Home/BlogSince the blogosphere continues to amplify Gavin Schmidt’s claim that the way John Christy and I plot temperature time series data is some form of “trickery”, I have come up with a way to demonstrate its superiority. Following a suggestion by Heritage Foundation chief statistician Kevin Dayaratna, I will do this using only climate model data, and not comparing the models to observations. That way, no one can claim I am displaying the data in such a way to make the models “look bad”.
The goal here is to plot multiple temperature time series on a single graph in such a way the their different rates of long-term warming (usually measured by linear warming trends) are best reflected by their placement on the graph, without hiding those differences.
A. Raw Temperatures
Let’s start with 32 CMIP6 climate model projections of global annual average surface air temperature for the period 1979 through 2100 (Plot A) and for which we have equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) estimates (I’ve omitted 2 of the 3 Canadian model simulations, which produce the most warming and are virtually the same).
Here, I am using the raw temperatures out of the models (not anomalies). As can be seen in Plot A, there are rather large biases between models which tend to obscure which models warm the most and which warm the least.
B. Temperature Anomalies Relative to the Full Period (1979-2100)
Next, if we plot the departures of each model’s temperature from the full-period (1979-2100) average, we see in Plot B that the discrepancies between models warming rates are divided between the first and second half of the record, with the warmest models by 2100 having the coolest temperature anomalies in 1979, and the coolest models in 2100 having the warmest temperatures in 1979. Clearly, this isn’t much of an improvement, especially if one wants to compare the models early in the record… right?
C. Temperature Anomalies Relative to the First 30 Years
The first level of real improvement we get is by plotting the temperatures relative to the average of the first part of the record, in this case I will use 1979-2008 (Plot C). This appears to be the method favored by Gavin Schmidt, and just looking at the graph might lead one to believe this is sufficient. (As we shall see, though, there is a way to quantify how well these plots convey information about the various models’ rates of warming.)
D. Temperature Departures from 1979
For purposes of demonstration (and since someone will ask anyway), let’s look at the graph when the model data are plotted as departures from the 1st year, 1979 (Plot D). This also looks pretty good, but if you think about it the trouble one could run into is that in one model there might be a warm El Nino going on in 1979, while in another model a cool La Nina might be occurring. Using just the first year (1979) as a “baseline” will then produce small model-dependent biases in all post-1979 years seen in Plot D. Nevertheless, Plots C and D “look” pretty good, right? Well, as I will soon show, there is a way to “score” them.
E. Temperature Departures from Linear Trends (relative to the trend Y-intercepts in 1979)
Finally, I show the method John Christy and I have been using for quite a few years now, which is to align the time series such that their linear trends all intersect in the first year, here 1979 (Plot E). I’ve previously discussed why this ‘seems’ the most logical method, but clearly not everyone is convinced.
Admittedly, Plots C, D, and E all look quite similar… so how to know which (if any) is best?
How the Models’ Temperature Metrics Compare to their Equilibrium Climate Sensitivities
What we want is a method of graphing where the model differences in long-term warming rates show up as early as possible in the record. For example, imagine you are looking at a specific year, say 1990… we want a way to display the model temperature differences in that year that have some relationship to the models’ long-term rates of warming.
Of course, each model already has a metric of how much warming it produces, through their diagnosed equilibrium (or effective) climate sensitivities, ECS. So, all we have to do is, in each separate year, correlate the model temperature metrics in Plots A, B, C, D, and E with the models’ ECS values (see plot, below).
When we do this ‘scoring’ we find that our method of plotting the data clearly has the highest correlations between temperature and ECS early in the record.
I hope this is sufficient evidence of the superiority of our way of plotting different time series when the intent is to reveal differences in long-term trends, rather than hide those differences.
Very nice, Dr. Roy. Clear and convincing.
w.
I just think that how well it appears to do “between temperature and ECS early in the record.” is not a useful measure, since the trends of the early part of the record have a huge error bar.
Beating raw temps takes talent.
Congratulations!
It’s interesting that the differences between models is almost as large as the global warming signal. Yet the models are supposedly based upon “known physics”
It’s also interesting that
https://www.random.org/dice/?num=2
does not always give sevens.
That deserves a post!
Willard, please stop trolling.
yep indeed willard, the ipcc is shooting dice. . .and losing.
Mike Flynn emulates Graham D. Warner‘s bad manners.
Models are programmed to scare people. The Russian INM may be one exception. That anyone thinks they are actually trying to make accurate predictions makes me laugh. In 50 years they have become less accurate (predicting even more warming) … and the least inaccurate INM model gets almost no attention.
I call them climate confuser games because they predict CAGW, which has never happened before, so there are no CAGW data. And without CAGW data, there is no CAGW science. These games are just climate astrology with the intended purpose of climate scaremongering.
While this article is excellent, writing it gives some credibility to the Spencer naysayers, who do not deserve any attention.
Why do Climate Howler Global Whiners rarely debate Climate Realists?
Not because they will lose the debate — they predict CAGW far in the future and we’d have to wait 50 to 100 years to prove those prediction wrong.
Leftists refuse to debate because a willingness to debate creates the impression that the opposition is worthy of a debate. Better to dismiss the opposition as a science denier and refuse to “lower” yourself to their level. You can not lose that “debate”
I created the name Climate Confuser Games in the late 1990s. And Nut Zero a few years ago
This week I invented a new name for an infamous chart, and the controversy over it since 1998:
The Mann Fraudulent Hockey Stink Chart
and the resulting Tree Ring Circus
Contrarians are programmed to say But CAGW come what may:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
They hear the word model, they think of CAGW. They think of the favorite Mike, then they console themselves in poetry. Which might itself be a consolation for having missed one of the greatest bull run in the history of markets. Not that their market timing amounts to stock picking, mind you.
Make sure to subscribe to their newsletter for more of their angry logorrhoea.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Do you have anything intellectual to share other than your normal narrow-minded simplicity, stereotypes, name-calling, insults, and non-science commentary. Have you noticed that there is a rather notorious public figure who also likes to use pet names for people? Hmmmm
When you’ll hit something else than silly Climateball Bingo squares, TS, we’ll see.
So far you’re into irony, grandstanding, and snobbery.
After reading the link, I am confident no pne knpws what you are talking about. including you
Climate change means predictions of CAGW
Not AGW — AGW is harmless
CAGW — CAGW is imaginary
After reading your spam, I’m quite confident that Logic Greenie hits the central Bingo Square every time:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
Besides making Monkey Man sad, it should go without saying.
Richard Greene wrote:
“Why do Climate Howler Global Whiners rarely debate Climate Realists?
Not because they will lose the debate – they predict CAGW far in the future and we’d have to wait 50 to 100 years to prove those prediction wrong.”
Seems true enough. The early 20th century warming period had the same slope as the late 20th century into the 21st century warming period. No additional effect from the order of magnitude increase in fossil fuel burning. As Dr. Syun Akasofu so aptly claimed: To understand anthropogenic warming one must first understand natural warming.
“Seems true enough.”
Fact check: https://ibb.co/tbd70kj
It’s possible that the post-Pause period could just be a transient event. The ongoing temperature spike since last July is likely transient.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2024
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from/to/plot/rss
The only climate prediction in world history worth taking seriously is my own, from 1997
“The climate will get warmer,
unless it gets colder.”
I still prefer:
https://el2017.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-economic-logic-stock-market-timing.html
UAH’s own TLT data here, since John Christie’s Feb 2001 pronouncement that future cooling was as likely as future warming: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001.07/plot/uah6/from:2001.07/trend
Monkey Man is a Climateball grasshopper:
https://www.freedomworks.org/press/testimony-of-john-r-christy-before-the-senate-comm/
Ken Rice,
What are you attempting to prove with John Christy’s past testimony? Is he supposed to be able to predict the future trajectory of the satellite measurements with 100% accuracy?
Monkey Man is too cool for school:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-3860057
Finding short-term Paws. Now that’s definitely not curve-fitting!
Curve-fitting, in that context, refers to finding a mathematical equation that attempts to best represent the data points. That’s why I said arguing otherwise relies on a model that is THOUGHT (strong emphasis on thought; that does not equate to real-world representation) to describe the data well; it typically also involves adjusting the parameters to minimize the difference between observed and predicted valuesthat’s why it’s ridiculous. That doesn’t contradict what I said here; I’m not sure why you believe that to be the case. If CO2 is constantly rising while there are decades of temperature flattening, then that demonstrates no dominant physical relationship with CO2.
“Curve-fitting, in that context, refers to finding a mathematical equation that attempts to best represent the data points.”
lol
Ok.
Willard
You might think I’m talking about the sex of angels, but I’m not.
When you compare RSS 4.0 to UAH 6.0 in the LT without taking into account that RSS’ reference period still is 1979-1998 but UAH’s is in between 1991-2020, you obtain indeed this:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2024
But by comparing both series wrt the same period, you then obtain this:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2024/offset:-0.357
(0.357 being the average of all RSS anomalies during UAH’s reference period.)
*
This is, imho, something quite different: while the first chart gives the impression that RSS departs from UAH from the very beginning, the second chart shows that UAH’s anomalies start higher and end lower; and above all, they end at nearly the same level (difference: 0.06, RSS being even the lower one).
You see that when clicking on ‘Raw data’.
” Curve-fitting, in that context, refers to finding a mathematical equation that attempts to best represent the data points. ”
*
Mathematician Gergonne extended Gauss’ idea of a linear fit based on a minimal least squares sum
y = a*x + b
up to polynomial fits of any order
y = a1*x^n + a2*x^n-1 + … + an*x +b
For example
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gp5KQOo4w13Gax8z_YKi6uyZ-EHLeImp/view
Walter,
To do curve fitting properly, one has o understand the noise level and its typical time scale, otherwise one is fitting noise.
So ENSO can be considered to be a noise ontop of any climate change signal. And it has a time scale of 1-5 y.
So attempting to fit the data over a period of 20 y or less will give results with large trend error unduly influenced by the particular ENSO noise history.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner is six days too late!
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
What does it look like when you start the plot in 1850?
Why do you ask? Just demonstrating diversionary silliness?
Why do you write? Just demonstrating dementia?
The most obvious effect is that none of the graphs show anything that could be considered a genuine “consensus”. They all show upward movement, but the difference becomes increasingly more spread out with time.
[TS] The most obvious effect is that none of the graphs show anything that could be considered a genuine “consensus”.
[ALSO TS] They all show upward movement
I do not think you are a good representative for those who are pushing the idea of a consensus in the climate models. Even the Russian model shows warming. The problem involves something called the slope of the line. You might want to investigate that concept. The slope depicts the rate of warming, and that is important. It is the slope and therefore the prediction of future warming where the models do not agree, and by a very substantial amount.
> I do not think
That is a given. You still must do the reading.
The consensus is on the fact that the rise is virtually certain (the GW in AGW) and that it is for the most part induced by the human contributions (the A in AGW). It has nothing to do with GCMs ensembles.
It is surprising that you still commit blunders that we expect from a Climateball rookie.
> I do not think
That’s a given. You still must do the reading.
The consensus is on the facts that the rise is virtually certain (the GW in AGW) and the this rise has been first and foremost caused by humans (the A in AGW). It has nothing to do with GCMs.
So RTFR. This blunder is representative of a Climateball rookie. That being said, points must be granted to the “yeah, but my strawman is more accurate” defense deserves style points.
> points must be granted to the “yeah, but my strawman is more accurate” defense deserves style points.
Scratch the first part.
I just hate how pressing Tab and Enter activate the submit comment in WP.
Wiltard,
You’ve created one of the most comprehensive propaganda sites on the Web. How much do you get paid for that? I don’t see where you address Berry’s work.
Wiltard,
If you believe in AGW why aren’t you over in Asia spreading the message there?
Troglodyte,
You are too kind. My compendium of contrarian talking points certainly contains the main ingredients of the propaganda from usual reactionary forces. But it is far from being comprehensive!
A work in progress. A work on regress. Your pick.
Wiltard,
I am impressed. Click on links and it’s like a bottomless pit of propaganda. It must be a full-time job. Who pays you to do all that?
Not a bottomless pit, Troglodyte.
Ed is at the bottom of it.
Willard says:
”It has nothing to do with GCMs.”
You are right. Anybody who doesn’t know that doesn’t know how things work on the Hill.
Ed Berry poops on your propaganda that this rise is first and foremost caused by humans. He uses math. A in AGW has been falsified.
You should not be proud of seeing your daddy defecate in public, Troglodyte.
Real scientists have good diapers for him, e.g.:
https://www.nature.com/articles/321058a0
There are a lot of assumptions in your references Wiltard. Is that science? I didn’t think there was any place for assumptions in science.
Wiltard,
Berry doesn’t make any assumptions. He presents an hypothesis, shows evidence for his hypothesis, then challenges you to falsify it.
More diapers, Troglodyte?
Here you go:
https://climatepositions.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/n8._Bolin___Eriksson__1958corrected.pdf
Cheers.
Wiltard,
More assumptions and red herrings. Ed Berry poops on your paper. Wiltard, are you the Devil? I think you might be the Devil. YOu act like the Devil.
For those who are paying attention, Willard is attempting to dodge the question of consensus because it is not defensible. The models used for comparison are published and available for analysis. They provide a wide range of results and do not form a consensus. Period. No amount of spin or diversion can change the basic facts.
Making reference to a humorous website designed to influence children is another step in a losing strategy to influence adults who might be paying attention.
The issue concerning the various causes of warming, including the current mysterious surge, is an entirely different subject from the obvious lack of consensus in the models. Since the modeling is done by competent scientists, they represent strong proof that cause and effect are very difficult to determine in the real atmosphere with so many different thermodynamic and heat transfer effects.
I will translate that nonsense. The consensus on AGW has nothing to do with GCM outputs. TS picks the meaning of “but consensus” he likes, and then criticize people like me when caught pants down.
The trend should be his friend. That’s what all the lines show. But no, that’s not enough for his contrarian ego.
A consensus is pointless in science, isn’t it? You can have 99.99 percent consensus but it only takes one to blow it up.
Troglodyte’s pontifications about science aren’t science.
I believe in quality over quantity. I am content with my statements here. There is no need to correct or add anything. Some people prefer to ramble on continuously with endless, irrelevant, and off-topic comments. I prefer to make my point and then move on.
As long as TS is happy with his Very Serious comments, that’s what counts.
Meanwhile, the IPCC has moved on a long while ago:
https://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/gcm_guide.html
Others might wish to cling to the idea that GCMs are meant to be pocket calculators, always giving the same answer.
Wiltard,
The Devil doesn’t believe in truth but will use truth or not to further his means. You never know when the Devil is being truthful, or not. You must be the Devil.
The Devil is in the details, Troglodyte, and you’re not a detail-oriented troglodyte:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLO2-_emvDY
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner has a thing for necromancy.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
“When we do this scoring we find that our method of plotting the data clearly has the highest correlations between temperature and ECS…”
Your chief statistician can tell you that when you plot two quantities that are rising you always get a high correlation coefficient by virtue of them being autocorrelated.
Also, the models are clearly skillful at generating emergent properties, such as ENSO cycles, and it isn’t clear if you’re accounting for those or not.
To the supporters of these models, what happens when A M O C slows or stops? Do models capture that feedback? I bring it up because this crisis is dominating the current media cycle.
New paper: https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189
Thanks for that. The models are missing first order variables. The one I am most familiar with is the ceiling to global WARMING from GHG that are almost certainly present within the cold earth ocean circulation pattern (AMOC and NADW) that emerged when the Central American Isthmus closed.
Since all the models have a pretty clear upward curve, have you considered using a quadratic fit rather than a linear fit to match at the start? My intuition tells me that might get an even higher score for.
Thermometers are getting hotter? Obviously more heat around.
Burning stuff creates heat. Using energy creates heat. Bouncing a ball heats both you, the ball, the atmosphere, and the Earth itself.
As does rubbing your hands together.
More people, more heat. Not rocket science.
All what you said is just a transfer of energy.
Buzz,
Im not sure what your point is.
Of course, part of the man-made heat makes thermometers hotter before it escapes to space.
Saying “All what you said is just a transfer of energy.” makes you look like the usual GHE cultist who believes that CO2 creates heat!
How silly would that be? You aren’t that silly, are you?
Mike Flynn,
The point is that you stated irrelevant truisms.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Flynnson, please stop DREMTing.
