was trying to attempt a diversion?
Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.
How does it work – by shooting cooling rays?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” Am I supposed to be interested in that statement.
You asked me (or Mike Flynn, or someone) –
” . . . how would you explain that desert nights cool faster is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?”
What has that to do with “Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” You pretended to ask me for an explanation – you seem to have beclowned yourself, and are now trying to blame it on “Puffman”,”Mike Flynn” – or anybody at all!
You have stated before that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”. Maybe you believe that cooling results in increased temperatures, but surely even a peabrain like you isn’t that silly – or are you?
Still seeking an explanation for why arid deserts are the hottest places on Earth because they have the least “greenhouse gases”? Obviously your astrophysicist friend Ken Rice couldn’t help you out. James Hansen is also an astrophysicist, I believe. Have you asked him for help?
The physical laws involved, like you, are quite simple.
Maroon Mike,
It seems I’ve ruffled some your feathers.
You’re not a fan of being playfully referred to as a maroon.
Maybe you don’t know the concept that the sky is colder than the ground?
You also reminisce about “not cooling, slower cooling,” which you seem to forget that they’re your own words.
A quick search reveals that you said it yourself:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
You are portraying your request as if you’ve never been spoon fed.
Was your childhood too hard for you?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” Am I supposed to be interested in that statement.
You asked me (or Mike Flynn, or someone)
” . . . how would you explain that desert nights cool faster is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?”
What has that to do with “Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” You pretended to ask me for an explanation you seem to have beclowned yourself, and are now trying to blame it on “Puffman, “Mike Flynn” or anybody at all!
You have stated before that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling” Maybe you believe that cooling results in increased temperatures, but surely even a peabrain like you isnt that silly or are you?
Still seeking an explanation for why arid deserts are the hottest places on Earth because they have the least greenhouse gases? Obviously your astrophysicist friend Ken Rice couldnt help you out. James Hansen is also an astrophysicist, I believe. Have you asked him for help?
The physical laws involved, like you, are quite simple
Maroon Mike,
You say –
“You asked me (or Mike Flynn, or someone)”
You’re Mike Flynn.
You’re someone.
You’re a maroon.
Hope this helps!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” Am I supposed to be interested in that statement.
You asked me (or Mike Flynn, or someone)
” . . . how would you explain that desert nights cool faster is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?”
What has that to do with “Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” You pretended to ask me for an explanation you seem to have beclowned yourself, and are now trying to blame it on “Puffman”, “Mike Flynn” or anybody at all!
You have stated before that the GHE is not cooling, slower cooling Maybe you believe that cooling results in increased temperatures, but surely even a peabrain like you isnt that silly or are you?
Still seeking an explanation for why arid deserts are the hottest places on Earth because they have the least greenhouse gases? Obviously your astrophysicist friend Ken Rice couldnt help you out. James Hansen is also an astrophysicist, I believe. Have you asked him for help?
The physical laws involved, like you, are quite simple.
Maroon Mike,
You repeat yourself once again.
Is that supposed to impress?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” Am I supposed to be interested in that statement.
You asked me (or Mike Flynn, or someone)
” . . . how would you explain that desert nights cool faster is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?”
What has that to do with “Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” You pretended to ask me for an explanation you seem to have beclowned yourself, and are now trying to blame it on “Puffman”, “Mike Flynn” or anybody at all!
You have stated before that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling” Maybe you believe that cooling results in increased temperatures, but surely even a peabrain like you isn’t that silly or are you?
Still seeking an explanation for why arid deserts are the hottest places on Earth because they have the least greenhouse gases? Obviously your astrophysicist friend Ken Rice couldnt help you out. James Hansen is also an astrophysicist, I believe. Have you asked him for help?
The physical laws involved, like you, are quite simple.
Maroon Mike,
Air does not transfer heat very well, and convection mostly happens in the troposphere.
What are you braying about?
Wayward Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Air does not transfer heat very well, and convection mostly happens in the troposphere.”
You still can’t figure out why deserts heat and cool so fast?
Learn some physics.
Maroon Mike,
There’s a very simple reason why deserts cool faster.
It involves greenhouse gases.
Cheers.
Willard,
How do you know Swenson is Mike Flynn? What if his name is Bob Jones or Zhao Jun?
Walter,
Sorry, just caught your attention.
The reason is simple – I already met Mike Flynn at Judy’s over a year ago. He has a very characteristic “voice.” Also, he has a very limited set of talking points.
He tried to reinvent himself a few times. But as soon as he would get angry, his normal voice would resurface, and the sock would disappear.
wee willy…”Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.
How does it work by shooting cooling rays?”
***
It cools the surface via direct contact, just as the air in a room cools a cup of coffee. Air molecules in direct contact with the surface gain heat by direct heat transfer. Once they gain the energy associated with heat, they become excited, do handsprings and vault into the air. Cooler air molecules above go, “Oh, Yeah”, and rush in to take their place, not suspecting they too will get hot and excited when they gain thermal energy from the surface.
You might not appreciate that explanation if you live in a temperate climate in winter. However, the surface in Tropical regions gets mighty hot, enough to burn unprotected feet. Same applies to temperate regions in summer.
I imagine if you are an air molecule with a kinetic energy associated with 1000 feet or more, and you descend to a surface with a temperature above 0C, you will gain energy and get excited. I get excited just thinking about it.
Cool story, Bordo:
So there’s more sky over deserts?
You can see the air molecules rising over hot deserts producing a mirage.
Interesting hypothesis, Bordo:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-causes-a-mirage/
So desert nights cool faster because there are less mirages over there than (say) nights in Vancouver?
Wayward Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“So desert nights cool faster because there are less mirages over there than (say) nights in Vancouver?”
Just how stupid are you?
Don’t you understand why deserts cool faster? Look it up on the internet.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1587613
Maroon Mike,
Good idea.
Deserts cool faster because cool rays fall down from the sky.
Sky Dragon cranks said so.
I found that explanation on the Internet.
Thanks!
#2
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1587613
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1587657
Yes, I correctly inferred you were wrong. You didn’t seem to realise that water vapour could affect the lapse rate and it have nothing to do with its radiative properties.
Graham D Warner gaslights again.
Incorrect.
“Because, ELR” explains NOTHING. One might as well argue that water boils because it reaches its boiling point. Besides, “the sky cools the ground” also needs to explain why the Moon gets very cold at night.
We must imagine Puffman happy to posit that the sky shoots cold rays.
Everything has been explained, Little Willy.
You asked:
"Why does “the sky” cools the Earth faster when it’s over a desert? Oh, and how does it do – does it send cool rays?"
Bill answered:
"Less water vapor affecting the lapse rate Willard."
You responded:
"Gill forgets to tell how water vapor affects anything in the Sky Dragon Crank Universe."
I clarified:
"Heat capacity of dry vs. humid air. That’s it. You have everything you need to understand. Less water vapour affects the lapse rate because the heat capacity of dry air is less than that of humid air. Nothing to do with radiative properties whatsoever."
What is left that you need explaining? Less water vapour = steeper lapse rate = cooling will occur faster. So that’s why the sky cools the Earth faster when it’s over a desert.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Here is the dormitive principle in action:
P1. Dryer air cools faster.
P2. Air with more water vapor cools slower.
C. The sky cools deserts faster than less arid places.
How does that explain anything? It doesn’t.
The reason why Graham D. Warner keeps waving his hands with “you have everything to understand” is simple. Sky Dragon cranks like him have no explanation.
Compare and contrast:
https://theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/553/
Graham D. Warner can wish radiative properties away all he wants. They’re needed for an explanation of why deserts cool so fast at night.
I give him a full and complete explanation, he just tells me that I haven’t explained anything. Why bother talking to him?
Graham D. Warner gaslights again. Heat capacity is a mere dispositional concept. To say that deserts cool faster because of the heat capacity of the sky above it explains NOTHING: it’s just saying it cools faster because it cools faster.
And while butting in a thread that is unrelated and where he wasn’t invited, no less.
You are a truly ridiculous, ignorant troll and a colossal waste of my time.
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“To say that deserts cool faster because of the heat capacity of the sky above it explains NOTHING: its just saying it cools faster because it cools faster”
So you still can’t get an answer to your question?
Is that due to laziness or incompetence? You are just trolling, trying to avoid acknowledging the fact that the hottest places on Earth have the least supposed GHGs in the atmosphere above them!
Even your reference says “Deserts occur where there is a lack of moisture and thus an abundance of sunlight.”. Weasel words, to avoid saying that “moisture” is a cunning way of avoiding saying “the most important greenhouse gas, H2O”!
Go on, Willard, twist and turn as much as you like – there is no GHE. Learn some physics, and all will be revealed.
Dimwit.
Mike Flynn,
That must be the most ridiculous rhetorical question you could ever ask –
“So you still can’t get an answer to your question?”
Imagine a silly Sky Dragon crank who keeps asking for a description of the greenhouse effect.
For almost 15 years.
FIFTEEN YEARS, Mike.
Do you realize how self-defeating that question is for your main move?
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote
“To say that deserts cool faster because of the heat capacity of the sky above it explains NOTHING: its just saying it cools faster because it cools faster”.
So you still cant get an answer to your question?
Is that due to laziness or incompetence? You are just trolling, trying to avoid acknowledging the fact that the hottest places on Earth have the least supposed GHGs in the atmosphere above them!
Even your reference says “Deserts occur where there is a lack of moisture and thus an abundance of sunlight.” Weasel words, to avoid saying that “moisture” is a cunning way of avoiding saying “the most important greenhouse gas, H2O”!
Go on, Willard, twist and turn as much as you like there is no GHE. Learn some physics, and all will be revealed.
Dimwit.
This response isn’t for Little Willy, who is beyond hope, but just for anybody reading. He quoted a passage of text and highlighted two sentences. The first was:
“There are also less clouds to reflect the sunlight away.“
Since those that dispute the GHE have no problem with clouds reflecting sunlight, we have no problem with this part of the explanation. Yes, that is an obvious part of why deserts are hotter.
The second sentence was:
“Once the sun goes down, there is a relative lack of moisture in the air to trap outgoing long wave radiation”
You cannot “trap” OLR. You can only slow its progress into space. According to pathway 2), here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574363
delay is negligible.
Little Willy asked:
“…for an explanation of why deserts cool so fast at night.”
He already has the explanation. The lapse rate is steeper without water vapour than it would be with it, due to the higher heat capacity of humid air, so cooling occurs faster down the steeper gradient.
While Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting, I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all hes the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
I’m not gaslighting.
Graham D. Warner has no business in this sub thread.
You keep smearing your confusion all over the blog. I’m not posting here for your benefit, as I said. I’m aware you’re incapable of learning, or being reasoned with on any subject. I’m commenting here, as is my right, just for the benefit of any readers.
“Flat earth” and “ice cubes boil” fan whines about cold rays.
In a subthread where Bordo claims that the sky “cools the surface via direct contact, just as the air in a room cools a cup of coffee,” no less.
An abject sociopath.
You sure are.
Graham D. Warner goes for the NO U.
…and rightly so.
…in a subthread where he invited himself, no less.
No invite required. It’s the comment section of a blog.
Graham always comes as he is.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There does seem to be confusion about the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states “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” – Wikipedia.
This has nothing to do with the energy impinging upon a body, which is not a black body. As an example, a sheet of highly polished aluminium exposed to, say, 1000 W/m2 of sunlight may reflect 99.96% of the incoming radiation, absorbing 0.04%, or 0.4 W/m2, and will heat far more slowly than say, a bitumenised road surface.
It is impossible to calculate the temperature of an object merely by knowing the radiative flux expressed in W/m2, impinging upon it.
Take ordinary glass, for example. Sunlight consists of many wavelengths from long IR, to UV. Glass lets much of the energy through, but absorbs some – heating as a result. A block of glass refuses to get hot enough to even boil water, no matter how long it is left in the Sun, even though the Sun’s temperature is 5600 K or so.
On the other hand, when glass is heated to orange heat (much colder than 5600 K), it becomes quite malleable. How many W/m2 are required? How can 1200 K heat soften glass but 5600 K sunlight have no effect?
Ask a GHE cultist for answers. Don’t be surprised if the answers make no sense. They really have no clue about physics or reality.
There is nothing in the original Stefan equation about rate of radiation flow. It was a simple…J = sigma.T4. In the S-B version, there is no time factor in the equation yet they manage to turn it into a time-variant EM emission.
Look at the RHS…sigma.e. .T^4
Note that the sigma proportionality constant changed between the simple Stefan definition and the later S-B definition. I wonder if Stefan is related to Gwen Stefani and listened to rock on headphones as he worked?
Internal Editor…Right!!! This silly, stop it, and get on with the reply.
Neither e.A.nor T contain a reference to time, yet sigma has a reference to time. That is cheating, plain and simply. You cannot introduce a proportionality constant that contains a time factor when none of the real variable have one.
The original Stefan formula was a simple statement of the degree of radiation produced from a surface of temperature, T. Stefan simple associated the radiation as a lump sum to the temperature, not to time. There was nothing in the Tyndall experiment that measured a rate wrt time. Tyndall simple measured the colours produced by each degree C of temperature and another scientist converted the colours to a colour temperature, indicating the frequency/wavelength.
Stefan did not go to the immense trouble of trying to correlate frequency/wavelength as it varied with temperature as did Planck. Somewhere along the line, someone has introduced a ***THEORETICAL*** time factor to produce power as measured in w/m^2. Stefan had no means of doing that nor did Boltzmann, I suspect. The notion of measuring EM in w/m^2, which has a time factor, no doubt came from some misdirected theoretician.
Fascinating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Which part of “the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time” you do not get, Bordo?
Whacky Wed Willy,
You wrote –
“Which part of “the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time” you do not get, Bordo?”
Has you comment anything to do with the GHE, which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
The Stefan-Boltzmann law needs to be tempered with reality, on occasion. For example, a container of boiling water at 100 C can radiate between about 1100 W/m2 and 40 W/m2 – depending on the container material.
However, the surface is still 100 C – as you will rapidly discover if you touch it. Trying to convince people that W/m2 somehow represents temperature is fraudulent misrepresentation – no more, no less.
You are either gullible or thick. Accept reality, if you dare.
Mike Flynn,
It has been fifteen years now.
Still have not found what you are looking for?
Have you looked where the streets have no name?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Which part of “the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time you do not get, Bordo?””
Has you comment anything to do with the GHE, which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
The Stefan-Boltzmann law needs to be tempered with reality, on occasion. For example, a container of boiling water at 100 C can radiate between about 1100 W/m2 and 40 W/m2 depending on the container material.
However, the surface is still 100 C as you will rapidly discover if you touch it. Trying to convince people that W/m2 somehow represents temperature is fraudulent misrepresentation no more, no less.
You are either gullible or thick. Accept reality, if you dare.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Which part of “the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time you do not get, Bordo?””
Has your comment anything to do with the GHE, which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
The Stefan-Boltzmann law needs to be tempered with reality, on occasion. For example, a container of boiling water at 100 C can radiate between about 1100 W/m2 and 40 W/m2 depending on the container material.
However, the surface is still 100 C as you will rapidly discover if you touch it. Trying to convince people that W/m2 somehow represents temperature is fraudulent misrepresentation no more, no less.
You are either gullible or thick. Accept reality, if you dare.
Are you a stutterer, Maroon Mike?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Which part of the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time you do not get, Bordo?””
Has your comment anything to do with the GHE, which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
The Stefan-Boltzmann law needs to be tempered with reality, on occasion. For example, a container of boiling water at 100 C can radiate between about 1100 W/m2 and 40 W/m2 depending on the container material.
However, the surface is still 100 C as you will rapidly discover if you touch it. Trying to convince people that W/m2 somehow represents temperature is fraudulent misrepresentation no more, no less.
You are either gullible or thick. Accept reality, if you dare.
I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all hes the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
Here and many places elsewhere in this comment section Willard argues that GHG make hot temperatures cooler and cold temperatures warmer.
He does seem to be coming around some as if we can make cold temperatures at night warmer and hot temperatures during the day cooler by emitting CO2 thats a win win. Fewer deaths both from being too cold and too hot.
Next he is going to argue for more deaths arising from the temperature being just right.
I notice that Gill just discovered why the Moon can get really hot.
If only scientists could notice:
https://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/moontemp.html
Perhaps they did!
the moon has no atmosphere Willard so I expect it to be hotter than the earth which does have one.
but thats not what I was noting. I was noting that the moon’s equator gets hotter than the Stefan Boltzmann blackbody equations say it should.
Worse Stefan Boltzmann blackbody equations are what mainstream science is using to tell us what the temperature of earth would be without an atmosphere.
So if you can manage to rein in your aggressive behavior for a few minutes and explain why that is, it would be greatly appreciated.
> the moon has no atmosphere Willard so I expect it to be hotter than the earth which does have one.
Two things, Gill:
First, you are forgetting an important parameter. A very big one. Very big. Wink wink.
Second, it’s the Moon, with a capital M. It’s a very special one. It’s our only moon. We only have one.
willard continues to dodge the question
Gill still plays dumb.
and willard continues to stonewall a response to the question.
Gill pretends not having noticed being corrected already.
Now Willard is starting to imagine reasons he shouldn’t answer the question.
Gill sure can try to sow division, but can he add?
Well, if you could come up with any quantitative science on the GHE at all you would find out.
That place is already taken by Mike Flynn, Gill.
But we already have two PSTers and too Ennuis, so why not?
Whats your problem Willard? do you think science papers have cooties or something so that you have to get your science from somebody else telling you what is so?
Sky Dragon cranks seem confused about the SB Law.
Here is a very simple explanation as to why:
https://youtu.be/93-_JhGNn1Y?si=BHmeHU3JxRUdH4Cm
“An object that radiates energy well also absorbs well and an object that radiates poorly also absorbs poorly.”
Sky Dragon cranks absorb poorly, thus they radiate poorly.
The formula that represents a change of heat, delta Q/delta t is not in the Stefan formula. We should be immediately suspicious when delta is used rather than the differential dq/dt. But that would mean a differential quantity in the equation RHS as dT/dt. The original Stefan formula was a simple ‘intensity of radiation = sigma. T^4’. He got it from an experiment by Tyndall in which he electrically heated a platinum filament wire till it glowed colours. The colours were translated to a colour temperature hence a frequency between filament temperatures of about 500C and 1500C. Still, there is not reference to frequency/wavelength as in Planck’s equation.
This lecture has no basis in physics for the simple reason that neither Stefan nor his student Boltzmann, knew anything about the source of EM. It was not till 1913 that Bohr discovered the electrons in atoms radiate and absorb EM. Therefore, the S-B equation is an anachronism dating back to the days before quantum theory. That is, one cannot measure the rate of heat dissipation at a surface using it. The rate of heat dissipation is based on Newton’s Law of cooling which states that the rate of heat dissipation at a surface is dependent only on the temperature of the environment of the surface.
As the lecturer claimed, the radiation is related to the temperature of the environment around the radiating body and the temperature of free space is claimed to be around 0K. However, there is nothing there to enable a temperature measurement since temperature is related to mass. Therefore, the rate at which the Sun radiates is likely related to internal processes, which in itself is likely related to the boiling mass of electrons and protons constituting the Sun.
S-B has nothing to do with a rate of heat transfer as indicated in the equation as delta Q. No heat is being transferred!!! If anything, it’s about the rate of heat dissipation, which is an entirely different proposition and outside the scope of S-B.
Wondering Wee Willy,
Maybe you could tell everybody how your pontificating has anything at all to do with your description of the GHE being “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Does the GHE result in cooling? Is that what you are trying to say?
You seem to be doing a lot of diverting and scurrying, but you haven’t yet managed to say why the GHE delivers “slower cooling”, rather than heating.
After all, an Earth cooling at even four millionths of a Kelvin per annum is hardly likely to terrify anyone, is it?
Come on, don’t sneak around in your usual slimy fashion – come forth, stand up, and proudly proclaim what you believe! Or are you too much of a snivelling coward? It’s not that hard – there is no GHE, and you can’t even describe such a nonsensical concept!
Your turn – or you can slime off under your rock.
Cool story, Bordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Care to try again?
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Willard, please stop trolling. ”
Says this blog’s worst, most disingenuous tr0ll, who never stops boring us with his stoopid
” Earth is cooling since 4.5 billion years… ”
despite this tiny detail doesn’t play any role in any discussion.
But… tr0ll Flynnson requests 100% freedom of speech, doesn’t he?
Binny,
It doesn’t help by misrepresenting me. When you quote me, you might as well quote my actual words, rather than making up your own version. Otherwise, people might think that I am as dim as you.
You pretended to quote me, and wrote “Earth is cooling since 4.5 billion years . . .”.
No, that’s your paraphrasing. Try copying and pasting my actual words. The import may be the same, so I cannot see why you intentionally refuse to quote what I really said. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years – the surface is no longer molten. There – quote away!
Do you have another mental problem – apart from your desire to reject reality?
At least you seemed to be improving, when you wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote ‘Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.’ because I never would ever believe such nonsense”
That’s an example of quoting someone’s words (although I did change the internal quotation marks for clarity).
I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all hes the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I posted a comment in response to my good friend barry. For some strange reason I did not receive a reply from anyone at all. The context is my observation that the climate models display a very wide range of results. Here was the response from barry in part:
“How should we view the risk within such wide error bars? I think its pretty straightforward. We cant get off planet. We cant reverse-engineer the atmosphere after loading it with more GHGs. We are conducting a huge geophysical experiment and we are trapped inside the test tube with our atmosphere. It seems very obvious to me that we should mitigate the risk until we understand it better narrow the uncertainties.”
This is my reply:
Barry, I agree 100%. We should plan for the best, but prepare for the worst. What sort of message do you suggest? Should we continue to tell populations in the developed countries that it is all our fault, we can fix it ourselves, and we must panic so we can treat it as an emergency? Or, should we be honest and tell them that countries such as China, India, and the rest of the developing world get a free pass from the IPCC, and we should prepare ourselves to be at the mercy of these other people who we do not control?
It struck me as a fairly charged political reply, so I wasn’t inclined to have a dust up abut policy options. In brief, any course will be imperfect for some. My interest was just to articulate the problem clearly, based on what you said.
No Barry, it was not a political reply, it was one that require you to justify your pseudo-science.
I have experienced this with you before. When I pointed out your error re the IPCC, that they had claimed a 15 year warming ‘hiatus’ from 1998 – 2012, rather than admit your error, you moved the goalposts, claiming a 15 year period as being insignificant.
Another time, I pointed to an article by NOAA, admitting they had slashed the coverage of global surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500. Again, you dodged, this time supported by your buddy Binny, both of you dismissing the very words of NOAA as being wrong.
Tim S said…”Should we continue to tell populations in the developed countries that it is all our fault, we can fix it ourselves, and we must panic so we can treat it as an emergency? Or, should we be honest and tell them that countries such as China, India, and the rest of the developing world get a free pass from the IPCC, and we should prepare ourselves to be at the mercy of these other people who we do not control?”
You had no answer because you alarmists don’t have answers, just ridiculous solutions to a problem that does not exist.
Cool story, Bordo.
Here’s the comment again:
Is that what you call a scientific comment?
Willard, please stop trolling.
The true real-world effect of increasing CO2 is not well defined and cannot be calculated from basic scientific principles or modeled accurately in the real atmosphere. There is wide disagreement in the various climate models
One does not simply *define* what one is looking for, pompous twat.
Uncertainty carries risks, and risks cost money. Ask your friends with serious money.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon, the problem for you and the rest who ridicule the very solid science, that describes heat transfer by thermal radiation in the gas phase, is that it is real and proven by real life application such as fired heating equipment. This includes the gas stove (if you have one) in your house . Try boiling a pan of water with a hair dryer or an industrial strength heat gun. Hot air has very poor heat transfer. Thermal radiation from the combustion gases is essential to make fired equipment effective.
The important question is how to quantify the effect from a trace gas, not whether the basic science is correct. The flue gas from a natural gas flame is about 27% CO2 and water vapor. CO2 in the atmosphere is currently 0.042% up from 0.028%. Combustion of a mixture containing 9% methane in air produces a flue gas that is 9% CO2 18% water vapor and 73% nitrogen. It produces a very large amount of radiant heat at a typical flame temperature.
CO2 feeds everything on the planet, either directly or indirectly. The idea that a colorless, odorless beneficial gas is a pollutant is part of the scam.
Climate is chaotic. It has been in a state of perpetual change for as long as planet Earth has had an atmosphere. Less than 10,000 years age ice between one mile and two miles thick existed where cities like New York, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto now stand. It did not melt because Stone Age man drove gasoline powered SUVs.
I don’t know his source for the data, but Rep. Massie recently said in an exchange with John Kerry that the average level of atmospheric CO2 has been 1000ppm in the era that mammals have roamed Earth.
Before that, when CO2 rates were much higher than 1000ppm, 100 ton lizards roamed the planet. Fossils of 40 foot long crocodiles – twice as large as the largest crocs in the Nile today – have been found NORTH of the Arctic Circle.
Pretty much everybody understands this whole thing is about force and corruption. A tiny intellectual elite want to impose their will about how humans SHOULD live. They fly around the world and hold conferences in lavish hotels in places like Davos, Rio,Cancun, Bali, etc. They fly at taxpayer expense in jets puking up CO2.
And the economic elite play along because they’ve enriched themselves from the TRILLIONS that has already been wasted on this idiocy and the many TRILLIONS more they expect to extract from taxpayers in the years to come.
Here’s the thing: I can guarantee with 100% certainty that after the many multiple TRILLIONS are wasted on this lunacy, the climate will continue to change just as it has done for billions of years.
The whole climate crisis framing, and the movement itself, is the biggest, most corrupt, evil scam man has ever committed against his fellow man.
The end.
http://climateball.net/but-trace-gas
Sometimes TS is just Bordo but with a Johnny Cash voice.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thank you for acknowledging that climate change IS political. Let’s be fair. You very clearly stated the need for action:
“It seems very obvious to me that we should mitigate the risk until we understand it better narrow the uncertainties.”
It is a very legitimate question to ask what it means to “mitigate the risk”? Should we really take drastic action when there is no realistic expectation that the rest of the world will cooperate? Has Greta Thunberg ever tried to protest against China?
> Has Greta Thunberg
There is help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIP2vukNOPc
Don’t be silly, Willy.
The problem with taking any action is that fossil fuel use has a 200:1 benefit cost ratio. Anything you do to reduce fossil fuel use will have greater negative impact on the benefit cost ratio than anything positive regarding climate.
If CO2 emissions do have an impact on climate the effect is very small. So far no one is able to state why modest warming is bad, particularly in light of historical human flourishing that happens when climate is warming
The major risk is economic and comes from reducing the fossil fuel use without an adequate replacement.
The middle Miocene (~16 Million year ago) marks the last time that CO2 concentrations were consistently higher than at present; Greenland was not yet glaciated at that time, and independent estimates suggest that sea level was some 50 m higher than today.
Enjoy!
The actual risk is that fossil fuels are in very limited supply. Peak oil arrived many years ago for conventional crude oil that is easily pumped out of the ground . That topic is no longer discussed because we have fraking which also produces natural gas and propane. The fraking resources are enormous, but still limited. That is the real problem. The answer is to not panic, but apply sound project management principles to make a rational transition to the new energy economy which will include a variety of renewable sources including biofuels. Aviation concepts that burn the fuel and lighten the load along the flight make the most sense. Nuclear power for ground-based electricity is the rational answer, but the green fanatics hate that more than anything else.
Those deep into Oil Drum stuff usually argue that we need to preserve fossil fuels as much as possible. That makes them side with Greta.
For some reason TS is very afraid of Greta.
Weary Wee Willy,
Oil Drum stuff?
You are raving again.
Willard, your inane comments provide good proof that you do not know very much and have little if anything to contribute intellectually. Your website, based on absurd stereotypes, does not help your cause.
My most beloved TS,
The Bingo contains the most silly talking points contrarians could mutter. You find them all, one by one. Your latest one:
https://climateball.net/but-nukes/
What’s the name of the company you’re rooting for, again?
Welcome to Climateball!
Willard, please stop trolling.
josue…”It is definitely interesting that despite 2023 being the warmest year according to satellite records the arctic ice sheet is the 7th largest since the year 2000″.
***
I have discussed this briefly with Walter Hogle on this blog. The warmest year designation has little to do with Arctic ice. It is nothing more than a statement of averaging temperatures in which hot spots on the plate skew the warming more to the hot side than the cool side.
It could warm 10 to 20 C in the Arctic and still not affect the ice extent because it would mean warming from temperatures as low as -60C to temperature of -40C. I can tell you from my experiences living on the Canadian prairies in winter that -40C is brutally cold. It’s so cold you simply try not to spend much time outdoors. So cold, that I would put only a small amount of gas in my car and run inside to pay it. So cold, that oil freezes outside and won’t pour from the container into the car oil inlet.
Meantime, due to the tilt of the Earth’s axis, on the southern side of the planet, temperatures soar into the +30C and 40C range. Those temperatures far out-weigh the Arctic cold but even at that, only manage to skew the average warming to 1C or less.
The claim of record temperatures can be written off as a short-term variability in weather.
> It could warm 10 to 20 C in the Arctic and still not affect the ice extent
Wow.
Just wow.
You might have invented the most efficient freezer ever designed, Bordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
That’s a good, responsible comment, Gordon. No insults, false accusations, rambling about science you don’t understand, or trying to fake being an engineer.
You can be an effective Skeptic, if you try. Keep it up.
Just remember, Clintella, I was supporting you and minding my own business when you stabbed me in the back. With friends like you, who needs enemies.
Now you’re back to using false accusations, Gordon.
Not good….
clint goes into denial. Show me a dated comment from me attacking you that precedes your uncouth attack on me.
I am looking at the blue part of the graph.
If there are fluctuations in temperature, there must be some heat exchange between the relevant observed system and the rest of the universe. But what is the relevant system, what is its thermal capacity and how big are these fluxes (compared, e.g., with the heat comming from the Sun)? Does anybody know some work concerning this?
With all the slop the cult throws against the wall, it’s always good to come back to reality.
Just as the simple ball-on-a-string completely destroys the myth that Moon is spinning. Simple questions like “Does all infrared always warm an object”, reveal the flaws in the GHE nonsense.
Daily Sea Surface Temperature so far in 2024 (as of January 5), indicates that we are going to need a new Y-axis.
https://ibb.co/vV5hMHh
This is par for the course, given the November 2023 EEI of 1.52 W/m2.
Yes Ark, there is an El Niño occurring. Very good.
But sorry, that EEI is just more cult slop. It’s like stating that the average mass of all unicorns on Pluto is 482.4983 kg.
Pure nonsense, even with 4 decimal places….
I encourage you to back up your claims with empirical evidence or data. Assertions or personal opinions without supporting information lack credibility.
I’m surprised you’re unfamiliar with ENSO, Ark. Even your cult has to admit it exists. They don’t like it, but it’s too well known to ignore.
Start here:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Unicorns are bogus, just like your “EEI”. There are none left on Pluto.
The Leprechauns ate them all….
1/ You are not very good at this. Keep reading my posts and you might learn something.
2/ Here’s every ENSO event from January 1950 to November 2023: https://ibb.co/zsZ3zvk
3/ What makes 2023-2024 different vis a vis Sea Surface Temperature?
Its the high accumulated EEI.
4/ Q.E.D.
You’re wrong again, Ark. I can detect cult nonsense and techniques on arrival. Just as here, you present a graph you can’t understand! That graph is “surface” temps, not “ENSO”!
Your bogus EEI wouldn’t correlate with ENSO even if it were real, due to lag.
What will you try next?
1/ Like I said, keep reading my posts and you might learn something.
2/ The “lag” is the 93% of EEI that has been stored in the world’s oceans.
3/ Q.E.D.
P.s.: ” That graph is ‘surface’ temps”
Yep. I already “presented” the graph of Sea Surface Temperatures here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588168
Q.E.D.
A,
You wrote –
“The ‘lag’ is the 93% of EEI that has been stored in the worlds oceans.”
You are fantasising. There is no EEI, and heat cannot be “stored” in oceans, or anywhere else.
Are you gullible, or just away with the fairies?
Carry on.
Swenson beat me to it. Yeah, the bogus EEI cannot warm the oceans. It’s the SUN, stoopid!
But thanks for admitting you didn’t understand the graph, Ark.
Your main problem seems to be a lack of understanding of physics. Let’s try a simple problem:
Can all infrared warm an object?
a. Yes
b. No
c. It depends
Your answer is….
“stοοpid!”
1/ And, there it is.
2/ I was wondering how long it would take you to resort to your usual fall back position of insulting your betters.
3/ See if I ever read one of your replies to my comments again.
Have a nice life!
A,
Decided to accept reality after all? There is no EEI, heat cannot be stored, and the GHE is a figment of the imagination.
Good for you!
I understand, Ark. You can’t answer the simple physics question. No surprise.
Don’t let the door hit you on the butt on the way out.
[None of the cult knows crap about science….QED.]
Hey Puffman riddle me this –
Who wrote this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588168
?
Not you.
So you’re the one who needs to get lost.
Cheers.
EEI is a corrupt theory. It projects more radiation from the atmosphere than the actual solar radiation that produces heat in the surface and atmosphere.
Not only that, it incorrectly presumes the main surface cooling agent is radiation whereas it is conduction/convection.
Jetstream forecast over Europe for Jan. 11.
https://i.ibb.co/qx0c9pq/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-06-182334.png
Solar wind
speed: 326.2 km/sec
density: 1.07 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Jan 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 121
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 153 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.17×1010 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.1% Low
“Solar wind flowing from this minor coronal hole could graze Earth’s magnetic field on Jan. 9th.”
It’s fairly close to equator and moderate size.
It seems most of big spots seen on farside {from Mars robotic missions} have arrived on nearside.
I am guessing Jan will have spot number of about 100 or less. And in coming months less than 100. And we will have some spotless days in coming months- but unlikely soon, or within next week.
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
01 January – 27 January 2024
Solar activity is expected to be low with M-class
(R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) flares likely, and a chance for X-class
(R3/Strong) flares, over 01-14 Jan, particularly from new Region
3536. From 15-27 Jan, solar activity is expected to be at low
levels, with a chance for moderate levels (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate).
There is a chance for the greater than 10 MeV proton flux to exceed
the 10 pfu event threshold on 01 Jan, and a slight chance to reach
10 pfu on 02-15 Jan. No proton events are expected from 16-27 Jan.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to reach high levels on 03-06 and 09-12 Jan due to
multiple, anticipated CH HSSs. The remainder of the outlook period
is likely to be at moderate levels. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Solar wind
speed: 370.1 km/sec
density: 9.48 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 Jan 24
Sunspot number: 52
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.09×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.8% Low
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The year 2023 shattered the record for the warmest summer in the Arctic, and people and ecosystems across the region felt the impact.
Wildfires forced evacuations across Canada. Greenland was so warm that a research station at the ice sheet summit recorded melting in late June, only its fifth melting event on record. Sea surface temperatures in the Barents, Kara, Laptev and Beaufort seas were nine to 12 F (five to seven degrees C) above normal in August.
[…]
In an area as large as the Arctic, setting a new temperature record for a season by two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit (0.1 degrees Celsius) of warming would be significant. Summer 2023 – July, August and September – shattered the previous record, set in 2016, by four times that. Temperatures almost everywhere in the Arctic were above normal.
A closer look at events in Canadas Northwest Territories shows how rising air temperature, sea ice decline and warming water temperature feed off one another in a warming climate.
The winter snow cover melted early across large parts of northern Canada, providing an extra month for the sun to heat up the exposed ground. The heat and lack of moisture dried out organic matter on and just below the surface; by November, 70,000 square miles (180,000 square kilometres) had burned across Canada, about a fifth of it in the Northwest Territories.
The very warm weather in May and June 2023 in the Northwest Territories also heated up the mighty Mackenzie River, which sent massive amounts of warm water into the Beaufort Sea to the north.
The warm water melted the sea ice early, and currents also carried it west toward Alaska, where Mackenzie River water contributed to early sea ice loss along most of northeast Alaska and to increased tundra vegetation growth.
https://www.thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/01/03/Arctic-Temperatures-Have-Broken-New-Records/
Are these records homogenous?
I’ll investigate.
You and your promises of a good time, Walter!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Elon Musk: SpaceX needs to build Starships as often as Boeing builds 737s
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/elon-musk-spacex-needs-to-build-starships-as-often-as-boeing-builds-737s/
Well, 737s are very complicated and require a lot of time, Starship at the moment is in boilerplate mode. which means as simple as possible. And 737s would likewise have done something like a boilerplate before they went into production mode.
There is a term called big dumb booster, wiki:
“Big Dumb Booster (BDB) is a general class of launch vehicle based on the premise that it is cheaper to operate large rockets of simple design than it is to operate smaller, more complex ones regardless of the lower payload efficiency. As referred to by the Office of Technology Assessment:
The term Big Dumb Booster has been applied to a wide variety of concepts for low-cost launch vehicles, especially those that would use “low technology” approaches to engines and propellant tanks in the booster stage. As used here, it refers to the criterion of designing launch systems for minimum cost by using simplified subsystems where appropriate.”
Big dumb rocket was idea, and was attempted, and I was a fan of doing this.
[And I would also call the idea of Sea Dragon as big dumb booster.]
Starship is not BDB in the sense of his raptor engine, which “was” very complicated and not tried, but Musk has made it much simpler with Raptor 3.
Anyways, Musk calls it a boiler plate rocket, but he is kind of mass producing these “boilerplate rockets”, which isn’t “normal” as you normally make one or two of them.
Rules for thee but not for me.
Not sure of origin of it, but is typically associated with the Left and/or politicians.
The word, hypocrite, can associated with it, but it’s a bit different.