Willard put it best.
“Willard put it best.”
Buzz, please stop trolling.
Science is quantitative. It requires numbers.
“Burning stuff creates heat”
That ain’t science.
Nate,
If you don’t want to accept reality, you could always claim that CO2 makes thermometers hotter.
Nate,
Do you mean like those Revelle Factor numbers? Can you demonstrate how those Revelle Factor numbers falsify Berry’s math?
Stephen. No thanks. We have been over this several times. I provided you articles. Explained them. You dont bother to read them. You have shown no interest in learning.
nate is such a nanny. yes he goes over them and extrapolates to what he wants to believe. he gets zero love from dr. revelle.
And ditto, Bill, who demands science be spoon fed to him before he knee-jerk rejects it.
” Burning stuff creates heat. ”
Yeah.
” According to the data from the International Energy Agency, the total primary energy supply was 606 EJ [exajoules] in 2019. The share from non-renewable sources (excluding the non-energy use of oil) was 79.4%, i.e. 481 EJ. It corresponds to a radiative forcing of 0.030 W m-2. ”
That’s about 0.01 % of Earth’s emitted infrared radiation (~ 230 W m-2).
Binny,
As Fourier said, during the night the surface loses all of the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
Banging on about percentages is just irrelevant. The campfire preventing you from freezing to death at night is providing very much less heat than the Sun. Completely irrelevant, if survival is your main goal.
Given that the Earth’s surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and that some thermometers are getting hotter, what are you proposing as the reason?
I put it down to additional heat.
What’s your suggestion?
Global climate doesn’t change much but most of the change is related to what is called the Milankovitch cycles- or other long periods of times there are changes in how Earth orbits the sun. And dominate factor in Earth’s climate is related to Earth’s ocean, so these changes in Earth orbit are largely changes oceanic circulation and heating.
We living in an Ice Age solely due to geological changes {ie Plate tectonics altering the Earth’s surface} and such changes alter the degree and location in which the ocean surface warms the surface temperature of the planet.
Our current surface has two large ice sheets and a lot area glaciers and ice. And about 1/3 land surface being deserts. The ice sheets and glaciers are roughly deserts [or wastelands} but they are not counted as deserts.
Or Earth has a lot land which isn’t really habitable or at least hard to live in, and with few living there- and has been poorly explored.
Or Earth has been quite dry and cold for millions of years, with brief periods which a bit less dry and cold, which as said are related to the Milankovitch cycles. And next time Earth will return such warmer periods is about 100,000 years from now.
In other news, a well known person, who I will not name except to state that they are not only very professional, but a nice and kind person as well, had something to celebrate.
Moving on, there is a rather ironic graph that used to appear on the NASA GISS web site. It showed three plots all on very different scales with none starting at zero. It showed surface temperature of the earth, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. and solar output. The point was that while temperature is going up, solar output is going down, so there is nothing other than increasing CO2 that can explain the rise in temperature. The humorous part is that it looked like the kind of thing you would see in a TV commercial. The scale for the reduction in solar output was expanded so much that it amounted to decrease of about 0.04%. Would that be considered “trickery”?
As I showed on the other thread, we simply cannot say that “there is nothing other than increasing CO2 that can explain the rise in temperature”. It’s not just NASA, of course.
A graph of ocean heat content vs mid ocean seismic activity from Dr Arthur Viterito fits together extremely well. The correlation between mid ocean seismic activity and heat content is 0.89, and the coefficient of determination (the correlation squared) is .794. What that means is that the mid ocean seismic activity explains almost 80% of the variation in the ocean heat content. According to the regression model, the odds that this high of a correlation occurring by chance is .00000000000000104%.
https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1666016258683285504/photo/2
Buzz,
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. Unless you can suggest some reason for a sudden increase in heat moving from the interior to the surface over the last few hundred years, it won’t explain increased thermometer temperatures in that time.
Can you suggest such a reason? One that can be supported with a few facts.
That makes no sense, Swenson. You do know there are CYCLES, right? So I’m not saying there has been an increase in heat…I’m saying that THIS CYCLE (seismic cycle) is giving us warmer atmospheric temps…that the warming we are seeing is as a result of increased seismic activity…which then goes quieter for a period…in cycles.
Seismic activity seems to be correlated with solar activity. Strong eruptions on the Sun are followed by strong earthquakes. Solar activity currently remains quite high. This is probably the result of magnetic waves caused by the solar wind.
Interesting!
The same people who use to reply with the typical ‘Correlation is not causation’ seem to suddenly think the inverse whenever it fits their narrative.
And the very best of all that is that Mr Viterito wasn’t only able to show a correlation between ocean seismic activity and ocean heat content, no no.
He even showed a similar correlation between ocean seismic activity and… yes: global temperatures, no less:
https://i.postimg.cc/KcnNKp7C/Screenshot-Viterito-2019-Seismic-Activity-vs-Global-Warming.png
That’s really strong, isn’t it?
Source
http://tinyurl.com/Viterito-2019
Thanks for that – didn’t know about that graph. Astoundingly close, isn’t it? Too close for reasonable chance? I think so.
Buzz
Had the graph been made by a Warmista, the Coolistas would cry unisono:
” Correlation is not causation! ”
But Viterito is a Coolista, so he’s allowed to survive his own nonsense.
” Would that be considered ‘trickery’? ”
YES!
In 9 days, winter will return to Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/tCt7nGc/gfs-z100-nh-f216.png
Bookmarked for 2024, Feb 20:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240220&daytime=night&iid=euro
The NAO is falling again.
https://i.ibb.co/9NT85Pr/Wthr-Prec-NAO-LA-EN-20240210.png
The Pacific will now see an intense EL Nio, which means more rainfall in California and high temperatures in eastern Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
” The Pacific will now see an intense EL Nio… ”
Ooops?! I though La Nina would comme soon soon soon!
No
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
The current extent of sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/ctMrwRz/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
https://i.ibb.co/9qG9LFm/r07-Greenland-Sea-ts-4km.png
Joe Bastardi says 2024 will be a very strong hurricane year…for a change.
Not because of El Nino, which may extend into September. He see probably for the temperature of the Atlantic ocean. Since solar activity will eventually decrease, hurricanes on land may be fewer, with a larger pool of precipitation.
Are the raw data plotted in Fig. A readily available? It might be
interesting, for example, to analyze their power spectra as an alternative to algebraic anomalies.
Within three days, the temperature drop will cover almost the entire United States.
https://i.ibb.co/QfHpCZB/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072.png
We’ve experienced a pretty mild winter in Northern UT. It’s been very pleasant, with not much snow, and I can walk outside without getting severe frostbite.
The Warmists present numerous models, yet only a few are close. The average of all their models is too high. UAH documents the natural warming, which is below the average of the Warmist models. The cult fervently cling to their models.
We got a chance to see some real “forcings” this last year with both El Niño and HTE. The combination of the two natural forcings was clearly indicated by UAH. Now, we get to watch as the natural forcings dissipate. Earth will easily shake off the forcings.
The point the cult misses is the models are wrong, because their beliefs are wrong. They falsely believe CO2 can warm the surface, and that false belief is built into their models.
That ain’t science.
“Y=mx+b monkeys”
Monkey Man is becoming cute!
And in response to Puffman to boot!
Will he turn into a Sky Dragon crank?
Tune in for more Climateball showboating!
Willard,
What is your scientific counterargument to what I said? I’m sure you have the capability to offer a well-informed response without resorting to attempts to belittle others.
Monkey Man,
What is the scientific argument that you made?
lol
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
My argument is that a linear fit lacks the precision needed for complex, non-linear phenomena. Do you disagree and think a linear fit would be useful in a sinusoidal time series? What use do you even make of y=mx+b?
Monkey Man,
That’s not a scientific argument. That’s just a claim. And the claim is silly, for it shows you never really looked into anything, e.g.:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018JF004702
It takes minutes to see that climate scientists are well aware that there are non-linear processes. Non of them impact the more than steady rise of global temps.
If you want to be taken srsly, perhaps you could explain why the Monckton Paws is silly?
Thanks, Willard. I’ll take a look.
Freaking hypocrit:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1619066
Willard, please stop trolling.
Devil,
You can’t even be creative. There’s a new movie out based on a fictional character called Monkey Man. The Devil steals from the Movie to disparage another who poops on the Devil’s parade. Wiltard the Devil.
I’ll admit it to you guys…https://imgur.com/LiJ9Djj
Troglodyte,
Monkey Man dates back to Hindu mythology, but I prefer this version:
https://youtu.be/49FbSq_JNeQ?si=qq6Cf4ZJFNeWG9NA
As a fascist, you might not.
Wiltard,
Yeah, I forgot, the Devil knows everything.
Trogolodyte,
I know it’s hard for you, but have some sympathy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwtyn-L-2gQ
Otherwise you’ll get fascists’ kryptonite –
Tuba.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps harassing!
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
More than 7 inches of snow may fall in the mountains of northern California by Feb. 20.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=37.8;-121.8;5&l=rain-ac&t=20240221/0900
Regarding water.
Overnight low temperature in Belgrade last night was 14.5° C.
Could be a record for February.
Happy times in Belgrade!
Fact check: https://ibb.co/Zdtgc7W
nobody should care about mean temperature. mean temperature isn’t a temperature. its a manufactured statistic that your daddy says we should care about. people care about the temperature outside as that affects them in many ways. those in belgrade should be having a party. . .typically its near freezing.
A scientist says: Belgrade’s mean temperature in February is 4 C.
A layman says: “typically its near freezing.”
Who’s your daddy!
Brrrrrrrrrrrr!
Bill Hunter
Ask a farmer. Mean temperature makes a big difference to the growth of your crop and influences which crops you choose to grow.
For example, in Greenland the Vikings built small walled enclosures designed as wind shields and Sun traps. This was the only way to get their barley seeds above the 5C minimum mean temperature necessary for germination.
Yep a darned cold world we live in. Frozen seeds wait for warmer weather.
EM, the need for 5C is just a need to avoid the seed freezing overnight. 5C might mean negative C overnight and perhaps a bit more than 5 during the day.
This modern source says you need 1 – 2C to germinate barley.
https://extension.umn.edu/growing-small-grains/spring-barley-growth-and-development-guide#seedling-establishment-and-leaf-production-792761
The problem is you can’t successfully germinate a seed if the sprout freezes as soon as it peaks its head out. Gardeners usually wait longer to avoid that problem. Maybe not the Greenland Vikings as they may not have had that luxury. But where their farms were they were exposed to the sea and near the sea temperatures vary less between day and night at least on a western or southern shore at the southern tip of greenland as were the Viking settlements.
“nobody should care about mean temperature.”
Ok. Then no need for you to come here and splain to us what isn’t the cause of it anymore.
I sure wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t the case that somebody was trying real hard to make something out of nothing that I see would adversely affecting everybody. Quite honestly I would rather deal with some highway bandit as that doesn’t screw everybody.
Without Gill’s comments, Western Civilization would have fallen a long while ago. LOL!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner is on a roll!
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Good thing about a pineapple express. Lowland California floods, but you get a good snowpack to refill Lake Mead.
Chinese Military Capabilities – Strategy, Technology & The Changing PLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckouoTDkrtQ
A new study of mail-in ballots indicates Trump almost certainly won the 2020 election.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/mail-ballot-fraud-study-finds-trump-almost-certainly-won-2020
And Judge Gath the Philistine scored the fight 38-37 to Goliath.
Stephen P Anderson
Please try to watch this video. I think it might help you greatly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhFMgpDi9L8
Abnorman,
You should know all bout cults.
Troglodyte,
I do –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF7mP2LASCo
Stephen P Anderson
You did the cult thing (expected). Rather than see you are in a large cult of true believers (thinking the lying grifter cares about you in any way), you divert. It is what the cult minded do. Like our Cultist on this blog. Clint R, ask for evidence and he will divert everything. Similar to what you do with Trump.
Norman, the fact that you continue to insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse me is because you have NOTHING.
Cult minded Clint R
Again you just divert as any good Cult minded person does.
You NEVER provide evidence for any of your claims. You just make them. I will provide much evidence for anything I claim. That you reject what I give you is on you not me.
You are Cult minded anti-science poster. You are in the same group as Gordon Robertson. The only difference is he will spew out hundreds of words of bad science while you just post short anti-science comments. But you are both Cult minded science deniers.
Sorry the truth hurts your ego and you consider the Truth an insult or a false accusation.
You know another thing Cult minded people do is repeat things over and over. You are prone to do this.
Norman, none of that is true.
Why can’t you comment without insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations?
Clint R
Sorry it is true. You never support your claims with evidence and totally reject evidence that shows your claims false.
Anyone can make up ideas. That is not science. You are NOT scientific. You are Cult minded trying to find gullible people to influence.
You can falsely claim that IR from a Cold object will be reflected off a hot one (even ones with very high IR emissivity). It is quite easy to make up false and misleading ideas. It is much harder to find evidence for them (which you never do).
Thinking people know you are a cult minded poster with no science background and you just make up false claims you can’t support (Nitrogen gas reflects IR because an IR photon is too big to move through the gas). Fluxes don’t add (another made up silly point you can’t provide evidence for). There are many things you make up and try to pass off as science but it is not. If you want to portray science then support your claims with evidence.
Sorry Noman, but you’re still spouting your childish nonsense.
I could teach you some science, but you can’t leave off your insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.
You’re addicted to your cult rhetoric.
Norman says:
Clint R
Sorry it is true. You never support your claims with evidence and totally reject evidence that shows your claims false.
Anyone can make up ideas. That is not science. You are NOT scientific. You are Cult minded trying to find gullible people to influence.
—————–
Hmmmmm, did somebody make up the evidence for you about the CO2 greenhouse effect Norman or are you unlike the others around here who can’t bring any direct evidence to bear on the subject?
Gill has never seen causality in the eye, therefore he can’t believe in causality. ROFL!
“who cant bring any direct evidence to bear on the subject?”
Bill shamelessly spreads this untruth.
See eg here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/observational-evidence-of-the-greenhouse-effect-at-desert-rock-nevada/
here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1622326
and here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1622312
Abnorman,
Is Dr. Happer part of the cult?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJ7UZjFDHU
Troglodyte,
You might like this “labor of love”:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
Writing for the Heartland Institute can be even quicker.
Wow! Caught red-handed.promoting fraud.
Happer fully understands that there is a GHE, and that humans are increasing it by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Happer fully understands that there is a GHE, and that humans are increasing it by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.”
Ooooooh! An appeal to authority!
Happer is obviously ignorant and gullible. He can’t manage to actually describe this mythical GHE, can he?
Try again.
Tro.ll Swenson has nothing useful to contribute. Posts anyway.
Wiltard,
He is an actual physicist. I wonder if you or the Guardian have as many lining up to attest to your credibility as Happer does?
Troglodyte,
Bill does not even agree with Ed. If you had to pick one in a rap fight, who would you choose?
Some music to go with it:
https://youtu.be/98e3h8qzc3I?si=JdAC9Er7V4XebXh3
That is why the courts decided that there was no evidence that Trump beat Biden.
As the number of mail in ballots went up 10 times the percent of fraudulent ballots dropped 10 times.
Very gullible, Stephen.
A ‘study’ by Heartland Propaganda R Us? Cmon Stephen..
Nate,
Rasmussen did the survey. 20% is a big number.
And, also, especially since the number is probably much higher.
“Jim Womack, president of the North Carolina Election Integrity Team, told The Epoch Times in an earlier interview and in additional written comments in response to the new study, that he believes the survey questions were flawed and make the survey statistically meaningless, though not without value.
We know there was fraud in the 2020 election, but you cant conclude that it was 20 percent or 10 percent or even 5 percent based on the survey because the questions that could lead to such conclusions were unclear, Mr. Womack said.
However, he said that the survey questions on which Heartland based its research were unclear. He argued that the questions comingled legal and illegal activity and that this made it impossible to conclude specific percentages of mail-in ballot fraud with certainty.”
For instance, Mr. Womack pointed out that its legal and permissible in all states for people who by reason of blindness, disability, or illiteracy request or require assistance in filling out mail-in ballots to get such assistance.
However, the wording of one of the survey questionsDuring the 2020 election, did you fill out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?did not differentiate between legal and illegal forms of filling out a mail ballot on behalf of someone.
Therefore, 21 percent of people responding yes to this question does not necessarily mean that this percentage of people actually committed voter fraud, Mr. Womack argued.”