A hypocrite might say say 15 C air temperature is too warm, yet warms their home to higher temperature.
Whereas rules for thee but not for me, could be ruling class making heating a home more expensive. Thee, the poor, simply can’t warm their homes as much as they want.
The rules for cargo cult global warmer is don’t buy anything from China and don’t invest [and profit] from China.
I wouldn’t follow that rule, but I am not thee.
Dr. William Happer says, “there really is a GHE, it’s quite substantial.”
https://youtu.be/GBbwL6f_0fU
A,
It’s a great pity that he cannot describe this GHE in any way thar would enable a testable hypothesis to be formulated, isn’t it?
Maybe he’s appealing to his own authority, hoping that nobody will ask him for a description.
Probably one of these people who says that GHGs are “planetary insulation”, which reduce the rate of cooling (and heating of course). Cooling is not heating. Maybe Dr William Happer doesn’t realise the difference?
Try appealing to a better authority – one that accepts the reality that the surface cools every night, giving up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
Mike Flynn,
I appeal to your own authority:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about? There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled whether you want to believe it or not.
You might as well go off and play with yourself – trying to play “silly semantic games” doesn’t seem to be achieving much, does it?
Has your astrophysicist mate, Ken Rice, managed to explain to you why the Moon (with no atmosphere) gets hotter than the Earth? Did you understand him?
Only joking – you are too thick to accept reality.
Maroon Mike,
You claim that there is no greenhouse effect.
Here is someone who disagrees with you:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
That someone is you.
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about? There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled whether you want to believe it or not.
You might as well go off and play with yourself trying to play silly semantic games doesnt seem to be achieving much, does it?
Has your astrophysicist mate, Ken Rice, managed to explain to you why the Moon (with no atmosphere) gets hotter than the Earth? Did you understand him?
Only joking you are too thick to accept reality.
Do you think you could link to something that actually describes the GHE, sometime?
Mike Flynn has stated many times that the GHE does not exist. Maybe that’s why you can’t quote him saying it does!
You are definitely away with the fairies, Willard.
Maroon Mike,
You are simply repeating your silly comment.
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about? There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled whether you want to believe it or not.
You might as well go off and play with yourself trying to play silly semantic games doesnt seem to be achieving much, does it?
Has your astrophysicist mate, Ken Rice, managed to explain to you why the Moon (with no atmosphere) gets hotter than the Earth? Did you understand him?
Only joking you are too thick to accept reality.
Do you think you could link to something that actually describes the GHE, sometime?
Mike Flynn has stated many times that the GHE does not exist. Maybe thats why you cant quote him saying it does!
You are definitely away with the fairies, Willard.
Maroon Mike,
I have a vague feeling you already said that.
Did you?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about? There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled whether you want to believe it or not.
You might as well go off and play with yourself trying to play silly semantic games doesnt seem to be achieving much, does it?
Has your astrophysicist mate, Ken Rice, managed to explain to you why the Moon (with no atmosphere) gets hotter than the Earth? Did you understand him?
Only joking you are too thick to accept reality.
Do you think you could link to something that actually describes the GHE, sometime?
Mike Flynn has stated many times that the GHE does not exist. Maybe thats why you cant quote him saying it does!
You are definitely away with the fairies, Willard.
I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all hes the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
Wayward Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.”
Presumably you are talking about H2O – in the gaseous form.
Do you have some bizarre reason for calling it “greenhouse gas”?
I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest. That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all hes the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
Hey Nate what do you think of Willard’s narrative here? I asked you a few months ago if GHG can cause the surface to get hotter and you said yes. And here Willard is arguing just the opposite, the less GHGs up there the hotter it gets.
Gill chases Nate everywhere, including where he’s not.
Your concerns about the auditor asking questions is duly noted.
Gill could acknowledge that he misplaced his comment.
He doubles down.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard it was correctly placed. As they say the squeaky wheel is the one that gets the grease.
Let’s see, Gill –
Your comment is addressed to a commenter who is not in this subthread.
Your comment is not related to this subthread.
Yet this comment is well-placed.
You OK, buddy?
Willard says:
”I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.”
thats right Willard the hottest places are the ones without greenhouse gases.
I hope you’re not deploying the same trick I described earlier, Gill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1590994
Willard says:
”I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest. That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.”
”I hope youre not deploying the same trick I described earlier”
——————————-
No Willard I was just agreeing with you.
Well, Gill, I’m glad you agree that one of the reasons why deserts get hotter during the day is because they have less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over them.
Progress!
Yeah, it’s pretty cold in Enontekiö these days, with -44.3 C even colder than the coldest day found at the beginning of January in the GHCN daily data for the stations near this location (there are 6):
FIE00146442 68.3617 23.4317 306.0 ENONTEKIO HETTA LENTOASEMA
https://www.google.com/maps/place/68%C2%B021'42.1%22N+23%C2%B025'54.1%22E/@68.361702,18.9488867,836973m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d68.3617!4d23.4317?hl=en&entry=ttu
*
But to say that
” This is the highest frost in Scandinavia in at least several decades. ”
is a bit exaggerated when extracting the 2000’s out of an ascending sort of all daily temperature minima found for this region:
Id, name, year, month, day, temperature
SWE00140960 NAIMAKKA 2021 12 6 -43.8 (C)
SWE00140960 NAIMAKKA 2021 12 7 -43.5
NOE00111327 CUOVDDATMOHKKI 2020 12 27 -43.3
NOE00111327 CUOVDDATMOHKKI 2020 12 26 -43.2
SWE00140960 NAIMAKKA 2016 1 7 -42.9
NOE00109485 SIHCCAJAVRI 2016 1 7 -42.8
SWE00140960 NAIMAKKA 2012 2 6 -42.8
FIE00146753 INARI KAAMANEN 2012 2 6 -42.7
SW000002120 KVIKKJOKK-ARRENJARKA 2012 2 3 -42.7
SWE00140958 KARESUANDO A 2014 1 20 -42.7
I’d rather say such very cold temperatures are not quite unusual over there. They just are somewhat ‘less cold’ than earlier ones, e.g.
SWE00140744 VUOGGATJALME 1966 2 2 -52.6
FIE00146508 KITTILA POKKA 1999 1 28 -51.5
NOE00111336 KAUTOKEINO 1999 1 27 -50.3
Lapony is a pretty cold corner during the winters, like is Northeast Siberia.
*
But nevertheless, the average temperatures in the Arctic increase, in Lapony like in Siberia, Alaska and Canada.
Here are trends for those of the stations mentioned above, and having had enough data to compute their trend for the period 1979-2022 (last column).
Id, start, end, years, name, lat, long, trend in C / decade
FIM00002801 1979 2023 45 ENONTEKIO KILPISJARVI 69.05 20.78 0.54
SWE00140960 1961 2023 63 NAIMAKKA 68.68 21.53 0.43
NOE00111327 1966 2023 58 CUOVDDATMOHKKI 69.37 24.43 0.49
NOE00109485 1960 2023 64 SIHCCAJAVRI 68.76 23.54 0.61
FIE00146508 1972 2023 52 KITTILA POKKA 68.17 25.79 0.69
NOE00111336 1960 2023 64 KAUTOKEINO 69.00 23.03 0.52
*
For the 411 of 2260 Arctic stations for which such a trend was computed, their average trend is 0.44 C / decade. Only 35 of them show a negative trend.
*
But if you now select all stations in the Arctic having had a lifetime of at least 10 years and located anywhere on the time axis, the average trend of the then 1468 stations moves down to 0.24 C / decade, with 271 stations of them showing a negative trend, e.g. two other Enontekiö stations:
FIE00146643 1961 1974 14 ENONTEKIO KALMANKALTIO 63 81 68.50 24.73 -1.32
FIE00146442 1999 2023 25 ENONTEKIO HETTA LENTOASEMA 63 81 68.36 23.43 -0.02
Well, that was much ado about not very much at all!
Were you trying to make some point about the GHE which you most recently said had nothing to do with increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Here’s what you said –
“I never intentionally wrote ‘Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.’ because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
I agree. Nonsensical. What’s your latest description of the GHE?
Aaaah… once again being stal~ked by tr0ll Flynnson with his patho~logical need to endlessly babble on about something unimportant.
To best describe tr0lls like you, the Krauts concatenated the words ‘dûmb’ and ‘brazen’ centuries ago, resulting in something like ‘dûmb-bra~zen’, namely: ‘dummdreist’.
You can’t imagine how perfectly that ‘dummdreist’ word fits your brain~less blah blah, Flynnson.
Don’t forget to respond by repeating your post above, as you so intelligently do when communicating with Willard; otherwise I ‘d be so extremely disappointed!
Well, that was much ado about not very much at all!
Were you trying to make some point about the GHE which you most recently said had nothing to do with increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Heres what you said
“I never intentionally wrote ‘Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.’ because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
I agree. Nonsensical. Whats your latest description of the GHE?
I heard the word used by the krauts to describe Binny is dummkopf.
How about monkey? I thought Germany was too cold for monkeys!
But maybe Binny thinks modern climate change will change that.
How is the turbulence over Germany today ???
Which turbulence do you mean, dachshund?
No snow, no rain, no wind – just -8 C right now.
Last 4 weeks:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10376&gid=10385&month=02&year=2024&metparaid=TNLD&period=4&ireq=true
Tomorrow night:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240109&daytime=night&iid=euro
A week later:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240114&daytime=night&iid=euro
*
Et chez vous, tout va bien?
I notice that Willard still can’t accept that the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed GHGs in the atmosphere.
As are the coldest, of course.
The extreme case is the Moon, which has no GHGs at all, and as a result experiences temperatures both hotter and colder than anything naturally occurring on Earth.
Willard still passionately believes a GHE exists. He has to, otherwise he thinks that he will look pretty stupid. No, Willard, there is no GHE. The GHE is just an imaginary manifestation of a shared fantasy.
No amount of inane comments, trolling, or “silly semantic games” will turn fiction into fact.
Feel free to keep trying. Watching your contortions is occasionally amusing, although laughing at the obviously mentally afflicted is not considered good form in some circles. Luckily, I am not politically correct, and don’t care what fools think of me.
troubleshooting failed post…
Ken will disagree with me but this is where I cannot accep.t Happer’s POV on science. He does not explain how his graph translates to a cooling of the Earth and how that relates to warming.
He fails to explain what he means by a greenhouse effect. The word ‘greenhouse’ suggests a real greenhouse with glass but the atmospheric equivalent theorized comes down to trace gases. No one has ever explained how that works. They steal the word greenhouse, which in the minds of those who have experienced a real greenhouse, is quite warm and muggy, even on a cool day.
The word greenhouse, as applied to the atmosphere, is not only misleading, it is an outright l.i.e. The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation proves that CO2 at 0.04% cannot warm the atmosphere any more than 6/100ths of a degree C for every 1C warming. Therefore something else is obviously warming the greenhouse and atmosphere and a moments reflection supplies the answer. Nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of the atmosphere and it is those two gases that also warm a greenhouse.
Happer is wrong. The atmosphere warms due to the 99% that is nitrogen and oxygen and those gases get heated directly by sunlight and by conducting heat directly from the surface.
Ironically, the heating mechanisms are the same as in a real greenhouse. Solar energy heats the infrastructure in the greenhouse and N2/O2 at the same time. Ditto for the atmosphere and surface. The main difference is in the fact that glass in a real greenhouse traps the heated N2/O2 molecules allowing heat to accumulate. The temperature in a real greenhouse is cont.r.o.l.led by opening windows and doors to release the trapped heat.
Happer’s graph covers only radiation but surface cooling is mainly by conduction/convection. Climate alarmists have it exactly backwards, they think the surface cools mainly by radiation which is a poor mechanism for cooling compared to conduction/convection, the latter being 260 times better at cooling a surface than radiation alone.
The above is all related to a post by Ark that claims…
“Dr. William Happer says, there really is a GHE, its quite substantial.
https://youtu.be/GBbwL6f_0fU ”
It’s ironic that Ark likes skeptics when they agree with him. Happer was hired by the Trump admin to advise them on global warming and even though Trump liked him, the backroom boys over-ruled Trump on some of Happer’s suggestions.
[GILL] Its ironic that Ark likes skeptics when they agree with him.
[ALSO GILL] Just remember, Clintella, I was supporting you and minding my own business when you stabbed me in the back. With friends like you, who needs enemies.
> [GILL]
Make that Bordo.
Sorry, Bordo.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I notice that Mike Flynn still can’t accept that there’s a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
That maroon still can’t accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all – he’s the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
Good grief, wee willy, your logic is sinking into a large hole. You are contradicting the alarmist meme that CO2 is well-mixed. According to you, there is less CO2 over desert regions than over other areas.
Cool story, Bordo.
Which part of clouds are made of CO2?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Ah, so you now admit that H2O is a more important, so-called “greenhouse gas” than CO2, do you? Or maybe not – what are you saying, if anything?
When hydrocarbons are burnt (fossil fuels for example) a minimum of two compounds are formed – CO2 and H2O.
Dummies like Gavin Schmidt blithely claim the CO2 is “well mixed” in the atmosphere – on the basis of wishful thinking, no doubt. H2O is rarely mentioned, as describing it as a “pollutant” or “poison” in the same way as CO2 would probably be laughed at by the general population.
Now, your previously stated description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” might need a bit of fleshing out. What’s the end-result difference between “cooling” and “slower cooling”, and why are GHE cultists seemingly worried about increasing GHE temperatures if, as you say, the GHE results in cooling, either faster or more slowly?
You really have no clue, have you? You are reduced to appealing to the authority of people who clearly state that the GHE does not exist to support your assertion that it does!
It’s all a bit woeful, Willy.
Mike Flynn,
You write –
“so-called “greenhouse gas””
Do you deny that greenhouse gases exist?
Willard,
Trying for some sort of stupid gotcha, are you?
You wrote –
“Do you deny that greenhouse gases exist?”
What in the world is a “greenhouse gas”? All gases emit infrared, so I hope you are not going to be silly enough to use infrared emission as your definition! You probably will, anyway.
So called “greenhouse gas” is just another piece of jargon, concocted by ignorant fantasists.
Are “greenhouse gases” supposed to have anything to do with greenhouses?
Try again, Willard. There is no GHE, and you can’t even describe “greenhouse gases” in any useful way. Go on, try.
A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.
Are you no chemical engineer or something?
Willard just beautifully summarized the totality of science he is aware of behind why GHG’s are called GHGs.
Gill has yet to explain how non-radiative gases can both cool and isolate.
If he can’t, what should we infer from his fellow Sky Dragon cranks’ white knighting?
Willard it is you and your sort making claims about the properties and affects of GHG. I don’t pretend to know the answer. I am just pointing out the inconsistencies in the arguments that you and your sorts bring forth. So don’t ask me what the answer is. I am just trying to get you to tell me how you arrived at believing what you believe.
Obviously with little success beyond ”A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.”
[GILL] I dont pretend to know the answer.
[ALSO GILL] less water vapor affecting the lapse rate
As if more water vapor did not affect the lapse rate. LOL!
Water vapor affecting the lapse rate is standard meteorology.
I haven’t tested it so I am not vouching for it. You can argue its all BS. Seems to be a lot of BS floating around in the halls of science.
But standard meteorology claims that:
The wet adiabatic lapse rate lies in the range of 3.6-5.5 C/km depending on temperature and pressure.
international standard atmosphere (ISA) with a temperature lapse rate of 6.50 C/km
And the dry adiabatic lapse rate is 9.8C/km
So water vapor in the air column results in less temperature drop as you go up into the atmosphere where the air pressure decreases. (i.e. it carries more energy than common air)
I got to test that one from a tower on my University campus as an assignment for an upper division course in meteorology and the test roughly affirmed that’s the case. I suspect its been reaffirmed many thousands of times.
So what is your basis of questioning it? Just being ornery?
> Water vapor affecting the lapse rate is standard meteorology.
Standard meteorology provides the reason why, Gill, just as standard economics explains why interest rates increase, e.g.:
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2020/05/whats-behind-your-mortgage-rate
What’s your favorite meteorological textbook description of how water vapor affects the lapse rate, and how does it explain why deserts cool faster?
Yes, he’s just being ornery.
“So what is your basis of questioning it? Just being ornery?”
Yeah, Willard, you can never compete with Bill in that department!
…he’s just being ornery.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:
"Gill has yet to replace the emphasized bit with Graham D. Warner’s pet model."
There is absolutely no need for him to do so. Bill’s lapse rate explanation is correct, regardless.
The vast majority of what you have quoted, those that dispute the GHE have no issue with. It’s literally just that one sentence you highlighted.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
“Because, lapse rate” does not replace “Once the sun goes down, there is a relative lack of moisture in the air to trap outgoing long wave radiation.”
I’m not gaslighting. "Because, lapse rate" is not the argument that’s been made, as you know. Every detail has been explained to you already. If there’s anything you still don’t understand, research it yourself. Nobody should waste any more of their time on you.
And, even if you believe in the GHE, you still have to accept a place for the lapse rate explanation as to why deserts cool faster. They’re not mutually exclusive explanations or anything.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:
No, they have not.
Graham D. Warner simply pulls the “your mortgage increases because of the interest rate” trick.
In serious business, this can lead to malpractice accusations.
The less water vapour there is, the steeper the lapse rate, due to the much higher heat capacity of humid air vs. dry air. Cooling occurs more quickly down a steeper temperature gradient.
There, I can explain it to you in two sentences.
The more central banks tighten their money policy, the higher the interest rates. Then borrowing becomes more expensive for everybody. But for those with the shakiest credit, a nightmare.
In Graham D. Warner’s world, that counts as an explanation as to why interest rates become “steeper”.
His new technique is just to pretend something hasn’t been explained, when it has.
“Bills lapse rate explanation is correct, regardless.”
But far from the whole story, or even the key part of it, as Willard quote illustrates.
But tag-team doubling-down is par for the course.
Imagine if Gill did all the courses he said he did, Nate.
Oh the debt!
“The vast majority of what you have quoted, those that dispute the GHE have no issue with. It’s literally just that one sentence you highlighted.“
Just a random sentence repeat.
no debt. i started my education on the gi bill and finished it by simultaneously working and going to school with 4 years of gi bill funding, 1 year workers comp funding arising out of a work related accident, and the rest by simultaneously working and going to school, not all in that order. piece of cake. . .only had to give up jacking off half the day away.
Sure, Gill.
And I am a ninja.
Yeah its probably too old school for you and your need to jack off.
If you did half of the things you did, Gill, you’d make a better movie than Forrest Gump.
Oh…wait–that was you?
> If you did half of the things you did
Well, Gill, I’ll accept that you did half of the things you did.
I meant to say – if you did half of the things you said you did.
After all, there’s a reason why you’re Gill-with-a-G.
Willard says:
”If you did half of the things you did, Gill, youd make a better movie than Forrest Gump.”
———————
Great movie! But I wasn’t an all-state high school running back, nor a star running back for Alabama, nor a war hero, nor a ping pong champion, nor walked across the entire country, didn’t create a hugely profitable company. So that would hardly be the case.