Nate says:
”Therefore, 21 percent of people responding yes to this question does not necessarily mean that this percentage of people actually committed voter fraud, Mr. Womack argued.”
there isn’t much sense in arguing over how much milk has been spilt. the only thing worth discussing is how do we get to a level of confidence where a super majority of eligible voters have confidence in the gathering and counting of votes. the elderly are being defrauded by smooth talking conmen all the time and at a minimum folks should feel confident that the ballot they filled out was the ballot that got submitted and was properly counted.
The only purpose of the mail-in ballot is so that leftists can cheat. Citizens do not have a right to vote. There should be very strict requirements for receiving an absentee ballot. In the last election, Covid was used as the excuse. Now it is a right.
“Citizens do not have a right to vote”
You mean blacks in your state? Awhile back sure.
It isn’t one of the Bill of Rights. Voting is a privilege, not a right.
And Troglodyte might be willing to let go of that right as soon as Dictator Donald cheats himself into office again.
Voting rights are protected by the 15th Amendment, by State Laws and by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/15th-amendment
Forgive me ladies and 18 y olds for forgetting the 19th and 26th amendments.
Also apparently the 24th, the Poll tax amendment.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27
Nate,
Can you explain how that happened? The number of mail in ballots increased by ten times over previous elections but the percent of fraudulent ballots decreased from 5 percent to less than 0.5%. How?
Who says the number of fraudulent ballots was ever 5%?
Historically, the number of fraudulent mail in ballots has been, according to the various state election commisions, around 5%.
In the Rasmussen survey, 20% of the participants admitted submitting a fraudulent ballot. This is much higher than the 0.5% discarded in the last election.
It seems the Democrats are concerned they can’t steal this election because they don’t have Covid to hide behind so they’re brazenly trying to remove Trump from the ballot.
“according to the various state election commisions, around 5%”
Source?
What’s the point, Nate? You’ll say they didn’t take the Revelle Factor into account.
So no source then. 5% was hard to believe.
“The Heartland Institute study …”
Nate,
There is nothing wrong with the Heartland Institute.
Monkey Man,
There is lots of things wrong about the Heartland Institute, e.g.:
https://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05/12464/heartland-institute-reluctantly-stands-denial-cigarette-smoking-risks
It is not nice to say stuff.
There is nothing in there that suggests malice or deceitful behavior. I read the linked 1998 op-ed in the PR-watch article. Joe Bast didn’t downplay the risks of smoking; you’ll see that he says that engaging in any activity excessively, let alone health-hazard risks, will no doubt have long-term consequences and is bad for you. The bill attempting to have been passed clearly oversimplifies the situation of smokers and their financial impact on society. When individuals purchase tobacco products, they incur various taxes that are imposed both federally and by state. I would also agree that any bill targeting the whole population in an attempt to target the younger audience doesn’t make sense. That’s something that can be solved without legislation; people can start and engage in awareness campaigns and peer support programs.
In the video clip played, I saw Bast say he stands by his original op-ed, but he never said what was put in quotations about changing the definition of moderate consumption from seven to two cigarettes smoked per day. I’m definitely not going to take John Cook’s word over anyone else’s. In the op-ed, his definition of moderate consumption is consumption that would not cause irreversible, long-term damage. When using the term ‘irreversible’, it implies that if you stopped, you would heal completely.
Monkey Man,
Being “wrong” does not imply malice or deceitful behavior. But since you mention deceiftul behavior, here’s where Joe Bass thought that associating AGW with the Unabomber was funny:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder
Notwithstanding all this, you’re doing just like every single other contrarian does here: you say stuff, when challenged, you ask for a refutation.
That is not nice, Monkey Man. Not nice at all. On the Climateball field, everyone should carry their weight.
Walls of rationalizations do not count.
Walter, the main agenda of Heartland is advancing right-wing policy goals, not science, not getting at the truth.
There is numerous evidence that they have distorted the facts in their past publications, with the self-stated goal to
“cast doubt on the scientific finding that fossil fuel emissions endanger the long-term welfare of the planet.”
https://www.desmog.com/heartland-institute/
So it is plainly obvious that no one should expect to get objective scientific truths from them.
The same can be said about similar organizations with far Left-wing policy goals.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/climate-misinformation-books-teachers-schools-b2315454.html
“A thinktank, with a long history of denying climate change and spreading misinformation, has mailed thousands of copies of a pseudoscience textbook to US schools.
Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students, illustrated with graphs, charts and citations, claims to be the latest data and research to show the earth is not experiencing a climate crisis”.
However, a lengthy and detailed fact-check found that the book was filled with misleading claims. The fact-check was carried out by news organisation AFP and a number of scientists, including some from groups which Climate at a Glance cited as sources.”
I personally received this free book in the mail, read it, and found numerous errors and misrepresentations.
Walter,
Institutions are only credible if they support Wiltard’s agenda.
Here we go again. Anyone who doesn’t support Revelle Factor Nate’s leftist agenda isn’t credible.
Troglodyte,
Anyone who believes Joe Camel did nothing wrong should return to school:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20747511
When Stephen has no answers on the current topic, he says ‘Revelle Factor’.
Nobody knows why.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner strikes again!
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Ever intrigued by what the right will come up with to prove voter fraud in 2020, I checked out the Heartland/Rasmussen poll.
Surprise surprise, the questions are designed to fit a fraud narrative.
For example:
“5. During the 2020 election, did you fill out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?”
The rules vary in different states, but in most states it is legal to fill out a form for a relative who is illiterate or infirm, provided some legal requirements are met. In Georgia, for example:
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-21/chapter-2/article-10/section-21-2-385/
And what is UP with mentioning children? Because no distinction is made in the poll, the reader is left with the disquieting impression that adults helped children fill in voting forms – even if that never happened. This is called leading the witness.
“7. During the 2020 election, did you sign a ballot or ballot envelope on behalf of a friend or family member, with or without his or her permission?”
With or without? The distinction is very important.
The results?
“Yes – 17%”
The fact that 17% signed a ballot on behalf of someone else may entirely be a result of 20% of people being illiterate in the US, or people unable to hold a pen, or people who are blind.
You may complain that this is not known, and therefore all of it could be fraud.
Well, what a pity they didn’t design the poll to answer those questions. I wonder why a conservative pollster would be so incompetent. And why has Rasmussen, a polling/media firm, teamed up with the Heartland Institute, a conservative policy ‘think tank’?
The commentary on this from Heartland – the source for Stephen’s article – is full of misleading statements. Eg:
Heartland: “Filling out a ballot for someone else is illegal in all states, although many states allow people to assist others with voting.”
What wonderful self-contradiction in one sentence. Perhaps they could not bring themselves to tell the truth?
Georgia code, for example:
“A physically disabled or illiterate elector may receive assistance in preparing his or her ballot from any person of the elector’s choice… The person rendering assistance to the elector in preparing the ballot shall sign the oath printed on the same envelope as the oath to be signed by the elector.”
Yes, in Georgia you can even sign on behalf of someone. IOW, Heartland (and Rasmussen) are telling porkies. And the usual conduits for conservative fake news regurgitate them.
Actual investigations of actual ballots – numerous recounts, for example – found very little fraud. The usual handful of deliberate fiddling with the system.
And guess what? The majority of those were committed by REPUBLICAN voters, voting for Trump.
Which makes complete sense – scared for months by Trump that fraud was coming in November 2020, and aligned with a guy to whom ethics probably means ‘foreigner’, no doubt some Republicans felt they were duty bound to put their fingers on the scales to balance the supposed rort.
The only concerning issue here is why the above is our only assurance of a fair election.
> The only concerning issue
Ze Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
The assurance you have of a fair election is the numerous recounts, the 60+ court cases, the fact that Republicans who are not MAGA zealots checked and said it was fair, that former Republican presidents have said it was fair, that the departments tasked to oversee such things who were appointed by Trump confirmed it was fair after checking; the justice department, the office of cybersecurity etc.
The lawyers who rallied around Trump in 2020 saying there was fraud have recanted undoer oath. Many of Trump’s advisors at the time have now publicly said they told him there was no evidence of widespread fraud. Fox News settled a defamation case with a voting machine company, paying 3/4 of a billion dollars. Though anchors pushed the notion on air, their private emails and texts revealed in court show that they didn’t believe there was any real evidence.
So, no, what i wrote above is not remotely the only assurance you have. It’s just that you don’t want to hear it.
The only reason you have a concern about fraud in elections is because Donny waved a red rag about for months before, during, and after the election. Devotees went to great lengths to prove him right. They failed, but the concern remained because it is now conservative lore in the US.
The number of conservatives who believe that there is solid evidence of 2020 widespread election fraud has dropped by 20 percentage points over time, while the number who still believe there was fraud dropped by only 8 percentage points.
That is the power of propaganda.
Bill Hunter
Ask a farmer. Mean temperature makes a big difference to the growth of your crop and influences which crops you choose to grow.
For example, in Greenland the Vikings built small walled enclosures designed as wind shields and Sun traps. This was the only way to get their barley seeds above the 5C minimum mean temperature necessary for germination.
If you can derive the same daily average from a multitude of completely different climatological days, then what use is that average? You’re losing meaningful information. The Vikings didn’t track the mean temperature because there were no thermometers.
Keep in mind also that electronic thermometers didn’t start being widely implemented until the ’80s. Electronic thermometers have shorter averaging intervals and are better able to capture diurnal variation. Mercury thermometers required an observer to physically inspect and record a temperature; it’s much more meticulous and requires discipline from the observer. These two differences leave uncertainty for a different calculated average. In a time series, you only get one chance to record the measurement observation correctly; after that, that chance is gone forever. Those errors cannot be corrected, and any weather observations prior to the electronic thermometer era are completely useless or, at the very least, can’t be compared in a fair way to the present.
Walter
You have it backwards. The barley germinates when it’s enzymes have enough kinetic energy to function. The Vikings knew that it they could get it warm enough it would germinate.
Trees grow up to a treeline because their enzymes have enough energy to function and do not grow above the treeline because the enzymes do not have enough energy.
Similarly most species have a distribution that follows mean temperature contours. They arent measuring temperature as measured by thermometers, they are measuring their ability to function.
As you say, mean temperatures are a human construct, but that does not preclude them having real world significance.
Entropic man,
“Similarly most species have a distribution that follows mean temperature contours. They arent measuring temperature as measured by thermometers, they are measuring their ability to function.”
Wouldn’t wildlife and biology be more dependent on temperature variations? Temperature variations in a given area can remain constant even if the mean temperature increases or decreases. Also, the concept of mean temperature will vary based on the calculation method, and biology may rely on a different temperature metric than max+min/2.
“biology may rely on a different temperature metric than max+min/2. ”
What metric would you suggest, and how would you measure it?
Gardeners always wait until some climate indicator tells them so.
The Vikings had no idea of what temperature they planted their barley as the thermometer wasn’t invented until about 350 years after their colony on Greenland disappeared.
When I moved to Oregon way back as a young father, the locals told me to not plant my garden until the snow had melted off Mary’s peak which was visible from my place.
that provided a safe guard against frost damage.
Barley can be germinated in 1 to 2c.
https://extension.umn.edu/growing-small-grains/spring-barley-growth-and-development-guide#:~:text=The%20minimum%20temperature%20for%20barley,and%20eventually%20develops%20lateral%20branches.
But I figure that was learned by experience but gardeners probably didn’t play it that close to the vest.
“Those errors cannot be corrected, and any weather observations prior to the electronic thermometer era are completely useless or, at the very least, cant be compared in a fair way to the present.”
So you seem to think these human errors will all or mostly be in the same direction? As opposed to tending to cancel in a spatial and temporal average of many such measurements by many humans.
Nate,
Notwithstanding that it is impossible to accurately measure air temperature with any sort of thermometer, or that air temperature has nothing to do with the average temperature of the surface (between more than 1000 C and -90 C), you haven’t actually said anything, have you?
Just telling someone what you think they are thinking (or what you want them to think) is just silly.
Are you disagreeing with the comment, and if so, have you any facts to support your disagreement? If you aren’t, and haven’t, just trying to appear clever while avoiding providing any factual information at all, just makes you look ignorant and in denial of reality.
You still haven’t managed to describe the GHE, have you?
Tut, tut.
“Notwithstanding that it is impossible..”
Again Swenson weirdly denies that science can do what it plainly does regularly.
Clearly he has a severe brain fluid leak.
Nate,
Notwithstanding that it is impossible to accurately measure air temperature with any sort of thermometer, or that air temperature has nothing to do with the average temperature of the surface (between more than 1000 C and -90 C), you havent actually said anything, have you?
Just telling someone what you think they are thinking (or what you want them to think) is just silly.
Are you disagreeing with the comment, and if so, have you any facts to support your disagreement? If you arent, and havent, just trying to appear clever while avoiding providing any factual information at all, just makes you look ignorant and in denial of reality.
You still havent managed to describe the GHE, have you?
Tut, tut.
More of that buzzing gnat.
Nate,
Notwithstanding that it is impossible to accurately measure air temperature with any sort of thermometer, or that air temperature has nothing to do with the average temperature of the surface (between more than 1000 C and -90 C), you havent actually said anything, have you?
Just telling someone what you think they are thinking (or what you want them to think) is just silly.
Are you disagreeing with the comment, and if so, have you any facts to support your disagreement? If you arent, and havent, just trying to appear clever while avoiding providing any factual information at all, just makes you look ignorant and in denial of reality.
You still havent managed to describe the GHE, have you?
Tut, tut.
Mike Flynn,
Roughly 750 million years ago, the earliest-known supercontinent Rodinia, began to break apart. The continents later recombined to form Pannotia, 600 to 540 million years ago, then finally Pangaea, which broke apart 200 million years ago.
What are you braying about?
Nate,
“So you seem to think these human errors will all or mostly be in the same direction? As opposed to tending to cancel in a spatial and temporal average of many such measurements by many humans.”
I think these errors go in either direction depending on the bias. I do not believe that they cancel because the true value has to be identifiable, and because their bias is nuanced, pairwise homogenization is incapable of properly addressing it and will just smear error around.
You say PHA is incapable of properly addressing errors, but simply saying it doesn’t make it true. The actual evidence says that it is effective in correcting errors. See [Williams et al. 2012 DOI:10.1029/2011JD016761] and [Hausfather et al. 2016 DOI:10.1002/2015GL067640] for more details.
“I think these errors go in either direction depending on the bias. I do not believe that they cancel because the true value has to be identifiable, and because their bias is nuanced, pairwise homogenization is incapable of properly addressing it and will just smear error around.”
If they go in either direction, then they will tend to cancel. So that the average will have much smaller error. At least in ordinary stats.
“I do not believe that they cancel because the true value has to be identifiable”
How do we know the ‘true value’ Walter?
These are measurements, and thus always have uncertainty.
Even if mercury thermometers had a 1 degree F resolution, it is entirely possible, after averaging many such measurements, to have fractional degree error on the average.
For example, women have integer number of babies, 0, 1, 2, 3, …, but the average US birthrate is reported as eg. 1.664 births per women in 2021.
LMAO!
Nate if you have a station located Tacoma, Washington and another at Yakima, Washington you are trying to tell me that the average temperature of those two stations is what the temperature is on the peak of Mt Ranier.
Don’t you think it might be just a little bit in error?
“you are trying to tell me that the average temperature of those two stations is what the temperature is on the peak of Mt Ranier.”
Again Bill laughs his ass off at his own ideas…that have nothing to do with my post.
Gee Nate really you don’t have a clue about what the temperature is on Mt Rainier. Are you saying that you can or can’t tell from the gridding and homogenization strategies employed in the surface station climate temperature effort? If you do do you have a source on that?
Why do some people here keep dreaming that climate scientists must be so stoopid that they forget basic facts, such as the lapse rate?
This GISS answer illustrates that the climate scientists are not as stoopid as you seem to think they are, Bill.
And that what they are interested in measuring is CHANGE in T over time, and that requires careful corrections.
“Q. Why can’t we just average the available data to get a regional or global mean?
A. Just averaging the available data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate. Assume, e.g., that a station at the bottom of a mountain sent in reports continuously starting in 1880 and assume that a station was built near the top of that mountain and started reporting in 1900. Since those new temperatures are much lower than the temperatures from the station in the valley, averaging the two temperature series would create a substantial temperature drop starting in 1900.”
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q203
Nate says:
”This GISS answer illustrates that the climate scientists are not as stoopid as you seem to think they are, Bill.”
Well at least we agree it would be stoopid to do that. Problems the example being discussed wrt elevation was making adjustments to a station if it had been moved from the valley to the mountain top. There is no mention of the use of an ARC GIS database with microclimate information to make adjustments during the homogenization and gridding process. Indeed it would be stoopid to not do that. Next thing to find out is if they do that.
“Next thing to find out is…”
Sure, then lets see if this is actually true:
“If I want something I either do it myself”
One of the reasons I haven’t come to a conclusion yet. though it hasn’t stopped you.
Just keep coming up with new excuses…
Excuses? Nope just have it filed in the uncertainty department. Low priority. Still working on if there is a GHE and what the cause is.
Only way to avoid getting sucked in by a Joseph Goebbels type.
Did you know in Germany during the rise of the Nazis that academia had a participation rate greater than the general population?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpMQSVp7NTg
“Still working on if there is a GHE and what the cause is.”
Yeah that’s gonna take a long time if all you ever do is look at the denialist blogosphere and affiliated Youtube videos.
You need to read actual science papers.
I am there are some missing papers. Where is Milankovich’s paper on the 100,000/400,000 year eccentricity variation cycles?
Right now I am looking for the paper that calculated this. There seems to be a lot of people looking for this. Did you just gobble it down hook, line, and sinker or do you know where it is?
About 10 years ago I read about 50 papers on the Milankovitch cycles and on orbital dynamics.
I basically went to google scholar, put in some search terms and refined them if I didn’t find what I was interested in.
Once I DID find those papers, I would check the cite list to find other papers that referred to them.
Milankovitch’s work was published as a monograph, so it’s not in the usual online academic literature. The English translation is called: Canon of Insolation and the Ice Age Problem. It’s hard to find. You can get it on Amazon at the moment.
https://www.amazon.com/Insolation-Ice-Age-Problem-Milankovic-Milankovitch/dp/8617066199/
Here’s a good resource for papers on Milankovitch cycles.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/papers-on-the-milankovitch-cycles-and-climate/
This is a good paper on the history of Milankovitch’s work and contemporaneous work.
https://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week12a/Berger_Reviews_Geophysics_1988.pdf
Thank you Barry thats helpful. I can see the effect of Jupiter and Saturn conjunctions in the temperature record and tease out its effects in the form of a sine wave.
Each planet has its own eccentricity that varies over time. There is also supposedly a precession of the semi major axis that say would bring us closer to venus. Seems to me this is just a matter of programming that information to crank out combined gravitational effects of barycenter movement between multiple objects. The moon moves the earth a few thousand miles and the earth moves the sun. These movements are going to change the distance to the sun for earth in very complex patterns. Considering what we are investing in all this that should be worked out. It’s a travesty that it hasn’t already.
I have also spotted an irregular pattern of Saturn and Jupiter conjoining in a single 45 degree area of the sky on an irregular schedule. It will hit the same area on a pace of once every 80 years over a period of 320 years then take a vacation from doing that for over 500 years. this roughly matches the LIA pattern and the PDO pattern. I say roughly because data gets rather poor as you dive back in time. Does the IPCC even mention anything about this?
I’m pretty sure, but not certain, that the IPCC mentions anything about the orbits of other planets interacting with Earth’s orbit and/or affecting terrestrial climate. I strongly doubt any immediate effect for that pulse. he Milankovitch cycles are about larger changes in Earth’s orbital parameters. The IPCC summarises the top line state of the science from tens of thousands of research papers, they don’t do original research. So it might be worthwhile looking at the reference list in the chapters that deal with paleoclimate to see if there’s anything in those.
You may find this paper interesting – a new solution for Earth’s orbital cycles from 2011.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2011/08/aa16836-11.pdf
If the material in the paper doesn’t suit you, there are a number of references to other papers in there that might.
I appreciate it. I will be reading on it as I already have a few spreadsheets looking at barycenter movement patterns.
If the data are starting at 0 in 1979, and have noise, then there should be almost 0 correlation between the early values and the end values a century later.
So the fact that the Spencer Christy method is showing early correlation is most likely spurious.
Define noise.
Something along those lines:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1620560
Willard, as usual, says nothing.
There is also:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1619827
Willard, as usual, says nothing again.
And also:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1618714
Again, nothing.
And:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1621257
RLH, you asked “Define noise” simple answer Willard!
Anon, as usual, says nothing.
Wilard, thanks for proving my point.
Anon, as usual, says nothing again.
Weather and ENSO which are not climate change and are unpredictable beyond a few months.
Thus, they are not expected to have the same history in different model runs or the observations.
Nate must believe reality is “spurious”.
But, to believe his cult beliefs, he has to….
Clint has nothing to contribute….posts anyway.
Nate,
You wrote –
“most likely spurious.”
Appealing to your own spurious authority is not terribly convincing.
You do realise that thermometers react to heat? CO2 does not possess any heat producing property.
You’re most likely dreaming.
“You do realise that thermometers react to heat? CO2 does not possess any heat producing property.”
Nor do blankets, or in insulation in general, yet they can make heated objects warmer.
Its just not that complicated. Not sure why you are unable to grasp these simple concepts.
blankets get warmer on the bottom side and the bottom side doesn’t convect to the top side.
in the case of the atmosphere that results in a minimum of 199 watts and a maximum of 242w/m2 convecting from the bottom of the banket to the top of the blanket. blanket molecules don’t move.
its really unfortunate that politics has evolved into the bullying of dedicated scientists to manufacture an artificial consensus, but we are seeing it everywhere including the bullying, stalking and doxing of those that question the science. this forum provides a clear picture of that. the post i am replying to especially illustrates that there is zero interest in debating the state of the science in this matter where a non-explanation is characterized as not being understood covering up the underlying lie that it had ever been adequately explained in the first place.
nate services as a great example of that and has consistently reinforced that message for years on this forum. we actually owe him a debt of gratitude for his steadfastness over the years in painting that picture.
Bill Hunter
YOU: “in the case of the atmosphere that results in a minimum of 199 watts and a maximum of 242w/m2 convecting from the bottom of the banket to the top of the blanket. blanket molecules dont move.”
Yet you are not explaining how Energy leaves the Earth System. Convection will move energy into the atmosphere (at least to the Stratosphere) but that is about it. This heat transfer mechanism will not transmit energy past the atmosphere and is stopped at the Stratosphere.
Here (again I like to offer evidence for my claims). You can reject this evidence if you think it is not valid but I would like a science rebuttal.
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/images/outgoing-radiation.png
If you look at this it is a measured IR from a satellite of the Sahara Desert. You can see what the Surface is emitting through the atmospheric window. It corresponds to a black-body at around 320 K. You can see that there is a lot less energy emitted from the atmosphere than the surface because of GHG.
Nate is correct. The GHG in atmosphere act a a radiant barrier or insulating material. The surface here is emitting much more energy than is leaving the Earth system, therefore the surface will maintain a higher temperature. Similar to the air in a car on a hot summer day. Much hotter than the air outside the car. Same solar input, one has reduced heat loss so it gets much hotter.
Noman, you’re now mixing your confused beliefs in with the GHE nonsense.
You’re sooooo confused.
But, that’s why this is so much fun.
Norman says:
”Yet you are not explaining how Energy leaves the Earth System. Convection will move energy into the atmosphere (at least to the Stratosphere) but that is about it. This heat transfer mechanism will not transmit energy past the atmosphere and is stopped at the Stratosphere.”
Well its not up to me to design how the gHE works. Its up to those concerned that it will result in catastrophic warming.
But convection both accelerates conduction at the surface and accelerates radiation at TOA by the basic laws of electromagnetics by constantly supplying those surfaces with molecules with a greater difference in temperature than the surface they are interacting with. Molecules warmed adjacent to the surface move up an are replaced with cooler molecules. Molecules at TOA that have cooled to space are replaced by hotter molecules. So convection accelerates natural cooling of the surface and cooling of TOA.
Further the interesting thing you mention about the stratosphere is that CO2 is a molecule that cools TOA. CO2 will only cool from downward radiation if and only if molecules lower are colder. So what is interesting is CO2 doesn’t cool the top of the stratosphere as apparently water vapor is capable of doing quite well in the troposphere. . .bringing into question the robustness of CO2’s effect overall.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Norman says:
”Here (again I like to offer evidence for my claims). You can reject this evidence if you think it is not valid but I would like a science rebuttal.
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/images/outgoing-radiation.png
If you look at this it is a measured IR from a satellite of the Sahara Desert. You can see what the Surface is emitting through the atmospheric window. It corresponds to a black-body at around 320 K. You can see that there is a lot less energy emitted from the atmosphere than the surface because of GHG.”
————————
IMHO, you can’t make anything out from a chart of the Sahara desert are relatively small region of the globe. In fact isn’t that the basis of Al Gore and Michael Mann trying to erase evidence of the LIA and the MWP by calling it a regional anomalie?
Norman says:
”Nate is correct. The GHG in atmosphere act a a radiant barrier or insulating material. ”
——————
There is no evidence of that. Like in the Sahara desert above the emissivity of desert white sand is quite low thus measuring spectral lines isn’t going to give you a correct answer by concluding that energy reaching the satellite is less than it should be. This is why UAH focuses on a specific molecule. Or at least that is what some poster told me. I can’t vouch for that.
And you have wide disagreement on the emissivity of water and you should because water changes its color with all sorts of reasons from pollution, chlorophyll, wind whipping up white water, and reflection which is quite strong at some angles of incidence.
These differences of opinion which represent uncertainties is so abundant in the lead radiation budget by Kiehl Trenberth I can’t even conclude for certain there is a GHE. Certainly mainstream science has slid the variables full on in the direction of alarmism. This is a wide spread practice in all of environmental science. All variables get set at the desired end of the uncertainty scale. So like Happer and Lindzen they conclude that the most likely warming from CO2 doubling to 830ppm warming will be 1 deg C OR LESS.
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20132171-302668.pdf
I would have no reservations signing off on that statement myself as I consider it the best science available worthy of the name.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Norman says:
”The surface here is emitting much more energy than is leaving the Earth system, therefore the surface will maintain a higher temperature. Similar to the air in a car on a hot summer day. Much hotter than the air outside the car. Same solar input, one has reduced heat loss so it gets much hotter.”
the first thing you have to accept is you don’t know that as a fact. Yes it probably is but there are such huge uncertainties as to both the actual mean temperature of the surface and the emissivity of that surface. Auditors have to restrain themselves of coming to such conclusions until the data is audited and the actual numbers are tightened up. You have to consider both emissivity and evaporation. You cool on a hot day by evaporation. That leaves your skin cooler than it would be without evaporation. When using an IR thermometer designed to measure your forehead temperature its only getting a rough temperature as your forehead will vary between 91f to 94f instead of the 98.6 that your internal temperature is.
thats about a range of 4.25C. about
Since the normal temperature of the surface should be 278.5k and its like 288.5k that leaves 10k for a GHE. So we are looking for only 55watts and if the mean temperature is actually only 285k we are only looking for
Trenberth 2009 gives an evaporation rate of 93.8 to 108.5 cooling the surface film globally that represents a potential error of 10% which could cover 39watts/m2
That gets us to within 3k of zero greenhouse effect. Audit experience has taught me where you find easy potential error a deeper dive will usually find considerably more. So its possible this trillion dollar exercise is returning absolutely nothing except for more food and more drought resistant food. And the warming that maybe 100$ natural may also be a blessing.
But since I signed on above which puts the warming from CO2 in the range specified by the illustrious professors from MIT and Princeton I am in agreement that we need to keep learning more about climate and how it works because only by knowing that can we control it to whatever extent God will allow us.
Bill Hunter
The emissivity of sand is actually quite high. Earth surface emits mostly in the IR band of EMR. Sand has a high albedo, it reflects visible light well but it has a high IR emissivity so it will be close to a black body. The graph is for a blackbody temperature. the 320 K would be the IR emitted by a blackbody. Sand is at around 0.9 so the surface sand would be hotter than the blackbody emission temperature.
Where did you get the low emissivity for sand from?
Collision induced IR is an impossibility or so say the climate experts. Ask Tim Folkerts. He will tell you it is impossible. Of course, we know the ramifications if they’re wrong.
norman, first off is there an atmospheric window? i have heard scientists question this. even as we discuss it kevin trenberth in 1997 estimated it as 40watts but if you look at the spectral graph in figure 1 of that paper there isn’t any line where 40 watts would be occurring. water is a full spectrum absorber.
also, there is a mention that an emissivity factor of 1.0 is assumed for the sake of discussion. since reflectivity of the surface is given as an average of 15.15%. 396w/m2 might be off by 60watts which is more than the entire ghe 341 to 390/396 (50-55watts) meaning the ghe could fit in the hole in the budget.
%
Norman says:
February 15, 2024 at 5:59 AM
Bill Hunter
The emissivity of sand is actually quite high. Earth surface emits mostly in the IR band of EMR. Sand has a high albedo, it reflects visible light well but it has a high IR emissivity so it will be close to a black body. The graph is for a blackbody temperature. the 320 K would be the IR emitted by a blackbody. Sand is at around 0.9 so the surface sand would be hotter than the blackbody emission temperature.
Where did you get the low emissivity for sand from?
————————
a better question is where do you get an emissivity close to a blackbody.
https://ennologic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Ultimate-Emissivity-Table.pdf
this table lists sand and sandstone albedo as being in a range of .59 to .9. perhaps your source uses black sand to get close to a blackbody if you want to call .9 close to 1.0
> a better question is
Look! Squirrel!
Bill Hunter
http://www.vanderbilt.eu/docs/Trebla_Services_Emissie_Tabel.pdf
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table/
Bill Hunter
Perhaps the lower value in your chart is because it depends upon the temperature of the emitting sand.
Here:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/archive/2010_schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
This has a black-body calculated curve of a 294 K surface. The most energy is in the IR band of would be in the 300-1200 range on the linked graph. Peak around 700.
Here is an IR graph of sand.
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C308075072&Mask=80#IR-Spec
In the range of Earth’s surface emission the IR emissivity of sand would be around 90% of a blackbody at the same temperature. At lower band of the IR spectrum sand is not a good emitter. I suppose that is why a lot of emissivity charts list sand as 0.9 since it will be close to that value at Earth surface temperature (where you might be using the thermal device to check the temperture of sand you might walk on).
Obviously Norman you find yourself in a place of having to cherry pick emissivity.
https://ennologic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Ultimate-Emissivity-Table.pdf
Bottom line these different opinions create one heckuva lot of uncertainty.
Gill prefers Ennologic Dot Com’s table for a simple reason:
They called it the ULTIMATE one.
LOL!
Willard Strawman Construction, Inc. says:
”Gill prefers Ennologic Dot Coms table for a simple reason:
They called it the ULTIMATE one.
LOL!”
I never said I prefer it Willard. I am talking about how scientists measuring emissivity come up with a wide range of estimates. I chalk that up to uncertainty. Its you who becomes enthused by a shiny emissivity table that tells you what you want to hear.
The discussion is about cherry picking an emissivity table where did you lose that train of thought? In the empty space between the lines that separated the comment from the link? I am not surprised in the least.
[GILL] I never said I prefer it
[ALSO GILL] Obviously Norman you find yourself in a place of having to cherry pick emissivity.
ROFL!
Nate,
Put as many blankets on a corpse as you like. Doesn’t get warmer. It keeps cooling – just like the Earth.
Fill as many warehouses with as much insulation as you like. They will no doubt be hot in summer, cold in winter.
You are definitely dreaming. Why don’t you try dreaming up a GHE description?
Do you think that too much laughter is harmful, perhaps?
Swenson
If you could read a post correctly it would help in having responsible discussion.
Here is what Nate said: “Nor do blankets, or in insulation in general, yet they can make heated objects warmer.”
Do you see the words “heated objects”. Do you have understanding of those words (yes or no would be fine).
Your examples are of NON-HEATED objects.
Can you understand there is a big difference between heated and hon-heated objects. I do not think any conversation is possible if you lack the vocabulary to differentiate between such.
Mike Flynn,
The Earth’s global magnetic field is generated in its metallic core, located nearly 3,000 kilometers beneath the planet’s surface.
You yourself described the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
What are you braying about?
Norman, you dummy,
You wrote –
“Can you understand there is a big difference between heated and hon-heated objects.”