But indeed you do have a vivid imagination
My vivid imagination of your CV is only based on what you bragged about over the years here, Gill.
Worth a few movies for sure!
Well you probably ought to not invest in any entertainment ventures Willard. You must really lead a horribly boring existence.
Willard,
You’re getting there.
As Bindidon wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.” I assume you now agree with Bindidon,
I notice you now claim that you understand why the hottest and coldest places on Earth are the ones with the least “greenhouse gases”. Does this mean that you were just trolling before, when you pretended you didn’t understand why highest temperatures are found where “greenhouse gases” are least?
Everybody can now see why you are unable to claim that the GHE makes thermometers hotter – rather the exact opposite!
Are you able to make any useful statements at all about the GHE? No?
No surprises there!
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for acknowledging the greenhouse effect.
Cheers!
Willard,
Youre getting there.
As Bindidon wrote
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.” I assume you now agree with Bindidon,
I notice you now claim that you understand why the hottest and coldest places on Earth are the ones with the least “greenhouse gases”. Does this mean that you were just trolling before, when you pretended you didnt understand why highest temperatures are found where “greenhouse gases” are least?
Everybody can now see why you are unable to claim that the GHE makes thermometers hotter rather the exact opposite!
Are you able to make any useful statements at all about the GHE? No?
No surprises there! That’s because the “greenhouse effect” exists only in the warped fantasies of SkyDragon cultists!
I notice that Mike Flynn still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all – hes the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
Willard,
Whacky Wee Willy,
You still scuttle away from even saying what the GHE is supposed to do, but as far as understanding basic reality, you’re getting there.
As Bindidon wrote
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.” I assume you now agree with Bindidon,
I notice you now claim that you understand why the hottest and coldest places on Earth are the ones with the least “greenhouse gases”. Does this mean that you were just trolling before, when you pretended you didn’t understand why highest temperatures are found where “greenhouse gases” are least?
Everybody can now see why you are unable to claim that the GHE makes thermometers hotter rather the exact opposite!
Are you able to make any useful statements at all about the GHE? No?
No surprises there! Thats because the “greenhouse effect” exists only in the warped fantasies of SkyDragon cultists!
We can Maroon Mike for acknowledging the greenhouse effect.
Cheers!
Wonky Wee Willy,
There is no greenhouse effect to acknowledge!
You are away with the fairies again. No GHE, and during the night the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
Result? The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so.
If you want to call “cooling” the GHE, feel free to do so. I’ll no doubt be joined in my derisive laughter by others.
Carry on.
Willard says:
”I notice that Mike Flynn still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.”
I haven’t noticed that Willard. Seems logical to me that the warmest sky will both slow warming and cooling. I mean isn’t that basic Stefan Boltzmann?
The odd thing is we have been constantly regaled with the notion that the sun first warms the surface, the surface then warms the sky. OK so far, but then does the sky warm the surface or was it the other way around? Which came first the chicken of the egg. Seems to me some folks are trying to make it so the sun warms the surface, the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky. . .
When does it stop?
Willard
ummmmmmm – no.
Bill Hunter
I had told you I would show you how the GHE works with actual measured values. If you are not a Cult minded illogical poster like Clint R or a science denier like Gordon Robertson, maybe you will look at the evidence. Think about it, ponder it and let the evidence (not belief) guide your thought process.
Here:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_659ab085adb89.png
I just use this graph since there are no clouds on this day.
The Solar Net is the amount of Watts able to be absorbed by a one square meter of desert surface. It is what remains after reflection off the sand.
The other value is how much the surface radiates away from the surface. The values are obtained by one sensor pointing upward and the other pointing down at the surface. You can read up on the sensors if you doubt their validity.
Bill Hunter
You can use math to find out how much (approximately) energy a one square meter of surface receives in 24 hours and how much it radiates away.
to get the amount of energy received use the equation for a parabola and the time the energy is reaching the surface from the Sun.
Equation for Parabola (2/3 Base times Height).
The Base of the Solar input is 14 hours which would be 50,400 seconds. The Height is around 800 W/m^2.
The energy the square meter receives from the Sun would be 2/3 X 800 X 50400 or 26,880,000 joules (this is not an exact value but won’t matter if you look at how much more is radiated away).
Bill Hunter
Now look at the graph again at much energy is radiated away from the surface. The graph shows a low of around 500 and a high above 600. The average might be 550 W/m^2 for the 24 hour period but to demonstrate I will use the lower value of 500 W/m^2.
So to find the energy radiated away in the same 24 hour cycle you would use the 500 W/m^2 x 86,400 seconds in a day. Calculating even for the lower number (the actual amount would be higher) you find you are radiating away 43,200,000 joules from a one square meter surface of sand.
Understanding the 1st Law of Energy Conversation you are losing
43,200,000 joules minus 26,880,000 = 16,320,000 joules a day.
You would have a net loss of energy on a daily basis, it is not sustainable to continue to radiate away considerably more energy than what is received.
Bill Hunter
Based upon the amount of energy received in 24 hours by a square meter of desert in the Summer (July) it would average a temperature around freezing. It does not so the GHE is working to keep the surface warmer than it would be without it.
Now we give you the clear evidence (with real measured values) of the actual GHE.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_659ab7d5a549c.png
Now this is a graph of the GHE in action. Now you add the measured value of the DWIR flux. The surface still radiates away more than 500 W/m^ but it is receiving energy from the atmosphere (less than it is losing so NO VIOLATIOIN of Second Law!).
Clint R thinks the energy cannot be absorbed. He provides zero evidenced for it but proclaims it as a fact. Experimental evidence shows he is totally wrong but he is a Cult minded believer and evidence will not change his beliefs, will it change yours?? I hope so!)
When you add the DWIR the NET HEAT loss is no longer 500 W/m^2 but closer to 150 W/m^2.
In 24 hours the Surface will lose not 43 mullion plus joules but a more modest 150 W/m^2 times 86,400 seconds = 12,960,000 joules.
Now the solar input exceeds the NET radiant loss. The other cooling mechanisms kick in as the surfaced warms and continue to cool the surface (in the desert is would be primarily convection with maybe some evaporation but not a lot).
So you can see the GHE keeps the surface warmer. The atmosphere does NOT directly warm the surface but acts as a radiant barrier to slow the loss of Heat energy from the surface allowing the solar input to reach a higher steady state temperature.
Perhaps, Norman, but have you considered that deserts cool faster because their Sky have more non-radiative gases?
Asking for a musician friend.
Little Willy deliberately misrepresents. For what I have actually argued, see:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588732
Meanwhile, one of his own team members, Antonin, tries to warn him that he’s on the wrong track, but Little Willy soldiers on, regardless.
“Noman”, you STILL can’t understand the SURFRAD charts.
You live in a state of confusion. Here’s just one clear example: “Clint R thinks the energy cannot be absorbed.”. Where did I ever say energy could not be absorbed? It’s ONLY the high-entropy energy that cannot be absorbed. You don’t understand ANY of this.
Frustrating, isn’t it?
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
How are O2 and N2 shooting cold rays on the ground over deserts?
…but Little Willy soldiers on, regardless.
Norman says:
Bill Hunter
Based upon the amount of energy received in 24 hours by a square meter of desert in the Summer (July) it would average a temperature around freezing. It does not so the GHE is working to keep the surface warmer than it would be without it.
————————-
Your problem Norman is you can’t open your mind and listen. Why is this the case?
Well you can start by answering why our moon which has an albedo of .12 and a solar constant according to you folk of 1361w/m2 has deserts on the moon that rise to 400K.(127C)
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/factfile-the-moon.html
By the math your daddy’s sell you on, the hottest spot on the moon should be blackbody temperature that corresponds to 1361 times .88.
In other words 373K (100C). Where does the other 27K come from?
Until you answer that question Norman, there is no sense in pursuing this discussion as you first need to bring yourself up to an acceptable speed for making greenhouse effect claims.
What I suggest it is, is blue light from the sun that is an excellent penetrator of water and whose spectral lines far exceed the that of a blackbody curve fitted as a mean value of its radiation over all frequencies is capable of warming things to higher temperatures than suggested by mainstream climate prognosticators. Such an effect that would seem to throw a pipe bomb into the greenhouse theory currently held by mainstream science and their use of mean blackbody curves on non-blackbody objects like the sun, thereby limiting the use of mean blackbody limits on objects being warmed by non-blackbody objects.
It is also consistent with arguments of a number of skeptics in here who have suggested there is no GHE as described by government approved science.
It is also consistent with arguments that temperature limits are related to the frequency of the light in the aboso-p-tion range of the object. e.g. you can warm something by surrounding something over 0C with icecubes below 0C.
And you rattle on about deserts on earth having a GHE because their temperatures rise to all of 329K for the hottest recorded ”surface” temperature on earth. . .which is actually a negative GHE by 44K by definition and a negative 71k by comparison to the hottest places on the moon.
One needs to also consider the temperature of the thermosphere and why it can rise to well above limits artificially established by the misapplication of blackbody laws to the emissions of non-blackbodies. . .keeping closely in mind that there is no law that specifies that non-blackbody equilibrium temperatures can be deduced using a ”mean” blackbody curve fitted to a non-blackbody emitter will have both emissions above and below the blackbody curve by the rule of means.
Of course I have heard scientists informally stating these issues; it just few wish to point out to their emperor (the guy writing the checks) that he has no clothes. And only a few retired scientists having been actually doing any science. And many more really haven’t done any science (the scientific method) since they stopped doing lab days in school for their entire careers.
So how does this error arise? I recall probably in Junior High School being cautioned against taking mean values of equations with multiple multiplicands or powers. Heck the spinners make the same mistake with Newton’s math and they actually believe Newton thought what they think.
…but Gill soldiers on, regardless.
Perhaps he could tell us how less water vapor leads to steeper lapse rate, and how that makes faster cooling?
What’s a steeper lapse rate, BTW?
The steeper the lapse rate, the more rapid the decrease in temperature with height. Cooling occurs more rapidly down a steeper temperature gradient, via all means of heat transfer. Humid air makes for a less steep lapse rate than dry air.
All of the above can be confirmed through a li’l bit of Googling.
“The odd thing is we have been constantly regaled with the notion that the sun first warms the surface, the surface then warms the sky. OK so far, but then does the sky warm the surface or was it the other way around? Which came first the chicken of the egg. ”
My furnace warms my house, then the house warms the insulation. Ok so far, but then does the insulation warm the house, or was it the other way around?
Some people work awfully hard to stay ignorant of BASIC heat transfer principles at work.
So many learning opportunities wasted!
In any case, Bill already provided this:
"The surface temperatures he gets from his local weatherman and used to measure global warming isn’t the surface at all. Its the air 2 to 10 meters above the surface. Heat capacity in the moist air is much higher than the dry air so it cools much more slowly."
Which should be simple enough for anybody to understand.
Indeed, Nate. Gill might follow Graham D. Warner wherever he goes.
He still needs to rubberstamp RonC’s model. If he could also explain how he justifies that thermal conductivity can be asymmetric in it, that’d be great.
…which should be simple enough for anybody to understand.
…ndeed, Nate.
Gill might follow Graham D. Warner wherever he goes.
Willard says:
but Gill soldiers on, regardless.
————————-
Correction!
but Will soldiers on, regardless and walks around and evades answering the question posed to Norman here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588820
Gill turns to his squirrel galore instead of looking at the evidence presented by Norman just like he turned a blind eye to tax evasion from his clientele:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588775
But then, does he have a choice when his daddy’s position is so shaky?
Indeed I directly addressed Norman’s claims of a GHE by pointing out by his measure the moon also has a GHE without any greenhouse gases.
So the obvious answer for you, norman, or anybody else trying to promote CO2 as the keystone GHG, is why does the moon have a GHE with no atmosphere?
Indeed Gill ignored Norman’s evidence and tried to Just Ask Questions.
He also insinuated that he was in the know with Very Eminent scientists (so eminent they shall remain unnamed) who he portends were on the side of Sky Dragon cranks.
Meanwhile, he has yet to rubberstamp RonC’s model, which his daddy promotes.
Willard, I am just pointing out that your argument is claiming that the GHE doesn’t warm anything. All it does according to your entire line of arguments in this comment section on the topic is slow cooling, a cooling that is partly offset by making daytime temperatures cooler.
In other words its making the climate less extreme. I am sure you haven’t noticed that your narrative for the past week or so is agreeing in large part with what skeptics of most stripes have been saying for move than a generation.
But we still have an issue. Why is the moon’s surface exhibiting daytime temperatures along its equator greater than expected when measured against the mean blackbody curve of the solar constant? In other words without any ”blocking” ghgs why do its deserts actually have a positive greenhouse effect instead of no greenhouse effect or the negative greenhouse effect of the earth as you have been claiming for the last week or so?
That question has to be answered before using a blackbody curve to estimate the expected temperature of anything.
Nate says:
My furnace warms my house, then the house warms the insulation. Ok so far, but then does the insulation warm the house, or was it the other way around?
————————–
Well you need to get your story straight with Willard and Norman first then we can move forward. Willard and Norman are saying your furnace is outside the insulation and as such your house will not get as warm as if the furnace was inside or there weren’t any greenhouse gases.
Gill is just pointing out that his “because, lapse rate” explanation does not work for the Moon.
Sky Dragon cranks are teethless sharks. They can’t bite at anything consistent, thus they need to keep swimming!
Notice how Willard completely avoided talking about the topic under discussion to throw out some weird statement he thinks is an ad hominem.
Willard why does the equator on the moon warm to 400k without an atmosphere? Mainstream science claims it should only warm to 373k.
Thats a 27C greenhouse effect. Why is that?
I am sure the moon scientists wonder as well. They just don’t bring it up because it could dampen their career path from the orchestrated reaction of the crazies and the disappointment thus generated in their bosses
But no doubt you don’t have a career path so you can safely answer the question.
and don’t take that as me being selective. Nate, Norman, or anybody else is welcome to explain that fact.
Notice how Gill ignores the fact that his mouthbreating does not work on the Moon.
Imagine if he told his clientele who asked him why their mortgages were getting more expensive, that it’s because interest rates were higher. “Duh,” would his youngest clients reply, noticing how Gill fails to explain why the interest rates were increasing.
Notice how Willard deflects.
Notice how Gill has decided once again that he was Toastmaster after coming late to the party.
Another tidbit that flies above his head:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588763
Perhaps we should collect the facts Sky Dragon cranks still can’t explain consistently.
Why does Willard and his coconspirators avoid addressing why the moon surface on the equator can rise to 400k when according to the blackbody curve assigned to the solar constant of 1361w/m2 which according to a blackbody curve calculated per Stefan Boltzmann hits an equilibrium at 373K.
This is a simple question that questions the validity of the most basic assumption underlying the foundation of estimating a greenhouse effect via the Stefan Boltzmann blackbody law.
Is the heating capacity of a non-blackbody limited to the maximum temperature specified by Stefan Boltzmann for a blackbody to warm another blackbody. Without this assumption all science on the earth’s greenhouse effect flies out the window. Thus one must explain why the moon’s surface gets hotter than the blackbody limit for the sun which is not a blackbody.
Each step in the process of estimating the mean non-greenhouse surface temperature arises from the 1361w/m2 solar constant derived from a blackbody calculator. It says the temperature limit is 373k and yet the equator as it rotates under the sun on the moon rises to 400k.
I fully expect more beating around the bush but this rabble that pretends to defend mainstream science because its perfectly clear they have no explanation.
Why does Gill needs to generate gibberish to point out that the Moon has no atmosphere – is it because it sinks his “because, lapse rate” armwaving?
Willard continues to stonewall against answering the question.
Gill still dodges what is becoming the monthly theme:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1589102
Oh well, at least Willard now admits that less supposed “greenhouse gases” results in increased, rather than decreased, surface temperatures.
Next, he’ll say that that more supposed “greenhouse gases” results in lower temperatures, giving support to his assertion that the GHE results in lower temperatures – as he said “not cooling, slower cooling”!
Nah, no GHE needed. Just basic physics.
Willard is an ignorant donkey, trying to say the GHE results in cooling – implying he really knew it all the time, and was just having fun!
Maroon Mike slips up –
“less […] greenhouse gases results in increased, rather than decreased, surface temperatures”
He kinda forgot that it’s standard meteorology:
https://climateadaptationplatform.com/climate-changes-effect-on-clouds
Perhaps Gill could have helped him with that.
Weird Wee Willy,
Standard meteorology?
You quoted –
“Without clouds, the Earth could be five times hotter.” Maybe you should appeal to an authority, not another donkey like you. Five times hotter than what? Could be?
I can see why you can’t even say whether your imaginary GHE is supposed to make the planet, hotter or colder. You are just completely detached from reality!
You can’t even troll well. You engender laughter or pity, rather than outrage.
Maroon Mike,
You say –
“I can see”
Can you?
You dressed up in quite a smokescreen, so it is doubtful you can see much around you!
Long live and prosper.
Bill Hunter
On your Moon observation. It is not the GHE. I already went over this with you in a previous post. The 1361 W/m^2 solar Flux is the mean of the yearly orbital fluctuation. At Earth’s periphelion the solar Flux is arund 1453 W/m^2. The moon can get closer to the Sun than the Earth in its orbit so could even receive more. Put the higher value in your calculator and see what temp you come up with. No need to suggest current physics is wrong. You are looking at a specific lunar temperature. Then you need to look at the variation the moon receives and see if then it makes sense. You cannot use a median Flux to use to determine a specific temerature.
“Well you can start by answering why our moon which has an albedo of .12 and a solar constant according to you folk of 1361w/m2 has deserts on the moon that rise to 400K.(127C)”
Bill, your mistake is that the Moon’s average albedo is increased with the angle of the sun away from normal incidence. It scatters more light when the sun is low in the sky.
Whereas, when the sun is directly overhead, the scattering is lower and the albedo lower, thus it can get hotter.
so you are saying we don’t have the technology to correctly measure albedo nate?
Nope, just what I stated, nothing more.
And Norman’s point is also useful.
No clear evidence the Moon gets hotter than it should get from solar heating.
Nate the moon’s albedo is .12 or its not. Meaning that either .12 is correct or that there is a measurement error.
You are just windbagging again Nate. Where is your support? can we properly estimate what the non-greenhouse maximum temperature is or can we not do that?
Gill goes full Columbo –
(Gill, with a Columbo trenchcoat) Look, Nate. Either the Earth receives light from the Sun the same way at all places and all times, or it doesn’t. Which is it?
LOL!
And Nate while you are pondering the answer to that. Consider that with zero albedo the moon still gets 6.5 k hotter than its supposed to.
Willard says:
”Gill goes full Columbo
(Gill, with a Columbo trenchcoat) Look, Nate. Either the Earth receives light from the Sun the same way at all places and all times, or it doesnt. Which is it?
LOL!”