Do you describe a cooling body (like a fresh corpse or the Earth) as a heated or non-heated body? Any body above absolute zero has been heated, whether you like it or not.
You still cannot describe the GHE, so burbling diversionary nonsense about insulation wan’t help.
Trying to play “silly semantic games” like that other dummy (Willard) won’t help. The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so. There is no GHE.
Carry on denying reality.
Wonky Wee Willy,
For some peculiar reason related to your mental state, you wrote –
“The Earths global magnetic field is generated in its metallic core, located nearly 3,000 kilometers beneath the planets surface.”
You then compounded your confusion by writing “You yourself described the greenhouse effect:”, which is complete nonsense.
The GHE is a non-existent dream. Neither Mike Flynn nor myself could possible describe something which neither of us believes exists!
I assume your link is your usual nonsensical effort to create fact from fiction. Feel free to quote from it, if you believe I am incorrect in my assumption.
I’ll keep laughing while you gnash your teeth.
Mike Flynn,
Atomic clocks show that the modern day is longer by about 1.7 milliseconds than a century ago, slowly increasing the rate at which UTC is adjusted by leap seconds.
What are you braying about?
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Atomic clocks show that the modern day is longer by about 1.7 milliseconds than a century ago, slowly increasing the rate at which UTC is adjusted by leap seconds.
What are you braying about?”
Are you quite mad?
That’s a rhetorical question, of course. You don’t need to answer.
Swenson
They are not “silly semantic games”. Words usually have some meaning.
The corpse may have been heated but it is not being heated in your case. Do you not grasp the difference?
The Earth interior is heated but it loses energy slightly faster than the heat generated by radioactive decay. If not for the continued heating is would be much colder than it currently is.
The insulating material of rock above the core allows it to sustain some fairly hot temperatures.
You do not seem to possess logical thought process as you can’t understand what is being said and conclude (illogically) that it is a “silly semantic game”
“Put as many blankets on a corpse as you like. Doesnt get warmer. ”
Why would I do that? That has no relevance to insulating a heated surface, which is the Earth.
wee willy continues his decent into senility…
“Atomic clocks show that the modern day is longer by about 1.7 milliseconds than a century ago, slowly increasing the rate at which UTC is adjusted by leap seconds”.
***
The designer of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, has pointed out the obvious…atomic clock have errors as well. Besides the obvious, they did not have atomic clocks a century ago. Heck, they barely had any accuracy in clocks a century ago and time as we know it now was still in its infancy. There was no UTC back then.
The irony here is that the second used by the atomic clock is based on the rotation of the Earth. So, here we have a device with it’s own propensity to error measuring a second that is based on a planet with a variable rotational speed.
Duh!!!
The error here is about 1 ms over a century, and that is 1/1000nds of a second.
norman…”Here is what Nate said: Nor do blankets, or in insulation in general, yet they can make heated objects warmer.
***
And Swenson replied correctly, inferring that blankets do not make things warmer. They simply slow down the rate of cooling. So, if you put blanket over cooling objects at the same temperature, the blankets will not increase the temperature of the objects.
When, Bordo hears “atomic clock,” we can be sure that he’ll mention Louis Essen. What’s surprising is that he finally understands the greenhouse effect:
[BORDO FINALLY UNDERSTANDS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT] Blankets do not make things warmer, they simply slow down the rate of cooling.
Another win for Team Science!
Gordon Robertson
No Swenson is not correct as to what Nate claimed. Nate stated a blanket will make a heated object warmer and it will. So will any insulation up to the point of how good the insulation is.
I am not sure what point you are now making?
The temperature of a HEATED object (an energy input if you do not know what the word HEATED means)
If you are not sure of the definition here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/heated
“heated
adjective
US /ˈhiː.t̬ɪd/ UK /ˈhiː.tɪd/
heated adjective (TEMPERATURE)
Add to word list
made hot or warm:
a heated towel rail
a heated swimming pool”
A heated pool has a continuous supply of energy to maintain a temperature. If you have a Heated Object (with some input of energy) and you put insulation around it the temperature of the object will go up.
Norman,
“a heated swimming pool”.
Now cover your sun heated swimming pool with an insulating blanket.
Keeps it cool, doesn’t it?
Oh, I see. Being heated by the Sun doesnt actually count as “heated”, is that it?
You meant “internal heat”, like the Earth. As you said, the Earth has cooled – not sufficient internal heat to even maintain its temperature.
Try harder – be specific, and talk about the Earth. How hard can it be to address reality?
Swenson
Are you possibly aware that insulation works both ways? Its main purpose is to slow the rate of energy transfer. It will keep a cool object cooler longer and it will keep a hot object warmer.
Not sure what you are talking about with your blanket analogy.
I am not sure if you have looked but Scientist do include the energy absorbed by the atmosphere directly.
Here look educate yourself.
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ceres-poster-011-v2.jpg?resize=2000,1494
The atmosphere on this graph is absorbing 77.1 Watts/m^2 of solar energy. But that energy does not disappear, it warms the atmosphere directly but more reaches the surface than is absorbed.
a heated swimming pool.
Now cover your sun heated swimming pool with an insulating blanket.
Keeps it cool, doesnt it?”
No, not if it is transparent? Never heard of transparent plastic?
The atmosphere is transparent enough to let solar heat the surface and lower atmosphere.
Nate, you seem to be very pedantic on a predictable basis. If you see anyone arguing against your view then there is no upper limit to your pedantry. But if they agree with your views then your pedantry is almost undetectable.
To be very specific you stated that “Nor do blankets, or in insulation in general, yet they can make heated objects warmer.” Explain how they make an object warmer verse slowing the rate of heat loss!
I wonder if that was a simple slip you made, so me being pedantic at your expense is just point scoring. Or do you genuinely believe what you posted? In which case……
AN OBJECT WARMER VERSE
’23 was red
It made us feel blue
But ‘cos of El Nino,
This year’ll be a record too
(H/T Gavin)
A,
Norman is simply confused and gullible. About as gullible as the NASA staff who thought that greenhouses stayed warm through the winter nights, and believed that energy from the Sun could descend into the ocean depths and hide there!
A triumph of faith over fact. Cultism writ very large.
“To be very specific you stated that Nor do blankets, or in insulation in general, yet they can make heated objects warmer. Explain how they make an object warmer verse slowing the rate of heat loss!”
You don’t think blankets make your skin warmer, Anon?
Do you think a heated oven will be warmer with the insulated door closed?
I have a heated jacuzzi. In winter with the insulated cover left off, it becomes cooler than desired, and wastes a LOT of energy.
Apparently these basic heat transfer principles need reviewing by some people here.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Anon, the not so pedantic point is that are people here such as Swenson, are constantly erecting a strawman: that CO2 needs to be a heat source in order to cause the Earth’s surface to warm.
It doesnt. All it has do is add to the atmospheric insulation of the heated surface to make it warm.
There are plenty of real world examples of this happening.
Get it now?
…Willy, please stop trolling.
Anon Geek is just playing dumb, Nate.
Heavy rainfall in California will continue until February 25.
https://i.ibb.co/NKDYpPy/ventusky-rain-3h-20240225t0300-32n134w-1.jpg
ark in the dark …”Christy thinks it equally likely that the Earths surface will cool. The surface warming that alarms so many atmospheric scientists is, to Christy, well within the realm of natural variation, or measurement error. Most of this warming occurred in the early part of the 20th century, before humans had boosted concentrations of greenhouse gases,
***
The poster of this drivel, geared at discrediting John Christy, Ark in the Dark, lacks the ability to critique John using his own words. He is a typical spinless alarmists who hides behind the words of misguided authority figures.
John Christy has major positive attributes going for him over wannabee alarmists, he has an actual degree in climate science AND he works with real, physical data, not modeled hype. John has served on several IPCC reviews as a lead author and a reviewer and he brings us insight on the proceedings…how many reviewers he encountered come to the reviews with pre-conceived notions that biases them toward the alarmist theory.
John has also worked in Africa as an educator and he has witnessed first hand the effect that a lack of fossil fuels has on poor Africans.
The quote above refers to ‘so many atmospheric scientists’. Who are they and what are their qualifications? Are they referring to Gavin Schmidt with a degree in math, or Michael Mann with a degree in Geology?
John’s views are legitimate and no one can prove him wrong. The only fact John omits is the ending of the Little Ice Age, circa 1850, which explains the re-warming expected after an ice age.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/the-gospel-according-to-john
The Gospel According to John
When this world-class atmospheric scientist insists there’s no such thing as global warming, is he talking science-or religion?
By Elizabeth Royte
Feb 1, 2001 12:00 AM
Arkady, please stop trolling.
How many PST did Graham D. Warner make this morning, 50?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tropical storm in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
https://i.ibb.co/5kQyp3z/himawari9-ir-14-P-202402151750.gif
This article does highlight that data presentation is very important. Seen enough graphs & charts that have been presented to mislead or obfuscate. Where Dr Roys Spenser & Dr John Christy method is clear and doesn’t hide nor mislead.
There are various recommendations on colour, chart types, axis, legends …. that help clarify the data. What I find with Gavin Schmidt method is that it is misleading. Question is to mislead others or himself?
I read without surprise on WUWT the usual, pseudo-skeptic blah blah:
” We do have the USCRN, which is showing no trend. There are still anomalies that go well below the baseline, and the large positive anomalies stay healthily below the 2006 & 2012 high points. ”
How interesting! Sounds like robertsoning instead of reasoning, e.g.
” If the last anomaly is on par with the first one, then the trend is flat. ”
*
Here is an evaluation of USCRN hourly data, averaged into three different daily Tavg series (mean, median, 24h average) and then into monthly anomalies with annual cycle removal:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_F00TcPvlRBk4NQ8GR_Q6cdhUtQ4CUIQ/view
The second order polynomial fit doesn’t differ much from the linear one. No acceleration in the data, as it seems.
Linear trends for the 24h Tavg, in C / decade
– 2003-2023: +0.43 +- 0.08
– 2011-2023: +0.39 +- 0.16
– 2016-2023: -0.11 +- 0.38
(Mean and median are a bit above resp. a bit below 24h avg.)
*
For Tmin:
– 2003-2023: +0.43 +- 0.09
– 2011-2023: +0.45 +- 0.18
– 2016-2023: -0.30 +- 0.39
For Tmax:
– 2003-2023: +0.46 +- 0.09
– 2011-2023: +0.39 +- 0.17
– 2016-2023: +0.07 +- 0.40
*
Since 2016 the trends of course are way lower – like everywhere when you (1) start at a top anomaly and (2) pass thru a strong La Nina.
The standard error is for such short and highly variable periods higher than the trend itself: not very useful. Forget it.
*
Top10 of a descending Tavg anomaly sort since Jan 2003
2016 2 2.16 (C)
2006 1 2.03
2016 3 1.90
2017 2 1.82
2023 12 1.81
2016 11 1.75
2015 12 1.59
2023 1 1.57
2020 11 1.44
2018 5 1.33
7 of the 10 top anomalies happened during the winter.
The Tmin resp. Tmax sorts don’t differ by much. Thus, winter vs. summer beats night vs. day.
Source
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
I have noticed that the title of your graph reads ‘Active USCRN stations, ungridded.’ The discrepancy between your calculated anomalies and NOAA’s calculated anomalies suggests an issue with the number of stations (sampling) or with the gridding process. In the case of the former, I am aware that at least in my state, the two USCRN stations didn’t become active until late 2007. The starting times for when each station around the country became active are sporadic. Inadequate spatial distribution will give specific regions more uneven representation in the calculation and, therefore, the trend. Or, you just did your calculations incorrectly. That data should be interpreted with caution.
Typical Hunter boy blah blah questioning things without any reference sustaining his completely superficial claim:
” norman, first off is there an atmospheric window? i have heard scientists question this. ”
Oh hear hear! The Hunter boy ‘has heard’.
And… where did he hear that?
*
” water is a full spectrum absorber. ”
One more of the Hunter boy’s inventions, like so many others.
*
Here are two graphs showing the atmospheric window.
1. At the surface
https://i.postimg.cc/hjRtdhJm/Atmospheric-window-surf.png
2. Altitude 15 km
https://i.postimg.cc/d0Bx8x39/Atmospheric-window-15-km.png
*
We clearly see that (under consideration of their respective atmospheric abundance)
– between 7.5 and 12.5 microns, no gases intercept IR (except a tiny bit by O3 I forgot to add); this is the atmospheric window
– CO2’s action at 15 km is 100 times lower than that of H2O at the surface
– H2O is by no means a ‘full spectrum absorber’.
*
Nota bene
N2 and O2 are absent on the graphs above because their absorp~tion/emission intensity is lower than that of CO2 by a factor of 10E-9 resp. 10E-6.
https://i.postimg.cc/HL9kbdbP/N2-O2-5-20-microns.png
*
O2’s radiation energy at 5000 microns aka 60 GHz is less than negligible.
*
What matters is that Earth’s maximal IR emission is around 10 microns: just in the middle of the atmospheric window.
Binny,
Are you trying to explain how the Earth cooled over the past four and a half billion years?
It lost more energy than it received, that’s all.
No need to burble about that other stuff, pretending to be an authority on cooling.
Carry on – you don’t need to thank me.
As always, Flynnson’s ignorant, egomaniacal dementia trip.
Simply ignored.
Binny,
Are you trying to explain how the Earth cooled over the past four and a half billion years?
It lost more energy than it received, thats all.
No need to burble about that other stuff, pretending to be an authority on cooling.
Carry on you dont need to thank me.
#2
As always, Flynnsons ignorant, egomaniacal dementia trip.
Simply ignored.
Bindidon says:
”Typical Hunter boy blah blah questioning things without any reference sustaining his completely superficial claim:”
Well why not just give us one graph scaled to 2e-10 with all the elements that absorb IR rather than your cherry picked lists and scales?
Perhaps you could put everything that we know absorbs or reflects light that you didn’t include like ozone and all the aerosols. We don’t need to see the entire shape of every curve just the very bottom amount of white left over.
I certainly don’t see why you get your panties all in a knot when somebody simply says that some scientists have suggested all IR is absorbed at least once. We certainly don’t need a graph that suggests how many times each spectral line might get absorbed.
I guess Bindidon was full of it when he claimed to have proof of the atmospheric window. Surprise. . .surprise. . .not.
Earlier, Norman (starting to accept reality) wrote –
“The Earth interior is heated but it loses energy slightly faster than the heat generated by radioactive decay. If not for the continued heating is would be much colder than it currently is.”
Exactly so. The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so. Very slowly, these days, following the immutable laws of the universe.
Norman still refuses to accept that no amount of “insulation” (presumably Norman’s idea of the GHE, although he refuses to say so), can prevent the Earth from cooling. Being “cooler than it currently is” is just a silly semantic attempt to make the ignorant and gullible believe that cooling magically results in raised temperatures!
Norman is stuck with believing in a GHE which he can’t describe, but supposedly results in a warming planet when four and a half billion years of history shows the silliness of his fantasy.
No, Norman, there is no GHE. You can’t even describe this mythical effect, can you?
That’s a bit of a problem.
Swenson
It is a endless rabbit hole on nonsense to respond to you. Nothing you post is rational. I strongly believe you an AI bot not human.
I guess seeing what you come up with could be interesting but there is no rational thought in any of your posts.
I did think Chat GPT bots seemed more human so you might be a lower generation bot.
Your program cannot seem to comprehend what a “heated object” is.
Several people have described the GHE to you in many ways. It is the lack of your programmers skill and ability that does not allow you to process the information you are provided.
Norman, here’s what you wrote –
“The Earth interior is heated but it loses energy slightly faster than the heat generated by radioactive decay. If not for the continued heating is would be much colder than it currently is.”
Cooling. You said it.
No use blaming me because you can’t describe a GHE which doesn’t exist! You might as well just rush off at a tangent, and babble about complete irrelevancies.
Sound fair?
Wonky Wee Willy climbs aboard the “GHE is really just another name for insulation” train.
He wrote –
“Blankets do not make things warmer, they simply slow down the rate of cooling.
Another win for Team Science!”
What an idiot! Faced with the reality that “blankets do not make things warmer”, he still claims that slow cooling results in heating!
Willard is obviously suffering from some strange mental condition which prevents him from accepting reality. That’s a definition of insanity, I guess.
Mike Flynn,
Here’s another such buffoon:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Swoon.
Wonky Wee Willy climbs aboard the GHE is really just another name for insulation train.
He wrote
“Blankets do not make things warmer, they simply slow down the rate of cooling.
Another win for Team Science!”
What an idiot! Faced with the reality that “blankets do not make things warmer” , he still claims that slow cooling results in heating!
Willard is obviously suffering from some strange mental condition which prevents him from accepting reality. Thats a definition of insanity, I guess.
Mike Flynn,
That is all.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Once upon a time, I would have let that one fly.
But Graham D. Warner is unable to negotiate anything.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
One of the most stubborn posters at WUWT is a guy nicknamed ‘Tom Abbott’.
He posts since evah the same graph stored in 2007 at climateaudit:
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif
and claims all the time that all newer time series must be wrong because they no longer show the 1930’s warmer than today’s temperatures.
*
In theory, he might be right when looking at a time series like this one, comparing GHCN daily to NOAA’s Climate at a Glance for CONUS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10OGbJ4l3uBF5NcPRtFy1vqSOlfqXrMP3/view
*
But what people a la Abbott never will understand is that light years separate Hansen’s 1999 pic from today’s evaluation because at that time, there were incredibly less active stations than today (over 8000 compared to probably less than 1000 in 1999).
What I have always missed in the surface station data sets is, for each station, its entry date into the data set’s inventory: that would make one able to drop, e.g. of GHCN daily or V4, all stations which were entered later than a given year, e.g. … 1999.
*
Who nonetheless wants to look at his beloved 1930 just needs to look at a graph showing the distribution of maxima and minima over time for CONUS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H_P0OEHaHxwcxY_CgxxxDLyLc18csmHZ/view
Look at the red plot, people, and enjoy.
binny….”there were incredibly less active stations than today (over 8000 compared to probably less than 1000 in 1999)”.
GISS has always gotten their data from NOAA and NOAA has admitted they now use less than 1500 stations to cover the solid surface. Why are you in such deep denial re what NOAA has openly admitted?
Robertson
Try to understand instead of blathering:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622954
Bill Hunter
You claimed this above (taking it down here because of congestion above and I want to know your answer).
YOU: “Since the normal temperature of the surface should be 278.5k and its like 288.5k that leaves 10k for a GHE. So we are looking for only 55watts and if the mean temperature is actually only 285k we are only looking for”
Where do you get your number 278.5 K?
The effective temperature of the Earth would be 255 K if you evenly spread out the energy it receives to a continuous basis over the whole Earth.
Bill Hunter
Okay I see where you got the 278.5 K from but when dealing with the Earth you have a surface that reflects 30% of the incoming solar, if it were a blackbody in the visible as well as IR your number would be correct.
The Earth is not a visible light blackbody. It is only 70% of one but it is close to a blackbody for IR emissivity.
Here:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia18833-nasa-spacecraft-maps-earths-global-emissivity
Water, ice and snow all have very high IR emissivity.
To get an effective temperature you cannot use energy for Earth that would be absorbed. You could say the effective temperature could be warmer. If it was receiving 240 Watts/m^2 and had an emissivity of 0.9 then the temperature would be warmer than 255 K
It would reach a temperature of 262. At an emissivity of 0.95 it would have an effective temperature of 258.
None of this would disprove the obvious link I sent to you showing a GHE. The surface which could be measured of the Sahara sand (would be much hotter than the air temp) would let you know how close the atmospheric reading was to the actual surface temperature. But that is not the important point. The big point is that the outgoing energy is much less than the surface emission.
I have given you surface emissions with the ESRL graphs.
Norman displays his confusion, for all to see: “If it was receiving 240 Watts/m^2 and had an emissivity of 0.9 then the temperature would be warmer than 255 K”
Wrong again, Norman. If Earth were receiving 240 W/m², emissivity 0.9, then its temperature would be 185K, emitting 60 W/m².
You’re so confused I don’t even know if you can be helped….
Clint R
WTF! You went total doofus on me without a flinch!
How do you calculate that? Before you call one confused hopefully you provide and answer.
if the surface absorbs 240 Watts/m^2 it has to warm to the temperature where it will emit 240 watts/m^2 else it will continue to warm until it does. In a steady state it will emit energy at the same rate it is receiving energy.
An surface with an emissivity of 0.9 will reach a temperature of 261.87 K.
Are you drunk?
You do know the Stephan-Boltzmann Law correct?
If you don’t here it is
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
Clint R
I know the room might be spinning for you but try to follow the math.
Using Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
P=240 Watts
A=1 m^2
emissivity=0.9
Constant=5.6703×10^-8
So 240 Watt/m^2 = 0.9(5.6703 x 10^-8)T^4
240/(0.9)(5.6703 x 10^-8) =T^4
4,702,866,985 = T^4
261.87 = T
Checking the math by going in reverse.
Temp=261.87 K
T^4 = 4,702,866,985
P/A= (0.9)(5.6703^10-8)(4,702,866,985)
P/A = 239.99 Checks out with maybe some rounding issues.
Not sure what math you are using but it is wrong.
Clint R
Now to put your 185 in the equation.
T = 185
T^4 = 1,171,350,625
P/A= (0.9)(5.6703×10^-8)(1,171,350,625)
P/A = 60 Watts
How does a surface receiving 240 Watts of energy (per meter squared) only emit 60 watts of energy? You make no sense. I think that is worse logic than Gordon Robertson or Swenson and neither of these two posters is logical at all.
Oh well you won’t provide an answer. You do not deal with evidence.
Norman,
You wrote –
“if the surface absorbs 240 Watts/m^2 it has to warm to the temperature where it will emit 240 watts/m^2 else it will continue to warm until it does. In a steady state it will emit energy at the same rate it is receiving energy.”
Fine – expose a surface to a block of ice emitting 240 W/m2 forever, and it will stay just as cold as the ice.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. If your calculations show otherwise, they are wrong.
You can’t describe the GHE, so good luck with trying to convince people that they should value your strange proselytising.
Mike Flynn,
What happens to a surface when it receives 240 Joule per second and only emits 60 Joule per second?
You STILL don’t get it Norma.
Earth receives 960 W/m², after albedo. If it only received 240 W/m², emissivity 0.9, then its temperature would be 185K, emitting 60 W/m².
When you grow up, and leave the nonsense behind, you might have a chance of understanding. But, until then, you make this so much fun.
Norman says:
”Water, ice and snow all have very high IR emissivity.”
Emissivity only makes a difference to the rate of warming when exposed to sunlight which is considered to be very close to a blackbody.
The fact is emissivity is very difficult to determine and it varies due to texture and diffuse versus specular reflection.
For instance I notice that the emissivity table I provided listed water as only having .56 emissivity, which is a lot lower than I have seen.
I had a personal conversation on this with Kevin Trenberth. He noted to me a wide disagreement on the emissivity of water as he originally gave me an article on emissivity that actually listed it considerably lower than he does. I specifically asked him about that and he simply said he disagreed with the source he had given me.
oxygen is an example of a material with a very low emissivity that gets hotter in sunlight than the maximum of 400k suggested by the solar constant.
Thus these things when dealing with non-blackbodies can get really weird and we hear a lot of nonsense about what these things can and cannot do.
Norman says:
None of this would disprove the obvious link I sent to you showing a GHE. The surface which could be measured of the Sahara sand (would be much hotter than the air temp) would let you know how close the atmospheric reading was to the actual surface temperature.
IMO, most likely the GHE is caused by the atmosphere without GHG warming like the thermosphere or via an insulating effect operating on the percentage of molecules that are good IR emitters. That would leave CO2 as a cooling agent only for the atmosphere and it would be responsible for warming the surface to the temperature of the atmosphere.
It is not clear to me the desert sands get hotter than the air except via convection cooling the atmosphere. . .which IMO would not occur if there were no greenhouse gases as the atmosphere would warm at least to the temperature of the surface and thus with zero temperature differential you would have zero convection.
I see GHG as being a substance that can transfer heat anywhere its cooler. . .working like conduction. I have seen nothing to suggest it does anything but accelerate cooling.
Norman says:
”But that is not the important point. The big point is that the outgoing energy is much less than the surface emission.”
I see that as a canard. I think that the only thing that matters is net emission. Net emission by all means of heat transfer cannot exceed the mean value of what is emitted to space without causing the substance in between from warming and that the lapse rate is the result of a mechanical process. I see no basis for a forcing in the system except maybe a very small one related to friction or something like that. Somebody needs to demonstrate that the normal state without GHGs the atmosphere would be cooler than the surface. If you can shoot holes in that via demonstration perhaps you can get my attention.
” I see no basis for a forcing”
But science does see the basis for it, and has a strong rationale based in physics.
Concepts that are rational and useful to science need not be for YOU.
And that’s ok. Science will carry on without you.
Strong is a subjective and relative term Nate. Science has lots of rationales that never pan out. And I am all for science carrying on. . .doing science. . .not politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpMQSVp7NTg
Niall Ferguson.
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Willard apparently disagrees with the discussion because he is going straight for the ad hominem but he doesn’t want to say why he disagrees with the discussion.
“And I am all for science carrying on. . .doing science. . .not politics.”
Oh really? Then why do you stop talking science, and present us with POLITICAL opinion?
Too often, Bill, when you have no science answer, you substitute politics.
Just aint convincing.
Thats because I am a policy wonk. The role of science in policy is as Niall Ferguson portrayed in the video interview and scientists that don’t follow that model are treasonous and are mostly responsible for what happened in Germany in the middle of the last century. Those treasonous scientists advanced the theories of ethnic cleansing both before and during Hitler’s reign of terror.
And as Niall pointed out it started out as a few believers then when Hitler came to power it became a coalition of professors made up of believers and opportunists. And since at the time the German Universities were the most respected in the world it infected a large part of the world as well.
Thats why a great deal of the science you spew is spewed with non-scientific words that are relative and subjective. You talk of proofs you cannot produce. you ignore failures of your analogies like the GPE and continue to talk about dominance of radiative heat transfer in systems the very scientists that promote this stuff actually quantify as at least is mostly non-radiative heat transfer and you wonder and ponder why the surface is so warm and simply look to false standards for what the temperature of the surface should be.
such as explained here. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1626081
So indeed we are talking about science and its proper role. We wouldn’t need this discussion if politics never interfered with science.
> Thats because I am a policy wonk.
qltm
Yeah so having failed to support your claims such as ‘I see no basis for a forcing’ with any sound science rationale, you switch to policy rationale!
Sorry that just don’t work.
Science facts are facts regardless of their policy implications.
Norman says:
Bill Hunter
Okay I see where you got the 278.5 K from but when dealing with the Earth you have a surface that reflects 30% of the incoming solar, if it were a blackbody in the visible as well as IR your number would be correct.
The Earth is not a visible light blackbody. It is only 70% of one but it is close to a blackbody for IR emissivity.
———————–
the problem is as Dr. Yong says from the Youtube Channel Yong Tuition. Climate science treats the atmosphere as disconnected from the surface. It doesn’t matter what the emissivity is at the surface. The reason is that at the earths radiant surface at radiant TOA (a virtual surface) the emissivity is .7 thus to radiate 240w/m2 that surface should be 278.5. Thus the mean temperature of the atmosphere from contact with the radiant TOA and the surface of the earth due to contact with atmosphere must be at least 278.5. Then we have the differences of 1359w/m2 to 1380w/m2 which probably corresponds to typical solar variation plus orbital variation from the gravitational pull of extra terrestrial objects in space. Thats a variation with an amplitude of ~4C. And up to 4C variation on a relatively short term climate scale of a few centuries can be clearly discerned in the ice core records.
We know for a fact that all objects rotate around a barycenter and that barycenters for multiple objects makes for moving barycenters and non-circular and even non-elliptical motions of objects as they move in space.
“The reason is that at the earths radiant surface at radiant TOA (a virtual surface) the emissivity is .7 thus to radiate 240w/m2 that surface should be 278.5. Thus the mean temperature of the atmosphere from contact with the radiant TOA and the surface of the earth due to contact with atmosphere must be at least 278.5.”
There is no 0.7 emissivity at the surface, end of story.
The rest of this is total BS with invented numbers to post-hoc rationalize the invented emissivity of 0.7.
I am not talking about the earth’s surface I am talking about the TOA Radiant surface. If a surface absorbs that warms it to X degrees, it will emit enough energy to reach an equilibrium with that input.
the only time that does not happen is like with oxygen in the atmosphere that is a very poor IR emitter it will warm hotter. to rid itself of the energy it has.
Good, work out all those speculations and get back to us with the evidence to support it.
Or not.
Well to start with you have to realize that the emissivity of the surface doesn’t count and here is why:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1626081
Nah, already rebutted.
Where is the ‘certification’ for your ‘model’?
Clint R ( and apparently a few other geniuses) still do not understand where the 240 Watt/m^2 come from.
Firstly, let us have a look at the SURFRAD corner.
We randomly take Fort Peck, MT as example, and look at how downwelling SW (DSW) and upwelling LW (ULW) radiation behave – for two opposite days in a yearly sequence
2024, Feb 15
https://i.postimg.cc/g2Wy7W2d/SURFRAD-Fort-Peck-DSW–ULW-150224.png
2023, Aug 15
https://i.postimg.cc/W4KwXJDY/SURFRAD-Fort-Peck-DSW–ULW-150823.png
*
We see that in both images
DSW is zero at night – as expected
and that
– ULW is present during the whole day – what is either not expected or even rejected by these geniuses who claim that Earth only warms when the Sun shines and only cools at night.
Of course: the only way to obtain a valuable information about DSW and ULW radiation at Fort Peck, MT would be to perform a yearly average of the data downloaded from
https://gml.noaa.gov/aftp/data/radiation/surfrad/Fort_Peck_MT/
*
But anyway, comparing August (9 hours full night) to February (13) is a good hint on a worldwide 50/50 DSW average between night and day.
Conversely, the two days also clearly show a full 24 hour ULW.
*
Thus the assumption ‘50% solar DSW vs. 100% terrestrial ULW’ very probably is plain correct; I leave the job of a confirmation by data processing to those who always polemically doubt but never technically let alone scientifically disprove.
*
This means that while a local daily ULW average must be integrated over a full sphere, the DSW must be integrated over the hemisphere that is sunlit.
And while ULW is of radial nature, a global daily solar DSW average of all worldwide available SURFRAD stations has to cope with the fact that solar radiation on the sunlit hemisphere is of frontal incidence and hence its effect varies, from the equator to the poles, with the square of the cosine of the incidence angle, as the infinitesimal integration ‘squares’ diminish both longitudinal and latitudinal.
Integrating cos^2(x)dx over the hemisphere gives as result 0.5; this is 101 spherical trig which can easily be checked using a spreadsheet calculator.
*
This is the reason why the sunlit hemisphere ‘looks’ like a disk: the integration of solar radiation over it gives
pi * R^2 * (1 – albedo)
*
And this is finally the reason why the ~ 1360 W/m^2 of solar radiation at TOA become 960 due to 30% albedo, 480 because only one hemisphere is sunlit, and… 240 because of a latitude weighting of the solar radiation based on a squared cosine of the incidence angle on the sphere.
*
No belief needed, no cult, no authority, no daddy: all you need is willing to understand.
After all that rambling blah-blah Bindi, you got one thing right. Earth’s incoming flux is considered to be 960 W/m², after albedo. It’s NOT 240 W/m², as Norman claims.
The 240 W/m² is the EMITTED flux from your cult’s imaginary sphere.
You missed the “240 because of a latitude weighting of the solar radiation based on a squared cosine of the incidence angle on the sphere,” Puffman.
I did a post just for that mistake, a mistake I’ve been told no Sky Dragon crank ever made.
Have I been told a lie?
It’s 960 W/m^2 incoming if you don’t average it, it’s 480 W/m^2 incoming if you average it over the lit hemisphere, and it’s 240 W/m^2 incoming if you average it over the entire sphere. Couldn’t be simpler.
However, the incoming energy is not received over the entire sphere at once, obviously. So, if you’re going with 240 W/m^2 as your incoming average, then that’s a temporal as well as a spatial average.
End of story.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again, over a geometric fact to boot.
What I said was correct. Always has been, always will be.
In some way, all of the three main exploits by our Dragon cranks rest on lousy geometrical intuitions.
Argue it out with Entropic Man.
Sky Dragon cranks also entertain a weird notion of equivalence.