No Willard that wasn’t the question at all. We are talking about receiving light at surfaces with one orientation to the sun, at the same distance and around about noontime.
and what the reported results of those measurement portend for estimating a greenhouse effect using a mean blackbody curve for a non-blackbody heat source and a non-blackbody absorber.
English has to be your second language with very little experience in using it to make the mistake you made above.
What is your basis for questioning that the average albedo, which is for the sun at all angles of incidence, can be different from the albedo when the suns angle of incidence is nearly normal to the surface? Are you just being ornery?
So you are claiming that lit areas of the moon when the sun is low reflect more light despite receiving a lot less per square meter.
Seems unlikely.
But even if true you continue to make claims unsupported by any source if true.
And you haven’t addressed the fact that even if there is some additional warming from less light being reflected from a sun near perpendicular to the moon, the moon surface there is still considerably hotter if there were zero albedo in that region and when we gazed at the full moon it would appear to have a hole in the middle of the moon.
So you need to seriously consider what I am saying here rather than ignorantly waving your hands at it.
> Seems unlikely
Gill’s main trick in a nutshell:
0. Make an outlandish claim.
1. When faced with a rebuttal, express incredulity.
2. Ask for receipts and transfer the burden of proof.
There is no third step, except lulzing perhaps.
Nate and Willards problem is they are nitpicking over how much albedo is if the sun is more than 30 degrees from perpendicular (which would be outside the area of the moon warmed to 400k or more. i.e. a window of around 5 hours in the afternoon.)
However that doesn’t answer the question as I am sure before spouting off they used a blackbody curve to figure out the maximum temperature in this zone with zero albedo and found that limit was also considerably below 400k)
so they continue to refuse to recognize the question much less give an answer to it.
Willard sums up the Bill approach well.
“nitpicking over how much albedo”
Never mind that Bills original ‘Moon getting hotter than it can get” claim was a nitpick dependent on his unrealistic certainty of lunar properties.
well clearly you have no answers to the question nate while oddly questioning why the question is being asked. so just take your seat in the peanut gallery and lets see if anybody has any answers.
Gill clearly has no idea how averaging works.
Has he ever been to the School of Life?
Norman says:
”On your Moon observation. It is not the GHE. I already went over this with you in a previous post. The 1361 W/m^2 solar Flux is the mean of the yearly orbital fluctuation. At Earths periphelion the solar Flux is arund 1453 W/m^2. The moon can get closer to the Sun than the Earth in its orbit so could even receive more.
Put the higher value in your calculator and see what temp you come up with. No need to suggest current physics is wrong. You are looking at a specific lunar temperature. Then you need to look at the variation the moon receives and see if then it makes sense. You cannot use a median Flux to use to determine a specific temerature.”
Well suggesting that physics might be wrong is exactly what one should do when stuff doesn’t add up. In this case you are outlining a well thought out but untypical explanation for why the moon’s surface gets to 400k. The problem with it is one would need to be on the backside of the moon from the earth to actually measure it. whereas if you are measuring the brightest parts of the moon from earth or earth orbit the moon will be further from sun not closer. Also it may be a calculated value but that doesn’t seem to be specified.
But whatever it is it would also need to ignore albedo. I don’t have a problem with that because that is what Stefan Boltzmann thought as well. Which if applied as they would apply it, the earth only has a GHE of about 9.5 degrees per a non-representative near surface station network proxy.
Whatever the explanation, the public needs to increase its level of skepticism as even the public is beginning to witness how much the government and science institutions lie to us. . .something I have been acutely aware of now for well over a generation.
One might want to believe thats an erosion of morality, but I am not sure that hasn’t always been the case as its pretty clear than the history books all the way back to my primary education in the 1950’s of historical events that only could have happened by government and institutional deception. The Scopes Monkey Trial is one great example of that which occurred long before I was born.
As Thomas Jefferson said: ”The price of freedom is eternal vigilance” and for vigilance to work properly you need the freedom to speak against the government/institutional narratives.
Which actually might even be something a conservative Supreme Court will be reluctant in guaranteeing.
Nate says:
”Nope, just what I stated, nothing more.
And Normans point is also useful.
No clear evidence the Moon gets hotter than it should get from solar heating.”
thank you nate. then there isn’t any clear evidence that blackbody calculations apply to celestial gray bodies warmed by our sun and thus we can’t be certain if earth has a ghe.
these are the sorts of things that need to be done to ascertain that our assumptions about earth’s greenhouse effect is based in science. we need to know that albedo reduces the equilibrium temperature of a greybody (used in the calculation of earth’s base temperature without an atmosphere with the moon being a good test case). we need to know the actual mean radiating temperature of the earth’s surface with any ghe, which we don’t currently measure, and that we need to know if a mean blackbody curve for the solar constant correctly establishes the expected ghe free surface temperature for a non-blackbody sphere while correctly applying what we learned from the science obtained in the first need to know.
perhaps there is some science out there related to these issues you are aware of. or perhaps not.
“thank you nate. then there isnt any clear evidence that blackbody calculations apply to celestial gray bodies warmed by our sun and thus we cant be certain if earth has a ghe.”
Yes there is. Why does ‘warmed by the sun’ make the laws of physics not applicable?
Grey bodies? That’s what the EMISSIVITY parameter in the SB law and the Radiant Heat Transfer Equation takes care of.
Have you been to this blog before?
Seems like you need to be constantly re-educated about the basic science, which has been discussed here so many times.
“Why does Willard and his coconspirators avoid addressing why the moon surface on the equator can rise to 400k when according to the blackbody curve assigned to the solar constant of 1361w/m2 which according to a blackbody curve calculated per Stefan Boltzmann hits an equilibrium at 373K.”
The mistake you are making is to consider the Moon to have an emissivity of 1, when in reality it is somewhat less than 1.
If we believe your max temperature, 400 K, and your albedo of 0.12, then we reach equilibrium when output = input.
Input = 1361 W/m^2*(1-albedo) = 1198 W/m^2.
Output = sigma*e*T^4 = input = 1198 W/m^2.
So e = 1198/sigma/T^4 = 0.83
Now I found another source indicating the measured maximum T on the equator is, on average, 390K.
https://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science
With that T, the e = 0.91. This is comparable to Earth.
Nate says:
”The mistake you are making is to consider the Moon to have an emissivity of 1, when in reality it is somewhat less than 1.”
Yes I am aware of that mistake Nate. I was intentionally using your daddy’s method of figuring out earth’s greenhouse effect.
255k at emissivity of 1 gives the output at 239.8w/m2
But if you use emissivity as you suggest for the moon (1-albedo) or ~.7
You get 278.7k giving a greenhouse effect of 9.3K and not 33k.
If I take it a step further and use the range of science paper albedo’s that Trenberth chose between I get a range of GHEs that go from 5.4k to 11.2k. . .thats one heckuva lot different GHE than what your daddy has been looking to tag CO2 for. I am really happy you participated in this exercise. I thought I was only going to get Willard to do so.
if we take the small number science paper for a GHE. 5.4K we end up finding CO2 will only cause about a .5degC increase in global mean temperature. that would leave the rest to natural variation.
Roy should be ecstatic about that because gee thats pretty darned close to his observational estimate he did and published a few years ago.
“But if you use emissivity as you suggest for the moon (1-albedo) or ~.7
You get 278.7k giving a greenhouse effect of 9.3K and not 33k.”
I never suggested emissivity = 0.7. That is all on you.
And it is WRONG. As explained several times!
When are you going to figure this out?
i am using your daddy’s albedo that he derived from several sources.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml?tab_body=pdf
what is your source nate?
Your emissivity is wrong, as explained. So you should know why.
the sum total of Nate’s science sources is him stomping his feet and screaming ”It’s Mine!”
“But if you use emissivity as you suggest for the moon (1-albedo) or ~.7”
This is doubly wrong, Bill.
For some strange reason you are trying to use Earth’s albedo for the Moon.
AND, as discussed several times with someone also named Bill,
(1-albedo) is not the correct way to find emissivity.
Go ask the other Bill why.
Yes Nate the albedo changes between the moon and the earth but the physics doesn’t.
As Willard and you have insisted we measure the GHE using SB with the correct emissivity factor and I agree. End of Story of course unless you prefer not to admit it and lie instead.
“but the physics doesnt.”
Exactly true. And your physics is exactly wrong.
When are you going to learn about the differences between albedo, emissivity, and their very different wavelengths?
It seems you are working overtime to stay ignorant about these issues.
Nate says:
”Input = 1361 W/m^2*(1-albedo) = 1198 W/m^2.
Output = sigma*e*T^4 = input = 1198 W/m^2.”
—————————–
you have the correct physics there Nate.
all you have to do is substitute in the correct earth albedo for the moon’s albedo and solve the equations. . .as indicated several times by Willard.
“all you have to do is substitute in the correct earth albedo for the moons albedo and solve the equations.”
To find what for the Earth?
Something that assumes no atmosphere, nor ocean? And the Earth’s rotation rate is as slow as the Moon’s? And that the day side has time to reach equilibrium?
None of those are valid assumptions. GIGO applies.
Nate says:
” ”all you have to do is substitute in the correct earth albedo for the moons albedo and solve the equations.”
To find what for the Earth?
Something that assumes no atmosphere, nor ocean? And the Earths rotation rate is as slow as the Moons? And that the day side has time to reach equilibrium?
None of those are valid assumptions. GIGO applies.”
I didn’t say substitute in the moon’s parameters. I said use the physics formula you use for the moon and find the base temperature for the greenhouse effect for earth putting in earth’s parameters.
Obviously oceans, atmosphere, contribute to that. What this will tell you is what the temperature of the radiating surface of the earth is. . .and that the difference between that radiating surface and the mean temperature of the earth’s surface at the bottom of the atmosphere will give you a starting point for what the greenhouse effect is.
Then all you have to worry about is errors in measuring the albedo and errors in measuring the earth’s mean surface temperature. No doubt one can estimate some error bars for that out of efforts at ground truthing experiments surrounding those facts.
We already have some basis for constructing such error bars and a close examination of the nature of those differences one could propose specifically-designed ground truthing efforts to test those error bars.
I look at the data and see all sorts of potential error.
UHI
the diversion of rivers for wide spread irrigation
deforestation
Natural orbit variation with the changing positions of planets in an effort to construct a solar system model applying Newton’s laws of gravitation to a complex barycenter motion.
Solar tests in the space program to determine the greybody limits of various materials to insolation.
Climate science is so much in the cradle it seems little has been done to verify the most important numbers. . . while the public has been fed total BS about them.
Do you have another formula to include the rotation rate?
Gill took five days to specify his sammich.
It better be good!
“I didnt say substitute in the moons parameters. I said use the physics formula you use for the moon and find the base temperature for the greenhouse effect for earth putting in earths parameters.”
Ok, what makes the most sense is not to find the equilibrium T just on the day side, since, unlike the Moon, the Earth has much more heat capacity and a much shorter rotation time, and thus does not reach equilibrium on the day side, or the night side.
What can be done is to work with the night/day average T, assuming it reaches ~ equilibrium. Also a global average is better because heat is being transported from the equator to higher latitudes.
So do that with the equations and Earth’s albedo, average abs.orbed solar, and see what you get. BTW CERES has produced the latest best estimate for global average albedo = 0.29, with small error bar.
Nate says:
Ok, what makes the most sense is not to find the equilibrium T just on the day side, since, unlike the Moon, the Earth has much more heat capacity and a much shorter rotation time, and thus does not reach equilibrium on the day side, or the night side.
—————–
LOL! Equilibrium temperature is defined as the temperature where outgoing equals incoming. The initial budget by Trenberth stated that was the case in 1997.
In 2009 he claimed the monitoring system must be wrong and that it was a travesty that warming had not proceeded at his predicted pace.
No great discovery of earth rotation period was discovered so what did Trenbert discover to estimate that .9w/m2 was the imbalance?
He didn’t discover anything he said he plucked it out of the unvalidated climate models. . .as unmeasured heat sinking beyond the reach of thermometers. I am not saying the number is wrong as I fully embrace imbalances. Just we obviously don’t have a monitoring system to either tell us how big it is. We can assume its consistent with the models as Trenberth told us so.
Nate says:
”So do that with the equations and Earths albedo, average abs.orbed solar, and see what you get. BTW CERES has produced the latest best estimate for global average albedo = 0.29, with small error bar.”
So what is your source for that info? It may well be the best science available. I would be interested in a rundown on how CERES determines SW in and reflection out. Plus it seems there will always be an uncertainty about how much LW is reflected as ocean and snow have high amounts of spectral reflection. Certainly LW out being diffuse is much easier to deal with.
And WRT to the small error bars how wide are they in watts/m2?
“LOL! Equilibrium temperature is defined as the temperature where outgoing equals incoming”
I send your LOL back to you, doofus.
It should be obvious that the incoming is greater than the outgoing during the day. Else the surface would not be heating!
Nate fails miserably to provide his source for his claim: ”BTW CERES has produced the latest best estimate for global average albedo = 0.29, with small error bar.”
If you want to bring me along the small error bar needs evaluation and quantification. I already conceded that CERES is the best available platform. I also pointed out that CERES data underlies the range of albedo estimates by various reanalysis efforts documented by Trenberth. . .and there is no indication of small error bars there since the estimates vary by about 6%.
So I fully understand your reluctance since you already pinned your credibility on the energy imbalance being accurate. . .noting that the issues with CERES are the same sorts of issues that the satellite based temperature services such as UAH and RSS deal with.
So if you can’t do better than you are doing you probably such just pack it in as you are not at all helping your own credibility.
Previously provided. No evidence that evidence matters.
And I also provided you with the source showing that CERES directly measures the reflected solar, so they do not need anyone’s measurement of albedo.
But it doesnt seem to penetrate.
tim s…”Hot air has very poor heat transfer. Thermal radiation from the combustion gases is essential to make fired equipment effective”.
***
It is? Hot air can transfer heat fine via convection. That’s how the Earth cools. Oxygen is far more import for combustion than radiation. In fact, I fail to see what radiation has to do with combustion.
—
The important question is how to quantify the effect from a trace gas, not whether the basic science is correct”.
***
What is the point of quantifying the effect of a trace gas when science tells us it is insignificant? Both the Ideal Gas Law and the thermal diffusion equation tells us the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot exceed 0.06%. That is both insignificant and not worth considering. So, why do we have this inane focus on CO2?
I have no problem with you as a poster, Tim. Nothing personal in my comments to you. I just wish you’d try to base your arguments on actual science rather than resorting to comments like “…not whether the basic science is correct”. That’s the meme of climate alarmists, that the science doesn’t matter, it’s the principle.
Interesting that ren and RLH have stopped posting links to this:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Antonym Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Sure thing Synonym Flynn … after you.
Antonyn Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Jeez. Did it again!
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Kind of loses its impact after each error, doesn’t it Flynnster.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
AQ: As far as I know I have never used the global figure (except in the 7 day difference).
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
I you have been observing the huge difference between these graphs and the actual ONI contributions, you would know that you shouldn’t be using this data for anything.
“you shouldn’t be using this data for anything”
Neither should you then.
Willard,
Earlier, after pretending you did not understand why arid deserts with the least supposed “greenhouse gases” were the hottest, you wrote –
“Maroon Mike,
Theres a very simple reason why deserts cool faster.
It involves greenhouse gases.
Cheers.”
Oh, obscurity! Oh, mystery! Oh, crypticism – trying for the appearance of intelligence, are you?
“It involves greenhouse gases.” Or magic – unless you explain what the nonsense term “greenhouse gas” actually means! Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, argon, CO2 and other gases are found in greenhouses – but of course you don’t mean greenhouse gases, you mean “greenhouse gases” – a cunning, yet meaningless piece of GHE cultist jargon.
You donkey, just making meaningless terms like “greenhouse gas” up as you go along is about as silly as describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, hoping people will think that cooling is really heating! I suppose SkyDragon cultists might, but nobody with any connection to reality.
Keep trying.
Mike Flynn says:
January 6, 2024 at 11:49 PM
Wonky Wee Willy,
There is no greenhouse effect to acknowledge!
Gill says:
January 7, 2024 at 12:22 AM
Willard says:
I notice that Mike Flynn still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
I havent noticed that Willard.
***
Yes, one comment was on top of the other.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Could some UK rivers freeze over?
https://i.ibb.co/gTNwy0v/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-07-095033.png
Wow – a question instead of an unequivocal claim!
Looks like you’ve learned from your impossible El Nino claim.
One thing’s for sure – there is nothing in the Met Office’s 5-day forecast which indicates the possibility of the Thames freezing over.
Waves of Arctic air are falling on the west and midwest of the US. Frost.
How the Climate System Works (for Dummies)
January 23rd, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The above is all related to a post by Gordon Robertson that claims…
” EEI is a corrupt theory.”
I encourage you to back up your claims with empirical evidence or data. Assertions or personal opinions without supporting information lack credibility.
Yes, scientific theories are subject to scrutiny, evaluation, and refinement based on new evidence and research. However, describing a widely accepted scientific concept as “corrupt” without substantive evidence is misleading.
Ark, can you prove you’re NOT a dummy?
Can all infrared warm an object?
a. Yes
b. No
c. It depends
Your answer is….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Is thermal conductivity asymmetric?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You are just being silly now, trying to imply that the Earth has warmed, due to some mysterious and undefined “EEI”.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and is continuing to do so.
Any person claiming otherwise needs to provide extraordinary evidence to support such an extraordinary claim.
You can’t find any reputable scientist anywhere claiming such a thing, can you?
Keep blathering – implications and innuendo are all you have.
There is no GHE – you cannot describe such a mythical thing, and you are too gutless to even say what you think it might do! Just saying it is “not cooling, slower cooling” and trying to redefine cooling as getting hotter, makes you look like a SkyDragon cultist – out of touch with reality.
Have you thought of trying to trying to get someone like Dr Spencer to back you up?
Give it a try – see how you go.
Mike Flynn,
You are replying to TYSON.
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
No, I’m not. In case Im mistaken, please let me know if you don’t believe that some mysterious “EEI” results in the planet getting hotter.
You can’t even commit yourself to claiming that the mythical GHE does anything at all, can you?
What a pea-brain you are!
Maroon Mike,
To post the comment where you did, you had to click “reply” right under TYSON’s comment.
What I like most about you is your obsessive attention to typos.
Why not apply your OCD to threading too?
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
No, Im not. In case Im mistaken, please let me know if you dont believe that some mysterious EEI results in the planet getting hotter.
You cant even commit yourself to claiming that the mythical GHE does anything at all, can you?
What a pea-brain you are!
Willard,
Who the heck is TYSON, and where is the comment you refer to?
Is TYSON another of your obscure fantasy creations?
Accept reality. There is no GHE, and appealing to an imaginary TYSON is unlikely to help people accept your sanity.
Maroon Mike,
No idea who TYSON really is. He used to work in O&G. Just like you. Perhaps you met him in your Enron times?
He likes Chess. Perhaps you could challenge him.
Continue to play dumb!
Woeful Wee Willy,
When you wrote “Mike Flynn,
You are replying to TYSON.