Little Willy entertains us all.
” So, if youre going with 240 W/m^2 as your incoming average, then thats a temporal as well as a spatial average.”
Obviously, yet all of the key climate change observations are temporal averages over much longer periods, like months or years.
So this is a faux controversy.
…Willy entertains us all.
Worse than that, Nate – equivalence holds at all time!
Little Willy implied that this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1624353
was wrong. Nate has come along and written something, no idea what, but I know that Nate would never have said that the linked comment is wrong, because he knows that it isn’t. If anything, he probably agreed with the comment, but added some other consideration into the mix. Perhaps Little Willy could let me know what that is, once he’s accepted that my comment was correct and that Nate has (most likely) agreed with it.
Graham D. Warner implies that a hemisphere needs not be corrected according to the angle of incidence. What that correction is done, one gets a disc.
He also implies that flux can directly be converted into temperature. The equation does not work like that.
And he also implies that the unlit side of the Earth is very cold. Like, very cold. He seldom admits to it. In fact he’s been tasked to ask Joe to add the clarification on his propaganda tools, but for some reason he never got the Round Tuit.
Astute readers won’t fall for Joe’s con.
Perhaps Little Willy could let me know what that is, once he’s accepted that my comment was correct and that Nate has (most likely) agreed with it.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner could correct the misrepresentations Puffman introduced, without which Sky Dragin cranks have no basis to start a food fight.
As we see in the thread below this one, your own words show agreement with Clint R.
“Nate has come along and written something, no idea what, but I know that ..”
The charade gets sillier and sillier…
He spends more time speculating about what I said than it would take to read my post, for which he is not supposed to be interested in any case.
I see Nate has commented, again. We can assume that he would have expressed disagreement with my 12:34 PM comment from 17th February by now, if any such disagreement existed. Not sure what he’s said, but it’s bound to be something unconnected. Probably just some personal remark.
No one here can tell us why this matters, but they keep bringing it up.
Cuz their Daddy Joe Postma told them it matters.
Another comment…probably just some other silly personal remark.
Nah.
It is a fact that no one here can tall us why this matters for climate science. Yet they keep bringing it up.
Ditto.
I think it’s time to ignore Graham D. Warner’s comments in this thread.
Thank God for that.
…think it’s time to ignore Graham D. Warner’s comments in this thread.
Once again, we see that Little Willy is incapable of accepting when I write a perfectly reasonable, correct comment, such as my 12:34 PM post from 17th February. He has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.
…it’s time to ignore Graham D. Warner’s comments in this thread.
“He has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.”
PERFECT description of what Bill does.
“Its 960 W/m^2 incoming if you dont average it, its 480 W/m^2 incoming if you average it over the lit hemisphere, and its 240 W/m^2 incoming if you average it over the entire sphere. Couldnt be simpler.”
It is reasonable.
And Clint needs to study it to understand why his complaints that climate science is doing it all wrong are bogus.
…again, we see that Little Willy is incapable of accepting when I write a perfectly reasonable, correct comment, such as my 12:34 PM post from 17th February. He has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.
…time to ignore Graham D. Warners comments in this thread.
…we see that Little Willy is incapable of accepting when I write a perfectly reasonable, correct comment, such as my 12:34 PM post from 17th February. He has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.
…to ignore Graham D. Warners comments in this thread.
…see that Little Willy is incapable of accepting when I write a perfectly reasonable, correct comment, such as my 12:34 PM post from 17th February. He has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.
…ignore Graham D. Warners comments in this thread.
…that Little Willy is incapable of accepting when I write a perfectly reasonable, correct comment, such as my 12:34 PM post from 17th February. He has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.
Better to ignore Graham D. Warner’s comments in this thread.
Puffman indeed missed “240 because of a latitude weighting of the solar radiation based on a squared cosine of the incidence angle on the sphere,” and that’s that.
Little Willy must be lonely, or bored right now. He’s desperate for attention on both threads, this one and the one below.
Better to ignore Graham D. Warner’s comments in this thread.
Astute readers might follow along:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1627789
See what I mean?
…to ignore Graham D. Warners comments in this thread.
Astute readers might follow along:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1627789
Any really astute readers would want to follow along from the beginning:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622870
…ignore Graham D. Warners comments in this thread.
Astute readers might follow along where we actually are:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1628265
All discussions are over.
…gnore Graham D. Warners comments in this thread.
Astute readers might follow along where all this actually started:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622801
Little Willy baits for more on both threads.
…nore Graham D. Warner‘s comments in this thread.
Astute readers might notice how Sky Dragon cranks suck at the S-B Law:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1628352
More baiting and goading.
…ore Graham D. Warner’s comments in this thread.
Baiting and goading would be trolling, of course.
Clint R
The Earth does NOT receive 960 W/m^2 after albedo.
You do not understand effective temperature. You DO not divide the 240 W/m^2 by 4. Why you think this is logical is only something you can figure out. It is so illogical that I am not able to follow this line of reasoning.
Your flaw is you do not have enough math background to calculate things on your own.
I can help you if you are able to follow, not sure you can.
At One AU the Earth will receive 1361 Watts/m^2
The total amount of power received by the Earth will be the area of circle the same radius as Earth. It does not receive more than this.
The area of the Earth receiving circle is 1.275×10^14 m^2
Radius of Earth in meters = 6,371,000 meters
Circle area that will be total possible solar input (pi)(r^2)
Total Power Earth receives from the Sun = 1.739×10^17 Watts. Of that amount only about 70% is absorbed. The total watts the Earth surface receives that is available = 1.2175×10^17 Watts.
To get an effective temperature you equally spread this energy over every square meter of Earth Surface.
Approximate area of Earth’s surface is 5.10×10^14 m^2.
1.2175×10^17 Watts/5.10×10^14 m^2 = 238.7 W/m^2. The 240 will probably come from a different albedo or rounding issues.
That is where the 240 comes from. You would not take that amount and then divide it again by 4 to come up with 60 Watts/m^2 and I do not understand why you think this is a valid calculating step.
I give you the math, you won’t understand it. You still don’t.
Norman,
You are quite mad.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, but you refuse to accept that fact.
Try describing the GHE. I’ll bet you fail.
Loser.
Noman, your math is wrong because you use the wrong starting value. Everyone uses 960 W/m². That’s the average solar constant adjusted for the average albedo. Everyone accepts that value. Your cult accepts it. Your cult applies it to the imaginary sphere and gets the “240 W/m²” and “255K” nonsense.
So, you’re wrong, as usual.
You’re trying to claim Earth only receives 240 W/m². With emissivity 0.9, its temperature would then be 185K, emitting 60 W/m². The imaginary sphere ABSORBS 960 W/m², but EMITS 240 W/m².
You don’t understand any of this.
“to the imaginary sphere ”
The Earth is spherical.
Nothing imaginary about this calculation. Just ordinary geometry and arithmetic.
The ignoramus Clint offers no sensible alternative.
Your cult’s blackbody sphere is imaginary, child Nate. There is no “sensible alternative” for reality.
Try to pay attemtion.
Attemtion! Attemtion! Puffman wants attemtion!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn follows Graham D. Warner‘s lead.
“There is no sensible alternative for reality.”
And there we have it.
“Your cults blackbody sphere is imaginary”
Blackbody? No, he didnt claim emissivity = 1, did he?
So what is imaginary? The Earth is not a sphere?
OMG.
Nate,
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Are you still trying to insinuate that a GHE made the Earth hotter, or are you not quite that silly?
Just keep quoting me exactly, Nate. At first science may be confusing for you, but in years who knows? You might start to understand….
The nothing-to-add tag team, adds background noise.
Clint R
A flat circular object in space at Earth orbit with radius equal to Earth’s would receive 960 W/m^2. However this is not the Earth.
I do not think you understand effective temperature. It is a conceptual idea, a starting point. Not meant to be the real world just a conceptual one.
So in your case with the 960 value (the circular object would absorb about 70& of the incoming solar energy) to get the effective temperature you would spread the energy over every square meter of the surface of a sphere. The surface of a sphere is 4 times larger than the circular object. So to get the conceptual effective temperature you would divide the 960 by 4 so that each square meter of a sphere receives the same energy which gets you to 240 W/m^2.
You can’t escape logic and rational thinking.
Sorry Norman, but you’re just desperately rambling, again.
Earth is considered by your cult to be absorbing 960 W/m². Period. Full stop.
The imaginary sphere absorbs 960 W/m², and EMITS 240 W/m².
Even bdgwx and Bindi understand the basics.
Sorry Puffman, but you’re just failing to grasp the word “balance” in “energy-balance model”
A watt per meter does not mean much unless you know how many meters there is to cover, and if you mind your units properly the energy in ought to equal the energy out.
Go back to school, or stick to IT menial work.
Flux values (W/m^2) don’t have to balance, so long as energy values (J) balance. If the irradiance flux (W/m^2) is received over a different surface area (m^2) than the radiant exitance flux (W/m^2) leaves from, energy (J) can balance even when the flux values (W/m^2) don’t.
The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy.
Alternatively, the surface emitting energy is four times bigger than the surface receiving energy.
In images:
https://youtu.be/GNcFjFmqEc8?si=rq0IDPC9-sR3L9zY
So, disk = 960 W/m^2
Lit hemisphere = 480 W/m^2
Sphere = 240 W/m^2
Little Willy should agree with Clint R.
Gaslighting Graham always seems to forget that the hemisphere, when corrected by applying Lambert’s Law, represents a disc.
The path of the Moon Dragon crank is one of bad logic and bad geometry. How can we then expect them to reform physics?
The hemisphere has double the surface area of the disk, and the sphere has double the surface area of the hemisphere.
Little Willy has now expressed agreement with Clint R.
The total amount of power received by the Earth will be the area of circle the same radius as Earth. It does not receive more than this.
Norman is right.
This:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1625011
Plus this:
“The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy”
Equals:
“The imaginary sphere absorbs 960 W/m², and EMITS 240 W/m².”
Little Willy has eternally agreed with Clint R, whether he understands that, or not. All a matter of permanent internet record.
Bliss!
NoWillard says:
”The total amount of power received by the Earth will be the area of circle the same radius as Earth. It does not receive more than this.
Norman is right.”
—————————
Not exactly. The earth is 12,756.2km
the atmosphere stretches up to 10,000km
Thus the disk size of the earth system is 268,242,160 sqkm
The terrestrial disk size is only 40,680,160 sqkm
Of course the abs-orp-tion rate of the atmosphere is different than the terrestrial disk but it does add to total energy absorbed. This is especially relevant to those that think upper atmosphere abs-orp-tion is key to the GHE with sensitivities of that being in their mind set to 3 to 1.
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/atmosphere/
[s]Lets see the atmosphere absorbs about 78 or 67 watts of sunlight depending upon which version of Trenberth you choose. At 3 to 1 sensitivity, that gives somewhere between 201 to 234w/m2 measured effect at surface after feedbacks.
Gee thats the whole enchilada!! [/s]
Gill goes full denial, and then throws a squirrel into the mix.
LOL!
Oh, and Graham D. Warner just refuted Puffman’s claim that the Earth only emits 60 W/m.
Great news!
Willard says:
Gill goes full denial, and then throws a squirrel into the mix.
LOL!
————————–
Willard obviously doesn’t get the [s] [/s] code.
Gill obviously interjects sweet nothings.
“The total amount of power received by the Earth will be the area of circle the same radius as Earth. It does not receive more than this.
Norman is right.”
Norman is not in disagreement with Clint R with that statement. Power is watts (W). To get to flux (W/m^2), you have to divide by the surface area. Norman says:
“Total Power Earth receives from the Sun = 1.739×10^17 Watts. Of that amount only about 70% is absorbed. The total watts the Earth surface receives that is available = 1.2175×10^17 Watts”
Then, his next step:
“…you equally spread this energy over every square meter of Earth Surface.”
That is where Norman disagrees with you and Clint R. You have said:
“The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy.”
So you would be spreading the energy received (that total power (W) value) over one quarter of the Earth’s surface, getting a value of approximately 960 W/m^2 for received. Then the surface emitting energy would be every square metre of Earth surface, so you would repeat the calculation Norman did and get approximately 240 W/m^2, but for the emitted flux.
960 W/m^2 in, 240 W/m^2 out. By your own words.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again to start another silly food fight.
The spread Norman was alluding to refers to the division by 4 that he still stumbles over after more that five years. To make the system reach equilibrium, the surface over which flux is converted into energy needs to be unified. *Only then* can it be converted into temperature.
Sky Dragon cranks wish to sidestep that transformation and turn fluxes directly into temperature. To make such a bonehead mistake is not a way to revise physics.
Little Willy tries to run from his own words:
“The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy.“
but I’m not going to let him. Norman is treating “the surface receiving energy” as being the entire Earth’s surface. He made that perfectly clear. Thus, he is treating “the surface receiving energy” as being the same size as “the surface emitting energy”. 240 W/m^2 in, 240 W/m^2 out.
If you treat it instead as Little Willy suggested, you get 960 W/m^2 in, and 240 W/m^2 out.
Graham D. Warner tries to ignore Puffman’s blunder:
[PUFFMAN’S BLUNDER] Youre trying to claim Earth only receives 240 W/m^2. With emissivity 0.9, its temperature would then be 185K, emitting 60 W/m^2.
There are two mistakes. One is basic geometry. Another is basic physics.
"Oh, and Graham D. Warner just refuted Puffman’s claim that the Earth only emits 60 W/m."
Clint R was not actually claiming that the Earth only emits 60 W/m^2. He was just saying that the emitted flux value is a quarter of the received flux value (960 W/m^2 in, 240 W/m^2 out), as far as he (and you) see it. So, if the received flux value really was 240 W/m^2, then the emitted flux value would have to be only 60 W/m^2. At least, that’s my interpretation of what he said. He can correct me if I’m wrong.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Puffman indeed said that Norman was trying to claim Earth only receives 240 W/m^2, and that its temperature would then be 185K, emitting 60 W/m^2.
Not only was this a lie, but it makes neither algebraic nor geometric sense.
Little Willy couldn’t understand my clear explanation. No surprise.
Little Willy couldn’t understand my clear explanation. No surprise.
Graham D. Warner refuses to acknowledge Puffman’s lie.
He also refuses to correct his elementary mistakes.
What else is new?
Clint R has claimed:
"The imaginary sphere absorbs 960 W/m², and EMITS 240 W/m²."
I have shown that Little Willy agrees, with his own statements. He can’t escape that, so he redirects to something else. Anything I say on that "something else", he’ll automatically reject, so as to continue the diversion.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
When will he correct his “Norman is treating “the surface receiving energy” as being the entire Earth’s surface”?
Norman made himself perfectly clear, Little Willy:
“…you equally spread this energy [total available power] over every square meter of Earth Surface.”
You’ve never understood the basics, and you’re not about to start now.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again:
Reading his equations suffices to see that this is untrue.
But then Graham never reads equations…
Lol, if Norman himself said I was correct about what he was saying, you would still claim I was wrong. Pointless talking to you, always.
Graham D. Warner still does not get it:
The amount of energy an object receives does not change whether it’s an hemisphere, a sphere or a disc.
It is to get an effective temperature that the equation gets simplified to a temperature.
The effective temperature depends on how much the object emits.
Failure to understand that is why Sky Dragon cranks keep blathering about flux.
Yes, the Earth emits 240 W/m^2 and thus its effective temperature is 255 K. Nobody is saying otherwise.
That’s the part that Norman himself gets confused about. Total power in equals total power out, but he is spreading the total power in over the whole Earth’s surface and claiming the effective temperature is based on that. No, as you say, it is based on what is emitted.
You and Clint R have the Earth receiving 960 W/m^2 and emitting 240 W/m^2, Norman has the Earth receiving 240 W/m^2 and presumably emitting 240 W/m^2 (although he never mentions a calculation for what it emits, we can assume he would do the same calculation as he does for what is received).
The Earth’s effective temperature is just an abstract mathematical calculation, mind.
The only reason to estimate the “flux” from a hemisphere using an energy balance model is to get the effective temperature of a hemisphere. Which is what Joe did in his Magnum Opus. Something that escaped Graham D. Warner for a long while, and something he still tries to portray as reasonable or relevant.