Cheers.”
you were just trolling for no reason at all?
Good grief, Willard, that’s pretty silly, even for a donkey like you!
Do you play Chess, Maroon Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you played Chess, Maroon Mike, you could dust it off with TYSON.
Willard, please stop trolling.
New Report Highlights Green Failure in Europe and Warns America
18 mins ago
Guest Blogger
By Rick Whitbeck January 04, 2024
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/07/new-report-highlights-green-failure-in-europe-and-warns-america/
America should have warned Europe. The US proved these efforts only caused government corruption and we have a long littered history of these failures.
Carter who was once known a the worst US president {and now he is in 3rd place} started this nonsense.
From article:
“Since decarbonization efforts commenced, Britains economy has grown at half the rate as it did from 1990-2008. According to a research study from noted British economic historian Nicholas Crafts, thats the second-worst period of British peacetime growth since 1780.
In addition to the economic malaise, British energy prices have skyrocketed, and Britons are now concerned with how to survive the effect of those costs on their wallets, as they look to heat and power their homes and businesses, travel for work and pleasure and live life as best they can.
The differences between British energy costs and those here in the U.S. are staggering: Britons paid an average of $228 per megawatt hour (MWh) for electricity generated from coal in 2022, whereas Americans paid an average of $27 per MWh. For natural gas, 2022 saw Britons paying $251 per MWh, versus American consumers averaging $61 per MWh for their power. ”
As was well known {even UN knew it} the higher cost of electrical
power was a fundamental reason, poor countries were poor.
Plus lack of cheap water. So, they funded hydro dams as a way to reduce poverty.
And no foreign aid ever worked as well as this did.
SUNDAY MORNING PUZZLE FOR SKY DRAGON CRANKS
When air lifts adiabatically, it ______ because pressure outside the parcel is ______ than the one inside. The temperature of the air parcel becomes _____, because of its own _____ in this process.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The coldest winter month in the northern hemisphere is ahead, and the polar vortex will be shattered. This is a 10-day forecast.
https://i.ibb.co/kgzSbvW/gfs-z100-nh-f240.png
My prediction is certain.
https://i.ibb.co/QDVrfsK/hgt300-2.webp
The uncertainty of Palmowski’s ‘certain predictions’ has proven to keep at levels near 90% during the last years.
What looks a bit less uncertain is that
– while Lapony will be very cold in 10 days (below -25 C day, near -35 C night), and
– Northeast Siberia becomes even colder (below -45 C day, near -55 C night),
– the Northeast Germoney monkey expects in 10 days something like 0 C day and -4 C night.
Dans 10 jours on verra bien qui aura eu raison ce jour, n’est-ce pas?
Bookmarked.
Binny,
You wrote –
“The uncertainty of Palmowskis ‘certain predictions’ has proven to keep at levels near 90% during the last years.”
Which 10% did he get right?
If a coin toss gives 50% accuracy, then simply reversing Ren’s ‘certain predictions’ would give 90% @ccuracy, n’est-ce pas?
You don’t need to thank me.
I see it but I don’t believe it!
Here’s the exceptionally ignorant Willard at his finest –
“Perhaps, Norman, but have you considered that deserts cool faster because their Sky have more non-radiative gases?
Asking for a musician friend.”
What a ninny!
Willard, all matter in the universe radiates infrared. If you don’t like it, create your own fantasy universe.
Oh wait, you already have! Sorry, I forgot.
Carry on.
I notice that Mike Flynn still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest. That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth. And best of all hes the one who insists on deserts. Aw diddums!
I see it but I dont believe it!
Heres the exceptionally ignorant Willard at his finest
“Perhaps, Norman, but have you considered that deserts cool faster because their Sky have more non-radiative gases?
Asking for a musician friend.”
What a ninny!
Willard, all matter in the universe radiates infrared. If you dont like it, create your own fantasy universe.
Oh wait, you already have! Sorry, I forgot.
Carry on.
Maroon Mike,
You say –
“I see it but I dont believe it!”
Is this what she said?
Cheers.
Oh please do it again, Flynnson!
We look forward to seeing your Alzheimer’s disease grow every day.
I see it but I dont believe it!
Heres the exceptionally ignorant Willard at his finest
“Perhaps, Norman, but have you considered that deserts cool faster because their Sky have more non-radiative gases?
Asking for a musician friend.”
What a ninny!
Willard, all matter in the universe radiates infrared. If you don’t like it, create your own fantasy universe.
Oh wait, you already have! Sorry, I forgot.
Carry on.
Maroon Mike,
You say
I see it but I dont believe it!
Is this what she said?
Cheers.
I see it but I dont believe it!
Heres the exceptionally ignorant Willard at his finest
“Perhaps, Norman, but have you considered that deserts cool faster because their Sky have more non-radiative gases?
Asking for a musician friend.”
What a ninny!
Willard, all matter in the universe radiates infrared. If you dont like it, create your own fantasy universe.
Oh wait, you already have! Sorry, I forgot.
Carry on.
Maroon Mike,
You say
I see it but I dont believe it!
Is this what your ninny said?
Cheers.
I see it but I dont believe it!
Heres the exceptionally ignorant Willard at his finest
“Perhaps, Norman, but have you considered that deserts cool faster because their Sky have more non-radiative gases?
Asking for a musician friend.”
What a ninny is Willard!
Willard, all matter in the universe radiates infrared. If you dont like it, create your own fantasy universe.
Oh wait, you already have! Sorry, I forgot.
Carry on.
Maroon Mike,
Your arguments are like noble gases – they do not radiate much!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I notice that Mike Flynn still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ”
Well, gee, Willard, good try at diversion, but it is unlikely to work all that well.
I’ll just point out that you now seem to accept that the hottest places on Earth are that way in spite of, rather than because of, the mythical GHE! Just basis physical laws in operation.
Luckily, none of it matters. All matter in the real universe radiates infrared, and your imaginary “greenhouse gases” (whatever they are supposed to be) are no different.
You are still as ignorant and obsessed as ever. Scuttle away cockroach, go back to your SkyDragon fantasy – or hang about and listen to the snorts of derision, as you try to avoid facing the reality that there is no GHE.
Your choice.
Maroon Mike,
Emitting and absorbing are converse operations.
What are you braying about?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“I notice that Mike Flynn still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ”
Well, gee, Willard, good try at diversion, but it is unlikely to work all that well.
Ill just point out that you now seem to accept that the hottest places on Earth are that way in spite of, rather than because of, the mythical GHE! Just basis physical laws in operation.
Luckily, none of it matters. All matter in the real universe radiates infrared, and your imaginary “greenhouse gases” (whatever they are supposed to be) are no different.
You are still as ignorant and obsessed as ever. Scuttle away cockroach, go back to your SkyDragon fantasy or hang about and listen to the snorts of derision, as you try to avoid facing the reality that there is no GHE.
Your choice.
You also wrote –
“Emitting and absorbing are converse operations.” Well gee, Willard, maybe you could try demonstrating your knowledge with something relevant, but I doubt it.
Carry on – you aren’t doing too well so far.
Maroon Mike,
You still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
You still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best you’re the one who insisted FOR YEARS on deserts:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/24/environmentalism-versus-science/#comment-746501
And then you shot for the Moon!
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“That just proves the GHG effect doesnt work without water vapor. By itself CO2 does almost nothing given your example.”
Oh, so CO2 by itself does ‘almost nothing’? What does it do then? Heat? Cool? Nothing at all?
That would make people like Gavin Schmidt complete fools, then, for writing papers titled “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”.
Have you contacted the authors of such papers to tell them that, by itself, “CO2 does almost nothing”? Maybe nobody takes much notice of you.
Not to worry – the airless Moon doesn’t have any water vapour or CO2, and still gets far hotter than any place on Earth, so your mad speculation about some mythical GHG effect (whatever that’s supposed to mean), seems to claim that water vapour makes deserts both hotter and cooler at the same time! Cooler than the Moon, but hotter than more humid places,
You have no clue, do you? You are just lurching from one piece of silliness to another piece – even sillier. Still saying the GHE results in “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Off you go now – dream up something even sillier.
Maroon Mike’s “but deserts” move is legendary, e.g.:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/21/the-tragedy-of-the-horizon/#comment-832176
Bob’s response was funny.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Here’s the important part –
“No GHE, Im afraid. No one has ever demonstrated a method of making a thermometer hotter by using CO2, or by reducing the amount of energy it [A-word].”
Presumably, you meant to say “absorbs”, but are too terrified to do so.
All your dodging and weaving is not helping.
There is no GHE, and you can’t even describe the mythical “effect”, can you? Your effort to date “not cooling, slower cooling”. The phenomenon called cooling has been noticed since the dawn of man. If you want to call it GHE, good for you! You might have trouble trying to pronounce it though. I’ll stick to calling the phenomenon “cooling”.
Maroon Mike,
Here’s the important bit –
[MIKE DISCOVERS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT] The arid tropical deserts, or the surface of the Moon show how hot things get with reduced greenhouse gases.
Congratulations – you discovered the greenhouse effect!
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Willard, all matter in the universe radiates infrared. ”
Oh yes, even nitrogen does, after having absorbed it of course.
But… it does that about 10,000,000 times less than water vapor if I well do remember.
This however doesn’t play any role in Flynnson’s wonderful pathologico-phantasmagorical universe.
Flynnson tr0ll, stop tr0lling – right now would be best.
But I’m sure you can’t.
Binny,
You wrote –
“But it does that about 10,000,000 times less than water vapor if I well do remember.”
Maybe you don’t “well do remember” as well as you think, so here’s your chance to see if your memory is as good as you think it is.
You are just babbling, arent you, and making stuff up as you go along.
Be a bit scientific if you dare. First, at what frequencies and pressures is water vapour 10,000,000 times more emissive than nitrogen? Second, what effect does this have on maximum surface temperatures?
I’ll even help you out a bit. Professor John Tyndall found –
“The vapour was found to act with 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 times the energy of the air in which it was diffused; and no doubt was entertained that the aqueous vapour of the air which filled the Royal Institution theatre, during the delivery of the discourse, absorbed 90 or 100 times the quantity of radiant heat which was absorbed by the main body of the air of the room. Looking at the single atoms, for every 200 of oxygen and nitrogen there is about 1 of aqueous vapour. This 1 is 80 times more powerful than the 200; and hence, comparing a single atom of oxygen or nitrogen with a single atom [molecule] of aqueous vapour, we may infer that the action of the latter is 16,000 times that of the former.”
You can find out what IR wavelengths Tyndall was using, and then look at his meticulous experiments, where he revises his 16,000 figure, and gives his results at various pressures and wavelengths for a range of gases including CO2.
None of this supports your nonsensical GHE. As Willard points out, less supposed “greenhouse gases” actually results in higher temperatures!
You even wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote ” Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Maybe you now believe similar nonsense about water vapour (gaseous H2O)?
You’re running out of places to hide. No GHE. None. Not even a little bit!
” First, at what frequencies and pressures is water vapour 10,000,000 times more emissive than nitrogen? ”
Why do you ask, Flynnsonito?
Look at SpectralCalc – if you are able to – and compare there N2 and H2O over the entire wavelength spectrum, and by the way of course considering the gases’ respective atmospheric abundance.
*
” As Willard points out, less supposed ‘greenhouse gases’ actually results in higher temperatures! ”
This, Flynnson, perfectly shows how stubborn, opinionated and uneducated you are.
Willard merely told you that above deserts, there is much less GHG (here: water vapor) than above tropical forests, for example.
This lack of water vapor above deserts is the cause for deserts cooling faster at night than tropical forests.
The rest is part of your wonderful pathologico-phantasmagorical universe.
*
Flynnson tr0ll, stop tr0lling right now would be best.
But Im sure you cant.
Binny,
I asked “First, at what frequencies and pressures is water vapour 10,000,000 times more emissive than nitrogen?”
You don’t know, do you? A vague appeal to a commercial modelling software seller won’t help.
You wrote –
“Willard merely told you that above deserts, there is much less GHG (here: water vapor) than above tropical forests, for example.
This lack of water vapor above deserts is the cause for deserts cooling faster at night than tropical forests.”
At least you and Willard now agree that more supposed GHG results in lower, not higher, temperatures. That’s a start.
You went further before, and said –
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
You have now agreed that decreasing water vapour results in higher temperatures, as does decreasing CO2. Go on, dummy, now tell everyone what supposed “greenhouse gases” like CO2 and H2O are supposed to do, again? You agree that more H2O makes the surface cooler, and specifically state that increasing CO2 does not result in increased temperatures!
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE!
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“decreasing water vapour results in higher temperatures”
Have you ever been in a desert at night?
Don’t know who Flynn refers to since MIke Flynn has not been around here for years. However, Swanson was referring to the obvious, that all atoms radiate and absorb at certain frequencies. Of course, if you are using telemetry looking only in the IR range, you will miss most of it. Also, you will miss oxygen radiation in the microwave range.
> MIke Flynn has not been around here for years.
Cool story, Bordo.
I suppose you believe in coincidences:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/22/science-uncertainty-and-advocacy/#comment-713529
Same voice. Same names dropped. Same talking points. Same put downs.
If you really believe that Maroon Mike isn’t Mike Flynn, I’ve got a Stanley Cup bet on Toronto to sell you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Also, you will miss oxygen radiation in the microwave range. ”
Sounds exactly as “NOAA uses only 1500 stations worldwide”.
Robertson’s dementia is afflicting.
He has been corrected so often about this stoopid microwave pseudo-argument!
Earth’s major energy output is around 10 micron, and the microwave range is 5000 micron.
How is it possible to be so dense?
Did I read ‘turbulence over Germany’ somewhere upthread?
What about first looking at what happens above the US?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/TM64BYCQ6JDO7KPOHDTPI7PFUY.png&w=916
Binny,
You wrote –
“What about first looking at what happens above the US?”
What about it? Are you just trolling for fun?
same thing over Germany in December and likely still there.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/december2024/202312_Map.png
” same thing over Germany in December… ”
As always, nothing to do with the reality I described.
And as a little extra, the usual nonsense from Flynnson, the blog’s tr0lliest poster.
Earlier, the peabrained Willard wrote –
“Maroon Mike slips up
less [] greenhouse gases results in increased, rather than decreased, surface temperatures
He kinda forgot that its standard meteorology:”
What a donkey! He omitted the “supposed”, (the original was “supposed greenhouse gases”), aiming for some unknown goal, I guess, and accused “Maroon Mike” (presumably me, but my name terrifies him) of a slip-up.
No slip-up, dummy. Just pointing out that “standard meteorology” contains no reference at all to the GHE. Here’s what Wikipedia says “Meteorology is a branch of the atmospheric sciences (which include atmospheric chemistry and physics) with a major focus on weather forecasting.”
You see? Science – not confused nonsense and wishful fantasy.
Try again.
Maroon Mike slips again –
[MAROON MIKE DISCOVERS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT] Less greenhouse gases results in increased, rather than decreased, surface temperatures.
Perhaps he just forgets to average? If he does, then he also forgets that deserts are quite cold at night. Not like the other side of the Moon at night!
What a maroon!
Earth night lasts a few hours, in temperature climates. On the dark side of the Moon, night is two weeks in length, with no sunlight whatsoever. If they had oceans on the Moon, they’d freeze solid for two weeks then thaw for two weeks. Of course, climate alarmists would use the two weeks of thaw as evidence of lunar warming.
> Earth night lasts a few hours
Cool story, Bordo:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_659ab085adb89.png
(H/T Norman.)
Have you noticed that there’s no atmosphere on the Moon?
What does your reply have to do with anything? Unless you’re trying to tell us that the radiation from a surface depends on having an atmosphere?
You should stick to things you understand wee willy, like home economics classes or maybe basket-weaving.
Funny that the dark side of the Moon cools rapidly and it has no CO2 to do the radiating, as you alarmists claim.
It has been discovered that during the transition from lunar day to night, the Moon does not cool as rapidly as expected. That’s because radiation is a poor means of cooling.
> What does your reply have to do with anything?
Good point, Bordo.
I have no idea how responding to your points have anything to do with anything.
Perhaps you should work on being relevant.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wayward Wee Willy,
There is no greenhouse effect, you donkey.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years.
Willard,
Are you quite mad?
You say “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.”
That includes every gas in the universe, does it? All gases emit IR. Oh, and absorb IR, of course. That’s why they remain gases, you donkey.
Keep dodging – you just look sillier and sillier.
Maroon Mike,
I already responded to your silly talking point –
“All gases emit IR”
Even your comments show some form of intelligence.
Very little.
Very, very little.
Very, very, very, very, …, very little.
Littler than that.
Yeah, I know it’s not standard. Neither are you a standard Climateball player.
Sometimes quantities matter.
Willard,
Are you quite mad?
You say “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.”
That includes every gas in the universe, does it? All gases emit IR. Oh, and absorb IR, of course. Thats why they remain gases, you donkey.
Keep dodging you just look sillier and sillier.
Maroon Mike,
You ask –
“That includes every gas in the universe, does it?”
I don’t think we call every gas a greenhouse gas.
Do you?
Willard,
Are you quite mad?
You say “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.”
That includes every gas in the universe, does it? All gases emit IR. Oh, and absorb IR, of course. Thats why they remain gases, you donkey.
Keep dodging you just look sillier and sillier.
Maroon Mike,
Do you think you have a fortress?
I hope you do, for that’s the only reason why you’d be willing to keep repeating yourself so much.
In Go, such a fortress abides by a simple principle. A territory that lives needs two “eyes.”
Where are your two eyes?
Your silly confusion about how much IR non-radiative gases emit or absorb isn’t an eye.
Your silly semantic game about the concept of greenhouse gas isn’t one either.
Radiative gases. Non-radiative gases. Learn the difference.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Radiative gases. Non-radiative gases. Learn the difference.”
All gases radiate infrared. All gases at the same temperature radiate the same frequencies of infrared.
You sound like one of those SkyDragon cultists who believe in supposed “greenhouse gases” – none of which managed to prevent the Earth cooling to its present temperature.
You might just as well keep trying to be annoying.
[laughing at inept troll]
Maroon Mike,
Not every gas efficiently absorbs infrared radiation, and becomes heated as a consequence.
You did not know?
So sad, too bad.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote (in a fit of ignorance) –
“Not every gas efficiently absorbs infrared radiation, and becomes heated as a consequence.”
Name one, peabrain. Oh, and specify what “efficiently” means in this context. See, trying to sound sciency just makes you look silly.
Carry on.
Name one what, Maroon Mike – a greenhouse gas?
You snottily call them “so-called greenhouse gases” and you don’t know any?
Have you tried the Internet?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote (in a fit of ignorance)
“Not every gas efficiently absorbs infrared radiation, and becomes heated as a consequence.”
Name one, peabrain. Oh, and specify what “efficiently” means in this context. See, trying to sound sciency just makes you look silly.
Carry on.
Mo‌ron Mike does not know what’s a greenhouse gas, yet he keeps referring to greenhouse gases.
What a moro‌n!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote (in a fit of ignorance)
“Not every gas efficiently absorbs infrared radiation, and becomes heated as a consequence.”
Name one, peabrain. Oh, and specify what “efficiently” means in this context. See, trying to sound sciency just makes you look silly.
Carry on.
Methane, Mike.
No, not Methane Mike. That is another guy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy should stick to science he understands…
“Your arguments are like noble gases they do not radiate much!”
***
https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/neontable2.htm
What do you think they use in neon signs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon_lighting
“The color of the light depends on the gas in the tube. Neon lights were named for neon, a noble gas which gives off a popular orange light, but other gases and chemicals are used to produce other colors, such as hydrogen (purple-red), helium (yellow or pink), carbon dioxide (white), and mercury (blue)”.
Note that neon radiates a frequency we see as orange and another noble gas, helium, radiates a pink to yellow colour. Note also, that CO2, often associated with IR frequencies, radiates white, a conglomeration of visible wavelengths.
Note that nitrogen radiates blues and reds, meaning just below UV and just above IR. Oxygen emits a greenish-yellow light representing the peak of Planck’s curve and also a red light. Both radiate UV as well. That’s on top of the microwave radiation used by UAH satellites.
Maroon Mike Flynn has found a fancy way to say that neon gas does not emit light in the visible spectrum.
Why does he hide his violent agreement?
“Maroon Mike Flynn has found a fancy way to say that neon gas does not emit light in the visible spectrum.
Why does he hide his violent agreement?”
Are you now claiming that Gordon Robertson is the fantasy figure Maroon Mike Flynn?
Or have you just completely taken leave of your senses? No need to answer.
Maroon Mike,
You got me there.
Sorry, Bordo.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard has allayed everybody’s concerns about “greenhouse gas”.
He says “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.
Are you no chemical engineer or something?”
Well done, Willard. You and your pals call cooling warming, and explain it by saying any gas is a greenhouse gas, which has magic properties – can make thermometers hotter, colder, or have no effect at all!
At least neither Willard nor his nutty companions have anything at all to say about the GHE. Just as well, they will probably claim that the greenhouse effect is any effect they call the greenhouse effect!
Brilliant, if you are really, really dumb, and really, really, gullible.
Maroon Mike Flynn,
“So-called” greenhouse gases.
“Call cooling warming.”
All you got is silly semantic games to power you sadism.
Cheers.
Willard has allayed everybodys concerns about greenhouse gas.
He says “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.
Are you no chemical engineer or something?”
Well done, Willard. You and your pals call cooling warming, and explain it by saying any gas is a greenhouse gas, which has magic properties can make thermometers hotter, colder, or have no effect at all!
At least neither Willard nor his nutty companions have anything at all to say about the GHE. Just as well, they will probably claim that the greenhouse effect is any effect they call the greenhouse effect!
Brilliant, if you are really, really dumb, and really, really, gullible.
Maroon Mike has very little to say.
He knows that the atmosphere makes a difference.
It keeps the Earth warmer on average than it would be without one.
He knows that clouds make a difference.
It keeps the Earth under it cooler on average than it would be without them.
He just does not know reconcile these two facts together.
A bit sad, really.
Willard has allayed everybodys concerns about greenhouse gas.
He says “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.
Are you no chemical engineer or something?”
Well done, Willard. You and your pals call cooling warming, and explain it by saying any gas is a greenhouse gas, which has magic properties can make thermometers hotter, colder, or have no effect at all!
At least neither Willard nor his nutty companions have anything at all to say about the GHE. Just as well, they will probably claim that the greenhouse effect is any effect they call the greenhouse effect!
Brilliant, if you are really, really dumb, and really, really, gullible.
Maroon Mike ignores the fact that not every gas is a RAG.
He could learn, but prefers to rag.
What a drag!
Willard has allayed everybodys concerns about greenhouse gas.
He says “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.
Are you no chemical engineer or something?”
Well done, Willard. You and your pals call cooling warming, and explain it by saying any gas is a greenhouse gas, which has magic properties can make thermometers hotter, colder, or have no effect at all!
At least neither Willard nor his nutty companions have anything at all to say about the GHE. Just as well, they will probably claim that the greenhouse effect is any effect they call the greenhouse effect!
Brilliant, if you are really, really dumb, and really, really, gullible.
Maroon Mike,
Do you know what RAG stands for?
Cheers.
Willard has allayed everybodys concerns about greenhouse gas.
He says “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.
Are you no chemical engineer or something?”
Well done, Willard. You and your pals call cooling warming, and explain it by saying any gas is a greenhouse gas, which has magic properties can make thermometers hotter, colder, or have no effect at all!
At least neither Willard nor his nutty companions have anything at all to say about the GHE. Just as well, they will probably claim that the greenhouse effect is any effect they call the greenhouse effect!
Brilliant, if you are really, really dumb, and really, really, gullible.
So you say, Mo‌ron Mike.
So you say.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ark…”[Roy]Anything that changes the balance between energy input and energy output of the Earth has the potential to change its temperature. This energy-balance-determines-temperature concept is basic physics, and is fundamental to the calculation of the temperature (or change in temperature) of anything, and is accounted for in the design of most energy-consuming devices humans have invented”.
***
First, I want to express my utter contempt for you bringing Roy into this as an authority figure, especially when your alarmist principles and arguments contradict Roy’s work. It puts him in a no-win situation and pits skeptic against skeptic. But that’s what I have come to expect from alarmist scumbags like you.
Roy couched his words carefully claiming that energy balance has the ***POTENTIAL*** to change temperature. He is correct in claiming that the energy-balance principle is basic physics, but not as stated in the Trenberth-Kiehle energy-budget theory.
For one, temperature is a human-defined measure of thermal energy based on the freezing and boiling points of water, and is not applicable all forms of energy, including electromagnetic energy. A thermometer cannot measure EM, it can only measure EM converted to heat in a body. Therefore, an energy budget related to temperature must involved a heat budget and no other form of energy. That rules out Trenberth-Kiehle.
The Trenberth-Kiehle pseudo-science is thoroughly confused about the relationship between heat and electromagnetic energy. For one, it has the heat dissipation qualities of radiation and conduction/convection backwards, and by a long shot. Shula proved that a heated element in a vacuum cools very slowly due to radiation alone yet when a gas is introduced into the tube it cools very quickly. We have all witnessed the same with an ordinary thermos bottle.
For another, the T-K energy budget claims more radiation from a trace gas than from solar input. It contradicts the 2nd law by claiming that radiation from a source colder than the surface can be absorbed by the surface. So, not only does it disrespect the 2nd law it creates heat in the energy budget that is simply not there.
I know Roy and I disagree on the 2nd law. Enough said.
I am not going to engage in taking shots at Roy since I respect him as a professional and the good work he has done challenging alarmist pseudo-science. I get it that he has to walk a fine line between accepted science, alternative POVs, like mine, and his professional opinions.
I disagree with Roy on some points and I’d love to have a one-on-one with him to discuss them. All the same, the overall message is more important than my opinions. Roy and John Christy have made their positions clear on alarmist claims and I support them fully on that. If all people agreed on science it would be a boring world.
> It puts him in a no-win situation and pits skeptic against skeptic.
Cool story, Bordo. Here’s Roy having no qualms throwing all Moon Dragon cranks under the bus in one fell swoop:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
You’ve been here for more than a decade.
I don’t think you ever met Roy’s challenge.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wee willy just posted an article by Roy with his response to certain Sky Dragon Slayers. I have never been associated with them nor do I know what they posted so I’ll have to go on what Roy finds wrong with their arguments.
The following is not intended as a shot at Roy but an expression of frustration on my part that the science simply lacks answers to pertinent questions. My aim is to hopefully get a constructive discussion going on these points. Therefore, if I make an assertion, it is intended more as an equation looking for a rebuttal.
I am aware that certain people associated themselves with the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ written with input from scholars like Claes Johnson, a mathematician, and Philip Latour, a chemical engineer with plenty of experience applying the 2nd law.
The following article by Roy and referenced by wee willy was written in 2013, 10 year ago, and maybe Roy has different thoughts on this subject.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Roy replies later in the comments…
“Scott, are you unaware that the Slayers are disputing science which has been published literally hundreds of times in the peer-reviewed literature? Im not saying that necessarily makes it true, only that the Slayers have yet to offer the same physical rigor in advancing their argumentsstarting with a surface energy balance model. If they cannot take that simple step, they should be ignored”.
***
I don’t believe in unvalidated models as proof of anything. Therefore, I’d prefer an explanation using words, backed up by math if necessary, not the other way around, where equations have taken over and subjective explanations lacking. Overall, I feel that an assertion without proof in words, establishing a person’s understanding of the basics, indicates an incomplete understanding of the subject. If you read Clausius circa, 1850, he presents no math without a subjective explanation.
No models, no thought experiments, just known science.
—
As the basis of his argument, Roy states…”As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called greenhouse gases that emit thermal infrared radiation downward”.
If that is their view, then I agree with Roy. I don’t call such gases ‘greenhouse’ gases because I don’t think they operate in any way that leads to warming in a real greenhouse. However, it has been known since Tyndall’s experiment circa 1850, that gases like CO2 can absorb and emit IR isotropicaly and that part of the direction of emission has to be straight down to the surface.
Roy goes on…”A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature”.
I think they are wrong on that too. The reason a trace gas has no effect is related to the heat diffusion equation as applied to gases. Diffusion is relate to the ability of a member gas in a mix to transfer heat into the overall mix. It has nothing to do with conduction, which is insignificant in a gas, so it has to cover any means by which heat can be transferred, whether by collision or what.
The diffusion agrees with the Ideal Gas Law that the amount of heat that can be transferred to a larger volume of gas by any other gas is based on its relative mass percent. What the heck is that?
Any molecule’s mass is determined by the mass of each atom in the molecule. Therefore the total mass of CO2 is about 44 grams/mol (add the amu’s of each atom), while O2 is about 32 g/mol and nitrogen about 28 g/mol. However, N2 + O2 makes up 99% of the atmosphere and CO2 only 0.04%. When all is said and done, the ratio works out to about 99% to 0.06%
That is about the ratio of heating in the atmosphere between those molecules. The IGL and the heat diffusion equation agree on that.
—
[Roy]”For the adiabatic lapse rate to exist in the real atmosphere, there must be convective instability, which requires BOTH lower atmospheric heating AND upper atmospheric cooling. But the upper atmosphere cannot cool unless greenhouse gases are present! Without greenhouse gases, the atmosphere would slowly approach an isothermal state through thermal conduction with a temperature close to the surface temperature, and convection would then be impossible.
In other words, without the greenhouse effect, there would be no decrease in atmospheric temperature with height, and no convection. The existence of weather thus depends upon the greenhouse effect to destabilize the atmosphere”.
***
A problem I have with Roy’s reply is that a column of air with a lapse rate, cannot have a turbulent convection. The lapse rate is regarded as a constant in so many degrees C/metre or km. However, with turbulence, air of different temperatures and pressures is moved around. I don’t see why the convection has to be vertical, since a lot of convection takes place N-S and vice-versa, between areas of different temperature in those regions.
A counter argument is as follows. There is nothing adiabatic in a gas in a container with no walls. Insulated walls are required to prevent heat entering or leaving.
Modelling the atmosphere as an air column is disingenuous since such a column can neither prevent heat escaping nor entering via convection. I think this theory is wrong.
We must treat the atmosphere as some kind of container with no walls and a roughly located ceiling. Obviously there must be a transition from pressure to no pressure therefore we need to establish an altitude where that takes place. If we cannot do it in bulk, then we need to break the atmosphere into concentric spheres and establish an IGL relationship within each.
The upper atmosphere cools naturally as pressure decreases. As pressure decreases so does temperature (Ideal Gas Law). However, at altitudes toward the stratosphere there are so few molecules of air that temperature becomes unpredictable. Claiming that the upper atmosphere warms is meant in a relative sense. Warming from -60C to less than 0C is hardly warming. Given the thinness of the air at such altitudes, warmer and cooler lose their meaning. It’s just plain cold, like the Arctic in winter.
This is all Ideal Gas Law…PV = nrt with a peculiar condition, the pressure changes fairly linearly with altitude. What causes the pressure change…gravity? In a container at the surface, gravity is negligible unless the container extended significantly into the atmosphere.
I find it somewhat absurd that some sciences ignore gravity with relation to the atmosphere. I agree that weather depends on turbulent convection but weather takes place in a relatively stable atmosphere with the stability established by gravity.
I agree with Roy that temperature near the surface cannot be established based on gravitational attraction, but without gravity there would be no atmosphere. Gravity is the force that binds air molecules to the surface forcing them to turn with the planet. Since gravitational force changes with altitude, and air molecules are almost infinitesimally light, they can be ordered in layer of variable pressure.
Convection cannot explain STP at sea level, but gravity can. Convection cannot explain the drop of air pressure to 1/3rd sea level the top of Everest, but gravity can.
Turbulent convection certainly cannot explain the variability of pressure which is constant around the planet with altitude. If that was not the case, UAH would be out of work since the telemetry on sats depends on it.
Cool story, Bordo.
Does it have a point?
How is it related to what I just said?
Take deep breaths. Focus.
One point that relates to what you said is that Dr Spencer is not throwing what you call "Sky Dragon cranks" under the bus in one fell swoop, since you classify everyone who disputes the GHE as "Sky Dragon cranks"; but as Gordon points out, "Slayers" are a small group of people associated with the book. IMO most people who dispute the GHE would not call themselves "Slayers".
The second point, which Gordon made quite subtly, is that the arguments Dr Spencer associates with the "Slayers", Gordon does not agree with. That would be the case for most people who dispute the GHE. Those arguments appear to be straw men, in other words.
Does it have a point? It might (probably not) but we’ll never discover it buried as it is under a load of useless verbiage.
Here could be a point:
[ROY, ON SKY DRAGON CRANKS] they must first provide a time-dependent model like that above which involves energy gain and energy loss terms, which is the only way to compute the temperature of something from theory.
[BORDO] I don’t believe in unvalidated models as proof of anything. Therefore, Id prefer an explanation using words, backed up by math if necessary, not the other way around, where equations have taken over and subjective explanations lacking.
Sir Bordo is bravely running away!
I think a good point is that this:
"Here’s Roy having no qualms throwing all [Sky] Dragon cranks under the bus in one fell swoop"
is obviously wrong, for the reasons I (and Gordon) pointed out.
Graham D. Warner tries really hard to escape Roy’s challenge.
And once again he tries special pleading.
His imbecility knows no bound.
The false accusations begin.
[ROY] As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] You cannot “trap” OLR. You can only slow its progress into space.
GHGs emit thermal IR radiation in all directions, including downward. So Dr Spencer’s straw man remains a straw man, as far as I’m concerned.
Graham D. Graham keeps denying the obvious:
[ROY] A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature.
[BORDO] It is also not possible for a rare gas like ACO2 to intercept enough IR, and re-transmit it to the surface, so as to create the positive feedback programmed into models. You have admitted that most surface energy escapes to space, bypassing the GHGs.
In other words, he’s gaslighting.
Gordon is not saying the same thing that Dr Spencer is saying "Slayers" say. You’ll keep going, no doubt.
Roy clearly targets those who keep denying the greenhouse effect.
Graham D. Warner still tries to racehorse his way out of that scope.
He’s not welcome here, and he knows it.
Sure, Dr Spencer would prefer discussion not be about the existence or absence of a GHE. Well aware of that. Nevertheless that’s what most of his regulars seem to want to spend all their time discussing, and it’s why his monthly updates have comments running into the thousands. People still love discussing the GHE!
And now Graham D. Warner tries to minimize the fact that Sky Dragon cranks are responsible for Sky Dragon cranks stuff…
No shame. No honor.
Those that dispute the GHE are responsible for what they say. Those that defend the GHE are responsible for what they say. Discussions involve more than one "side". It’s a bit silly to blame it all on one side, don’t you think?
Out of a sudden Graham D. Warner rediscovers symmetry. But are the roles between Team Science and Sky Dragon cranks really reciprocal here? Our cranks are obviously trying to pretend they have a ball to play, whereas Team Science mainly plays defense by pointing out they have none.
Which was the point of Roy’s post – no model, no nothing.
Besides, when Team Science was away from Roy’s, Sky Dragon cranks were already screetching. Yet when only one Sky Dragon cranks disappears, by some magic Sky Dragon discourse subsides.
So childish.
Graham D. Warner, who tries to pass himself as Roy’s moderator even after Roy directly told him how PSTing people was silly, who pretends not reading Nate’s comments, who keeps addressing me as if we were on speaking terms, who keeps trying to last word every thread in which he decides to chimes in, has strong opinions about childishness.
Listen to Willard whine about getting responses to his posts. LMAO!
In an exchange about maturity, Gill lulzes.
ROLFCOPTER^ROLFCOPTER^ROLFCOPTER
Willard, please stop trolling.
Oh, and I forgot to add –
Graham D. Warner keeps using the T-word, which is now banned.
Thank you or reminding me, Mike Flynn!
Obsess over someone else, child. Maybe you could even take responsibility for your own shortcomings.
Graham D. Warner, who keeps responding to my comments even when he has no business doing so, like in this other subthread, has strong opinions about obsession.
Another abuse in the life of a guy who keeps using a banned word, a word that has been banned right after Roy directly told him that his PSTing was silly!
…over someone else, child. Maybe you could even take responsibility for your own shortcomings.
Graham D. Warner still does not own the fact that he kept PSTing even after Roy challenged him directly and banned the T-word.
He still does, tho Mike Flynn is now trying to compete with him.
Little Willy is desperate to try and get me banned. Absolutely desperate. He’s so, so obsessed with me. I guess I just live rent free in his head after winning so many arguments against him. That he’ll respond to this message is more certain than his failure in every aspect of his life.
Graham D. Warner has no shame and no honor.
He knows that the T-word is banned.
He still PSTs people.
See?! He actually responded!
Graham D. Warner has no response to the facts laid down to his feet.
He uses the T-word even it has been blacklisted. And the word has been blacklisted right after Roy directly responding to his PSTing.
He stands them aside, and offers another silly Kafka trap.
What else is new?
Graham D. Warner has no shame and no honor.
Yes, I use the "T word" after it has been blacklisted. Indeed. That seems to annoy you even more than it did before. In which case, I’d better keep it up. When bad people get annoyed by something, you know you’re doing something right.
Graham D. Warner admits to a fact even himself cannot deny:
Then he goes for the deflection, which works better without acknowledging the other fact, which is the T-word has been blacklisted right after Roy responded to his PSTing.
The issue isn’t about me.
It’s about how Graham D. Warner bypasses Roy’s policies.
Graham D. Warner has no shame and no honor.
Dr Spencer has never said anything about my "PSTing." He mentioned that I impersonate a moderator, though. I explained that I didn’t think anybody would take it seriously, with the word "emergency" in there.
Why has the sub-thread become all about me, again? Oh, because I’m talking to Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner returns to gaslighting:
http://tinyurl.com/roy-speaks-to-graham-d-warner
Graham D. Warner once again tries to minimize what is being said and done. Not unlike why he appeared in this subthread to exclude himself from Roy’s challenge, come to think of it.
Graham D. Warner has no shame and no honor.
Little Willy handily posts a link which confirms what I said in my 11:38 AM comment was correct.
Graham D. Warner confirms that head he wins, tails he wins too!
It’s bad for me to use one of Dr Spencer’s banned words, but fine for Little Willy to.
Unless Graham D. Warner tells me that I win, I win!
You’ve completely lost it today, Little Willy.
Thus Graham D. Warner returns to gaslighting.
That can only mean one thing –
I WIN.
You win the "biggest bell-end" contest. Well done.
Meanwhile, Graham D. Warner took the time to PST me in another subthread. Since every PST is a win to those PSTed, I’ll gladly take it!
Yeah, right.
Graham D. Warner forgets the magic words.
Sure, sure.
Graham D. Warner keeps forgetting the magic words!
Uh huh.
Still no magic words from Graham D. Warner.
Abracadabra.
Graham D. Warner must have forgotten.
That would explain why there’s only one PSTer.
Geez Louise, you’re boring.
repost…
Wee willy just posted an article by Roy with his response to certain Sky Dragon Slayers. I have never been associated with them nor do I know what they posted so I’ll have to go on what Roy finds wrong with their arguments.
The following is not intended as a shot at Roy but an expression of frustration on my part that the science simply lacks answers to pertinent questions. My aim is to hopefully get a constructive discussion going on these points. Therefore, if I make an assertion, it is intended more as an equation looking for a rebuttal.
I am aware that certain people associated themselves with the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ written with input from scholars like Claes Johnson, a mathematician, and Philip Latour, a chemical engineer with plenty of experience applying the 2nd law.
The following article by Roy and referenced by wee willy was written in 2013, 10 year ago, and maybe Roy has different thoughts on this subject.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Roy replies later in the comments…
“Scott, are you unaware that the Slayers are disputing science which has been published literally hundreds of times in the peer-reviewed literature? Im not saying that necessarily makes it true, only that the Slayers have yet to offer the same physical rigor in advancing their argumentsstarting with a surface energy balance model. If they cannot take that simple step, they should be ignored”.
***
I don’t believe in unvalidated models as proof of anything. Therefore, I’d prefer an explanation using words, backed up by math if necessary, not the other way around, where equations have taken over and subjective explanations lacking. Overall, I feel that an assertion without proof in words, establishing a person’s understanding of the basics, indicates an incomplete understanding of the subject. If you read Clausius circa, 1850, he presents no math without a subjective explanation.
No models, no thought experiments, just known science.
—
As the basis of his argument, Roy states…”As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called greenhouse gases that emit thermal infrared radiation downward”.
If that is their view, then I agree with Roy. I don’t call such gases ‘greenhouse’ gases because I don’t think they operate in any way that leads to warming in a real greenhouse. However, it has been known since Tyndall’s experiment circa 1850, that gases like CO2 can absorb and emit IR isotropicaly and that part of the direction of emission has to be straight down to the surface.
Roy goes on…”A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature”.
I think they are wrong on that too. The reason a trace gas has no effect is related to the heat diffusion equation as applied to gases. Diffusion is relate to the ability of a member gas in a mix to transfer heat into the overall mix. It has nothing to do with conduction, which is insignificant in a gas, so it has to cover any means by which heat can be transferred, whether by collision or what.
The diffusion agrees with the Ideal Gas Law that the amount of heat that can be transferred to a larger volume of gas by any other gas is based on its relative mass percent. What the heck is that?
Any molecule’s mass is determined by the mass of each atom in the molecule. Therefore the total mass of CO2 is about 44 grams/mol (add the amu’s of each atom), while O2 is about 32 g/mol and nitrogen about 28 g/mol. However, N2 + O2 makes up 99% of the atmosphere and CO2 only 0.04%. When all is said and done, the ratio works out to about 99% to 0.06%
That is about the ratio of heating in the atmosphere between those molecules. The IGL and the heat diffusion equation agree on that.
—
[Roy]”For the adiabatic lapse rate to exist in the real atmosphere, there must be convective instability, which requires BOTH lower atmospheric heating AND upper atmospheric cooling. But the upper atmosphere cannot cool unless greenhouse gases are present! Without greenhouse gases, the atmosphere would slowly approach an isothermal state through thermal conduction with a temperature close to the surface temperature, and convection would then be impossible.
In other words, without the greenhouse effect, there would be no decrease in atmospheric temperature with height, and no convection. The existence of weather thus depends upon the greenhouse effect to destabilize the atmosphere”.
***
A problem I have with Roy’s reply is that a column of air with a lapse rate, cannot have a turbulent convection. The lapse rate is regarded as a constant in so many degrees C/metre or km. However, with turbulence, air of different temperatures and pressures is moved around. I don’t see why the convection has to be vertical, since a lot of convection takes place N-S and vice-versa, between areas of different temperature in those regions.
A counter argument is as follows. There is nothing adiabatic in a gas in a container with no walls. Insulated walls are required to prevent heat entering or leaving.
Modelling the atmosphere as an air column is disingenuous since such a column can neither prevent heat escaping nor entering via convection. I think this theory is wrong.
We must treat the atmosphere as some kind of container with no walls and a roughly located ceiling. Obviously there must be a transition from pressure to no pressure therefore we need to establish an altitude where that takes place. If we cannot do it in bulk, then we need to break the atmosphere into concentric spheres and establish an IGL relationship within each.
The upper atmosphere cools naturally as pressure decreases. As pressure decreases so does temperature (Ideal Gas Law). However, at altitudes toward the stratosphere there are so few molecules of air that temperature becomes unpredictable. Claiming that the upper atmosphere warms is meant in a relative sense. Warming from -60C to less than 0C is hardly warming. Given the thinness of the air at such altitudes, warmer and cooler lose their meaning. It’s just plain cold, like the Arctic in winter.
This is all Ideal Gas Law…PV = nrt with a peculiar condition, the pressure changes fairly linearly with altitude. What causes the pressure change…gravity? In a container at the surface, gravity is negligible unless the container extended significantly into the atmosphere.
I find it somewhat absurd that some sciences ignore gravity with relation to the atmosphere. I agree that weather depends on turbulent convection but weather takes place in a relatively stable atmosphere with the stability established by gravity.
I agree with Roy that temperature near the surface cannot be established based on gravitational attraction, but without gravity there would be no atmosphere. Gravity is the force that binds air molecules to the surface forcing them to turn with the planet. Since gravitational force changes with altitude, and air molecules are almost infinitesimally light, they can be ordered in layer of variable pressure.
Convection cannot explain STP at sea level, but gravity can. Convection cannot explain the drop of air pressure to 1/3rd sea level the top of Everest, but gravity can.
Turbulent convection certainly cannot explain the variability of pressure which is constant around the planet with altitude. If that was not the case, UAH would be out of work since the telemetry on sats depends on it.
I did not touch on the 2nd law in my novella because Roy did not raise the 2nd law in his 2013 article. The 2nd law makes it clear, however, that any radiation radiated from GHGs to the surface cannot warm the surface.
The surface is either in thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere, or warmer. That rules out any heat transfer from atmosphere to surface. There is the odd inversion and Roy has far more expertise on that than I.
Some have used arguments that the 2nd law can be bypassed under certain conditions but that is akin to claiming water will run uphill by its own means or that a bolder will raise itself off the surface by its own means.
It’s all about energy transfer which must be from a state of higher potential energy to a state of lower potential energy. Heat is energy and must obey that principle, even though I acknowledge that nature can do what it likes and out laws are no good. To satisfy the human mind we make up cute stories about our laws governing nature.
Jay:
“Imagine my shock at finding the denialst, pathologically obfuscating discussion on these monthly posts. Full of huffing, arrogant busybodies, groping at every inadequate alternative explanation under the sun.”
Gordo still can’t figure out what Roy wrote:
Gordo jumps into a discussion about vertical convection, still ignoring Roy’s main point, about which I’ve tried to inform him several times.
Convection is a cycle, warm air mixed with H2O rising because it’s less dense than the rest of the atmosphere, then cooling and sinking back toward the surface to complete the loop. Without the upper air cooling by greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, there would be no convection.
Dr Spencer apparently wrote –
“But the upper atmosphere cannot cool unless greenhouse gases are present . . .”
Given that all gases radiate IR, losing energy thereby, I believe Dr Spencer might have accidentally phrased his sentence incorrectly.
Obviously, as Dr Spencer has correctly pointed out previously, a loss of energy from a gas will cause the gas to cool. All gases share this property, and if allowed to cool sufficiently, become liquid.
Maxwell in about 1870, in relation to the dynamical theory of gases, said “I have now put before you what I consider to be the greatest difficulty yet encountered by the molecular theory. As Richard Feynman subsequently said “These words represent the first discovery that the laws of classical physics were wrong. This was the first indication that there was something fundamentally impossible, because a rigorously proved theorem did not agree with experiment.”
Not to belabour the point, but the atmosphere becomes more tenuous with altitude, and the concept of “temperature” changes. For example the thermosphere is nominally at 2,000 C or so, but ice would not melt if shielded from direct sunlight or at night.
The radiation from the 2,000 C thermosphere does not warm the surface at all, even though it is nominally far hotter.
SkyDragon cultists live in a fantasy.
Mike Flynn,
The concept of “temperature” changes?
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Given that all gases radiate IR …”
That is like saying “given that all materials have electrical resistance, then all materials are insulators.” Or “Given that all objects have mass, I must include the gravity of Pluto when calculating earth’s orbit.”
While there is some TINY effect in each case, the practical result is that we can safely ignore some factors when doing practical calculations.
And the fact here is that GHGs radiate SO MUCH more effectively than non-GHGs, that gases like N2 and O2 can safely be ignored. N2 and O2 account for maybe 0.1% of the radiation to space (and I suspect it is actually much less that that).
I believe Dr Spencer got it exactly correct.
“the concept of temperature changes”
In the lower atmosphere, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of molecules. At what altitude does this stop being true, and what is “temperature” then?
tim if you know why are you asking?
Only Mike Flynn can know that, Gill.
So Willard are you saying Tim knows shitt?
No, Gill.
I’m saying that it’s hard to tell what Mike Flynn means with his “the concept of temperature changes” bit.
And that comes from the most constructivist guy I know.
Willard says:
”No, Gill.
Im saying that its hard to tell what Mike Flynn means with his ”the concept of temperature changes” bit.”
————————–
Perhaps you should spend a bit of time looking into why the thermosphere is so hot with no sun or energy source nearby that can account for it using blackbody calculations.
Perhaps you should dig a little deeper into the concept of conceptual change, Gill.
Didn’t you have any jesuit teacher to tell you about it or something?
Willard’s science arguments have devolved down to screaming ”HERETIC!!!”
Gill seems to forget those who invented modern epistemology.
No real change Willard. Just a desire by egos of the elite to call all their beliefs to be knowledge while peering down their noses at the deplorables.
You know about how it worked under the era of monarchies. More like reinventing the past.
No, Gordon Robertson, you’re not a skeptic. You’re a denier.
Skeptics have no need to overturn standard physics in order to justify their interpretation of the physical world.
You even deny the existence of Time itself!
I believe he rejected the existence of photons as well if my memory is correct. It makes it hard to have a genuine discussion on radiative heat transfer when the person on the other end is rejects fundamental principles like time and photons.
b,
You wrote –
“It makes it hard to have a genuine discussion . . . ”
You’re right, of course.
You point blank refuse to discuss the mythical GHE! Not surprising, given that you can’t even describe it!
Carry on.
> It makes it hard to have a genuine discussion on radiative heat transfer when the person on the other end is rejects fundamental principles like time and photons.
OTOH, it makes it really easy to make claims like we can find in Sky Dragon lands, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78984
Exactly like Roy said.
Bordo is a real card-carrying member of the Sky Dragon cranks’ fight club.
"Exactly like Roy said"
Nothing like what Dr Spencer said. Little Willy just can’t help himself.
See?
Graham D. Warner does it again!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says:
”I believe he rejected the existence of photons as well if my memory is correct. It makes it hard to have a genuine discussion on radiative heat transfer when the person on the other end is rejects fundamental principles like time and photons.”
Hardly a science case there bdgwx. You should know better. Its not a matter of rejecting the concept of time and photons its questioning whether we know everything we should know about them.
So in one sentence you made just about the most inane statement you could possibly make.
And Gill tries to shield Bordo too.
LMAO!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Actually Willard I was defending the notion that: We know there is something about time that seems to warrant constant consideration but that its a mistake to claim we know everything about it.
I actually don’t know if Gordon claimed nothing exists that can be considered to be time or light quanta or not. . .
So my comments were simply a response to bdgwx who appeared to be trying to defend his concepts of time and light quanta as being the be all and end all.
I guess it worked. got the right reaction out of you anyway
But hey I am not claiming many points on that wrt to bdgwx. I expect that usually bdgwx does much better than that.
I know having once been a juvenile that juveniles tend to award more points, as a joke, for running down things that can’t run to avoid being run down.
Your responses taken in whole hasn’t demonstrated that you can do better. So maybe those juveniles will give me a whole load of points wrt to you. . .as a joke of course.
Gill was indeed defending his and the Sky Dragon cranks’ abuses of quantifiers.
Photons and time are posits. Disputing posits isn’t scientists’ cup of tea. In fact it’s really hard to have scientific exchanges when we dispute the basic elements that structure them.
Worse is when cranks keep abusing basic pragmatic maxims, like Quantity or Quality. But this time Gill is mostly failing Relevance.
We should grant him that it’s what he does best.
Willard says:
”Worse is when cranks keep abusing basic pragmatic maxims, like Quantity or Quality. But this time Gill is mostly failing Relevance.”
thats only a problem when you are arguing a point where your scientific support is absolutely piss poor.
Having a good replicable experiment or a verifiable blueprint of the physics are both ways to avoid you guys arguing for the existence of mirages.
Models are not supposed to be blackboxes where parameters are locked in by fiat. . .and kept obscure from the public to avoid accusations of begging the question. Such ploys do not stand up in any court room in America. Only court rooms of authoritarian mostly 3rd world countries.
Gill believes that failing maxims of conversation is OK when one has a good scientific case.
LOL!
There is irony that I’m being lectured regarding my defense of the existence of time and photons by someone who questions (if not outright rejects) the 1LOT.
It might be interesting to some that this isn’t even the most absurd line of discussion I’ve been a part of this week. Over on WUWT there are brothers that genuinely think that the derivative of x/n is 1, that sums are the same thing as averages, that plus (+) and divide (/) are equivalent, and a bunch of other beliefs that are so ludicrous even elementary age school students would question them and all to call into question the uncertainty in the global average temperature measurements (even those from UAH). And the WUWT site is so indifferent to the nonsense that they now post articles devoted to the topic and let commenters have a free for all making one dumb algebra mistake after another.
Are they really brothers?
At least Bordo and Gill have different personas…
The Gormans claim to be different people, but you’d think one of them would tell other that they should at least double check their algebra steps so who knows. And at this point I’m inclined to think it is all a joke since no one can be so obtuse as to conflate addition (+) with division (/). But the most disturbing part is that WUWT so indifferent that they now frequently post entire articles that is really meant as a disguised attack against mathematics based at least in part to the inspiration of the Gormans. And many (most?) people there (like Walter Hogle who also posts here) defend it without question. How messed up is that?
Walter is indeed a natural.
What’s the thread?
FWIW…
d/dx(x/n)= 1/n
Yeah, it’s one of the easiest derivatives to do so it only requires the constant rule. How someone can fail to see that it is 1/n defies credulity. But what’s worse is when I told him to use a computer algebra system he told me they are wrong.
BTW…this relates the law of propagation of uncertainty via equation 10 in JCGM 100:2008. When the function is y = sum(x_i, 1 to N) / N (which is an average) the partial derivative dy/dx_i = 1/N for all x_i which means the uncertainty of an average scales with 1/sqrt(N). This is why the uncertainty of global average temperatures is always less than the uncertainty of the individual elements that went into that average. WUWT has published a few articles that blatantly reject this fact just in the last couple of years alone.
bdgwx says:
”There is irony that Im being lectured regarding my defense of the existence of time and photons by someone who questions (if not outright rejects) the 1LOT.”
bdgwx, thats a strawman. I have never rejected 1LOT. If you feel I have you should actually provide evidence of that rather than claiming you are right about it without saying what you are right about.
You said: ”I believe he rejected the existence of photons as well if my memory is correct. It makes it hard to have a genuine discussion on radiative heat transfer when the person on the other end is rejects fundamental principles like time and photons.”
If your memory is correct? you consider that proof positive evidence? Not difficult to see how you get sucked into ”fundamental principles” for which you have zero evidence. Now you are responding that I am not worth responding to because of another strawman you erected to avoid getting into a science debate that you have learned well around here you have to bail out of again and again because you can’t produce any evidence of those fundamental principles you keep trying to bring to the table and then runaway from casting ad hominems to cover your retreat.
BH, I am, of course, referring to your conversation with Nate above. In your defense it looks like you’ve come around to the idea that your challenge of Nate’s statement (which is based on the 1LOT) didn’t have a lot of merit.
Willard,
Here’s the thread in which the Gormans make 7 algebra mistakes in a single post and then proceed to make 16 more algebra mistakes in defense of the first 7.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/03/unknown-uncertain-or-both/#comments
I have labeled each as ALGEBRA MISTAKE #X for easy searching.
JFY:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/09/in-memoriam-professor-ray-bates/#comment-3845188
He invites me to discuss “But the Arctic” at Tony’s, and the first question he asked me he plays Me Too behind Pat’s back.
A natural, I tell you.
OK, I read up to here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/03/unknown-uncertain-or-both/#comment-3663069
And I wrote up to here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/09/in-memoriam-professor-ray-bates/#comment-3845276
Mr. Nice has Walter to thank.
bdgwx says:
”BH, I am, of course, referring to your conversation with Nate above. In your defense it looks like youve come around to the idea that your challenge of Nates statement (which is based on the 1LOT) didnt have a lot of merit.”
Which argument? Nate has lots of ignorant statements he makes about the existence of scientific evidence that nobody can ever produce.
I have a lot of questions for Pat Frank that are either answered unsatisfactorily or are just ignored entirely.
Pat has a history of hubris, arrogance, and uncivil behavior so I find it ironic that he is lecturing other people on civility.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/391B1C150212A84C6051D7A2A7F119
BH, I might have to retract my statement that you are coming around to the legitimacy of the 1LOT. It seems as though you may still be resisting the full implications of it. It depends on what you are thinking of when you say “will” is incorrect.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1590782
I suppose you may say that Gill could believe in the First Law. But what Gill believes does not matter much. At least, not to him – just look at his comments!
bdgwx, perhaps you would like to participate and respond to the last couple of posts in this thread on the same topic.