Joe does the same in his posters. He shows the effective temperature of a hemisphere, and presents it as the effective temperature of *his* model of the Earth. Forgetting about the hidden part of the Earth that basically never receives any energy. A model with the side of the Earth never receiving energy is so much more plausible to Sky Dragon cranks. As long as nobody notices, the con survives.
Those who want to model the Earth will take the geometry of the Earth into consideration to get the effective temperature of the Earth. Not just a hemisphere.
And they’ll use a disc to model the part that receives light from the Sun, because that’s a basic geometry fact. Not a geometry fact for “flat Earth.” Because that’s a basic geometry fact for a sphere.
Why are you talking about Postma? I haven’t been. You’re wrong, of course, Postma agrees that the effective temperature of the Earth is 255 K. And, nobody is talking about the flux from a hemisphere. The flux received by the lit hemisphere would be 480 W/m^2.
However, you have made it clear that you agree with Clint R that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2:
“The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy.“
"…to get the effective temperature of a hemisphere. Which is what Joe did in his Magnum Opus."
No, Postma calculated that a 480 W/m^2 input would equate to a blackbody temperature of about 303 K or 30 C, and noted that’s what a surface could warm to if exposed to that flux. Same as he calculated that a 960 W/m^2 input would equate to a blackbody temperature of about 361 K or 88 C, and noted that’s what a surface could warm to if exposed to that flux. He was not "getting the effective temperature of a hemisphere".
"And they’ll use a disc to model the part that receives light from the Sun, because that’s a basic geometry fact. Not a geometry fact for “flat Earth.” Because that’s a basic geometry fact for a sphere."
Still misrepresenting the "flat Earth" jab from Postma? His "flat Earth" comments relate to this idea that the incoming flux should be treated as being 240 W/m^2. That would be a spatial and temporal average, and, as such, it is averaging out night and day. His remark is meant to convey that such averaging out of night and day, as if the solar input was this constant low 240 W/m^2 at any one location on the planet, treats the Earth as though it were a flat plane, with everything on the side facing the Sun, continuously illuminated with this artificially low 240 W/m^2. Rather than being a rotating globe, with parts of the planet receiving in excess of 960 W/m^2 during the day, and nothing at night.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Yes, Joe’s con rests on calculating the effective temperature of a hemisphere and presenting it as a model for the Earth.
Yes, Joe explained his con in his Magnum Opus:
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/joe-s-con.png
And no, Norman does not misunderstand anything about power.
"Yes, Joe’s con rests on calculating the effective temperature of a hemisphere and presenting it as a model for the Earth."
False, as explained.
"And no, Norman does not misunderstand anything about power."
Norman’s misunderstanding was to spread the total power in over the whole Earth’s surface and calculate an effective temperature based on that, when he should have been spreading the total power out over the whole Earth’s surface and calculating an effective temperature based on that. As you said, the effective temperature is based on what the Earth emits, not what it receives.
The main thing is, you’ve agreed with Clint R that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2, and emits 240 W/m^2, and that will of course never be forgotten.
Norman is correct, Puffman is pulling his leg once more, and Graham D. Warner gaslights again. Fluxes balance when applied to the same surface. The surface that receives the energy from the Sun is four times smaller than the Earth’s whole surface.
The whole surface emits energy to space, not just one hemisphere as Joe’s con has it. There is nothing else behind the Sky Dragon cranks’ gimmick. “But second by second” and “but the Earth rotates” won’t change these physical facts.
"Norman is correct"
Norman’s calculations are correct, so long as you understand that it should apply to the total power out, and not the total power in. The Earth emits 240 W/m^2, as everyone agrees, and the Earth’s effective temperature is based on that.
"Puffman is pulling his leg once more, and Graham D. Warner gaslights again."
False accusations.
"Fluxes balance when applied to the same surface. The surface that receives the energy from the Sun is four times smaller than the Earth’s whole surface."
Thus, the fluxes won’t balance. You are again agreeing with Clint R that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2, and emits 240 W/m^2.
"The whole surface emits energy to space, not just one hemisphere as Joe’s con has it."
Postma indeed shows the whole Earth’s surface emitting energy to space, and has that as 240 W/m^2 emitted. Same as everybody else. The difference is in what he has as the input. Not the output.
> Norman’s calculations are correct
Correct, as I already showed.
***
> Thus, the fluxes wont balance.
False, as I already showed.
***
> Postma indeed shows the whole Earths surface emitting energy to space
False, as I already showed.
***
All this because Sky Dragon cranks never heard of normalization.
Little Willy, if the surface a flux is received on is four times smaller than the surface the flux leaves from, and the total power received is equal to the total power emitted, then the fluxes will not be equal. The irradiance flux will be four times larger than the radiant exitance flux. You have not shown that to be wrong, because it isn’t wrong.
Postma has the flux emitted from Earth as 240 W/m^2, which is the whole Earth’s surface emitting energy. It is right there in his diagrams, e.g:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2023/09/which-one-2.jpg
Joe Postma’s arguments are red herrings intended to mislead the Ignorati. And judging by DREMTs comments, he has been effectively misled.
“No, Postma calculated that a 480 W/m^2 input would equate to a blackbody temperature of about 303 K or 30 C, and noted thats what a surface could warm to if exposed to that flux.”
It could only warm to that if the Earth stopped turning.
But of course the periphery of the hemisphere, even at the equator, would be receiving much lower flux, and would end up very COLD.
Hence: this is a meaningless result, a big red herring.
Much more useful to analyze the T produced by the time-averaged input flux.
Graham D. Warner shows a 2023 poster in which Joe estimates the continuous hemispherical input as being 30C. How does he get that number? Simple: he uses the lit hemisphere as emitter!
But then how does he get 240 W/m^2 on the unlit side? All the solar input has been processed on the other hemisphere!
Joe’s fraud is right there for everyone by Sky Dragon cranks to see.
> by Sky Dragon cranks
… but Sky Dragon cranks
Wherever I comment, and whatever I’m talking about…Nate will appear. No idea what he’s said, but all I’ve done on this sub-thread is to correct Little Willy’s misunderstandings about fluxes, and misrepresentations of Clint R and Postma’s arguments. Every word I’ve said on this thread has been correct in that regard, to the best of my knowledge. I asked Clint R to correct me if I’d got what he meant wrong. I can’t ask Postma to correct me if I’ve got what he meant wrong, but I’m fairly confident I have correctly represented him.
"Simple: he uses the lit hemisphere as emitter!"
Wrong. It’s the input of 480 W/m^2 that he’s converting to a temperature. He is not using "the lit hemisphere as emitter".
"But then how does he get 240 W/m^2 on the unlit side? All the solar input has been processed on the other hemisphere!"
It’s not "240 W/m^2 on the unlit side". If you read more carefully, you will see that it’s 240 W/m^2 as the output from the entire sphere. Exactly as I said. You’ll even note that he writes that 255 K is the associated effective temperature of the Earth.
Whenever Graham D. Warner “spreads” lies or false accusations, pun intended, he’s getting pushback. Whenever he gets caught promoting an obvious con, he’s getting pushback.
Graham D. Warner does that a lot.
Yet his repertoire is very smol. This week it’s the energy-balance model. Last week was the green plates. A month ago it was the “orbit without spin” crap.
And when he does not have enough attention, he starts PSTing threads.
Graham D. Warner, forever the victim.
> Its the input of 480 W/m^2 that hes converting to a temperature.
This is so wrong and has been corrected so many times as to be laughable.
First, 480 W/m^2 isn’t an input. The input, in terms of flux, is twice that, 960 W/m^2, when corrected for albedo.
Second, he “spreads” that input over a hemisphere. Without correcting for the angle of incidence. Joe still does not get that a sphere and a hemisphere receives light on the same surface:
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/solar-disc-surfacearea-taylor.png
Third, he “converts” that flux by hiding the algebraic transformation that would show that he “spreads” the input onto an output. He needs energy in and out to balance, just as everybody else. In fact he shows how he does that in his Magnus Opus, after which he gets the same numbers as everybody else.
And it is by double accounting that he can get the Earth to emit both 480 W/m^2 and 240 W/m^2. The only choices he has are these:
C1. 480 W/m^2 from the lit side + 0 W/m^2 from the unlit side
C2. 240 W/m^2 from both sides.
He can’t have 480 W/m^2 + 240 W/m^2.
All this to con Sky Dragon cranks like Graham D. Warner.
“all Ive done on this sub-thread is to correct Little Willys misunderstandings about fluxes”
by regurgitating, again, the horrible arguments of Joe Postma.
Whenever someone defers to Joe Postma’s authority, a rebuttal is required.
.
Little Willy, you are the one getting pushback…from me…because you keep falsely accusing and misrepresenting. Endlessly.
The 960 W/m^2 is also on the diagram. He shows that there is an area of the Earth’s surface receiving that flux. The 480 W/m^2 is a spatial average over the whole lit hemisphere. Received, not emitted. It actually doesn’t matter if you go through the maths to take “angle of incidence” into account, or take a simple average by dividing the total power received by the area of the hemisphere; the result is the same in either case. You get 480 W/m^2 for the average.
He is not saying that the Earth emits 480 W/m^2. He is quite clear in pointing out that the Earth emits 240 W/m^2, and that this leaves from the entire sphere.
“Whenever he gets caught promoting an obvious con, he’s getting pushback.“
You brought up Postma. Not me. Have I even said his arguments are correct? Have I even defended them? No, I have simply corrected your misrepresentation of them. If anything, you are the one promoting Postma. You won’t shut up about him.
> He is not saying that the Earth emits 480 W/m^2.
And so Graham D. Warner still clings on the idea that he can get a temperature by looking at input fluxes alone. Yet Puffman still harps that they can’t add!
Norman is right: Sky Dragon cranks have no idea how effective temperature is established.
"And so Graham D. Warner still clings on the idea that he can get a temperature by looking at input fluxes alone."
Incorrect. I’m not commenting on it, either way. What I am doing is instructing you that Postma’s argument is 480 W/m^2 received has the potential to raise a blackbody surface to 303 K, or 30 C. He is not saying the Earth emits 480 W/m^2.
"Norman is right: Sky Dragon cranks have no idea how effective temperature is established."
Except that’s obviously not true. Postma states the Earth’s effective temperature is 255 K. It’s right there on the diagram. It’s the blackbody temperature that corresponds to 240 W/m^2 emitted from the whole Earth’s surface.
> 480 W/m^2 received has the potential to raise a blackbody surface to 303 K, or 30 C.
And now Graham D. Warner goes for pure obfuscation. Joe gets 30C because he takes the hemisphere as the emitting surface.
I already showed how the calculation works:
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/joe-s-con.png
A temperature obtains when emission and reception reach an equilibrium. The whole idea that we must separate input and output makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Graham learned nothing from what Gator was saying years ago.
And this is why his 303K comes at the expense of having to conceal a 2,7K from the other hemisphere.
"Joe gets 30C because he takes the hemisphere as the emitting surface."
No, he doesn’t. It even says at your link he’s talking about a "heating input".
Little Willy, there are parts of the Earth’s surface receiving in excess of 960 W/m^2 for periods of the day. You don’t think there is enough time for the surface there to reach equilibrium? The only reasons the surface there won’t get up to 361 K or 88 C is because it’s not a blackbody, and because it’s also losing energy through conduction/evaporation/convection. It’s not due to not having enough time to reach an equilibrium with the input because the Earth is rotating!
"It’s not due to not having enough time to reach an equilibrium with the input because the Earth is rotating!"
Well, except in the case of the oceans, I should add. That cuts both ways though. They don’t warm quickly, they don’t cool quickly either.
… and here comes another red herring from Graham D. Warner.
An effective temperature refers to an equilibrium state in which input equals output:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
No output without an input. And no input without an output. Hence why space is so cold.
Fluxes don’t stand alone. They need to hit and emit somewhere. And it is by normalizing the surface that we can estimate the number of watts on each square meter of that surface.
Joe is running a con, and Graham D. Warner is a mark.
"An effective temperature refers to…blah blah blah"
The Earth’s effective temperature is 255 K, as Postma agrees. We’re not even talking about Earth’s effective temperature here. You don’t listen, can’t learn, and aren’t even interested enough to try if you could.
"Joe is running a con, and Graham D. Warner is a mark."
I’m not even defending Postma. I’m simply trying to get you to not misrepresent his arguments. I’d rather not even talk about him at all, but you insist.
The ideas being promoted here, that one CANNOT use the time-average input flux of 240 W/m2, because only one hemisphere is illuminated at a time with 480 W/M^2 come directly from Joe Postma.
The notion that 480 W/m^2 should be used because it gives a higher calculated surface temperature without invoking a GHE, comes from Joe Postma, and is ridiculous, since the Earth spins.
This is what we’re responding to:
"Sorry Norman, but you’re just desperately rambling, again.
Earth is considered by your cult to be absorbing 960 W/m². Period. Full stop.
The imaginary sphere absorbs 960 W/m², and EMITS 240 W/m².
Even bdgwx and Bindi understand the basics."
I don’t know how we get so off-topic, but it sure as heck isn’t my intention. I did not bring up Postma.
Long story short, Little Willy jumped in to attack Clint R, as always, but ended up expressing agreement with him that "the imaginary sphere absorbs 960 W/m^2, and EMITS 240 W/m^2". Everything else has just been an unnecessary diversion. Little Willy is expert at diverting discussions when he gets caught out. Hence why the comments at his "Mind Your Units" article ended up running into the hundreds, despite most of the issues with the article never being fixed.
Graham D. Warner is gaslighting again:
[GRAHAM] Joe calculated that a 480 W/m^2 input would equate to a blackbody temperature of about 303 K or 30 C
[WIKI] The effective temperature of a body such as a star or planet is the temperature of a black body that would emit the same total amount of electromagnetic radiation.
[GRAHAM] We’re not even talking about Earth’s effective temperature here.
The effective temperature of a planet or star is one thing. It’s an abstract mathematical concept.
That fluxes relate to blackbody temperatures is another thing. It’s called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
[Yes, I know that calculating the effective temperature of a planet or star involves using the SB Law, but hopefully the point was clear].
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:
[NORMAN] To get an effective temperature you equally spread this energy over every square meter of Earth Surface.
[JOE] When you post the climate science method of using flat Earth for solar input (as opposed to just getting Earths average flux output and effective temperature)
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] We’re not even talking about Earths effective temperature here.
Norman got one important thing wrong. The "this energy" he was referring to was (according to him) the incoming total power. Whereas the Earth’s effective temperature is based on what’s emitted. The outgoing total power should be spread over every square metre of the Earth’s surface, and then the Earth’s effective temperature can be based on that.
There have been different parts to this discussion, Little Willy. At one point we were talking about effective temperature. Then we moved on from that. You’ve got to try to keep up.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Norman got nothing wrong there. The energy being emitted equals what is being received. That’s why we call it an energy balance model.
In that model, the Earth can’t receive more than it emits. Nor can it emit more than it receives.
To evaluate how much energy we’re talking about, we need things like the size of the object and the area over which the energy is received. Only then can we talk about the SB Law or temperature.
Which is how it should be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
An abject gaslighter.
You pointed out Norman’s mistake yourself, Little Willy:
"The effective temperature depends on how much the object emits."
He took the total power in, and spread it over the entire Earth’s surface. Should have been the total power out. The result is the same, of course, 240 W/m^2. However, that’s what the Earth emits.
As you and Clint R assert; the Earth receives 960 W/m^2, and emits 240 W/m^2.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Norman is referring to what the Earth receives overall. It corresponds to what it emits, which is why he says that you equally spread this energy over every square meter of Earth Surface.
And nothing I said contradicts it. In fact, nothing Puffman said does either, except his silly 60 W/m^2, which Graham D. Warner keeps trying to ignore.
Pointless talking to you. Norman would most likely agree that what I’ve said is correct, and would take the minor correction on the chin because it’s no big deal. He did spread the total power in over the whole Earth’s surface, rather than the total power out. Obviously the total power in and total power out are going to be the same, in any case, so it’s a really minor, trivial point that it’s not worth losing any sleep over.
In which case, Little Willy will continue to gnash his teeth over it for the rest of his life…
I explained the 60 W/m^2 thing to the best of my ability, and asked Clint R to correct me if I had it wrong. He never did, so…
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
What Norman said is quite clear to those who can grok basic algebra:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622848
As for Sky Dragon cranks, who knows what they can grok. In fact, who cares? They will keep gaslighting.
"Norman says:
February 15, 2024 at 10:43 PM"
That’s the comment I’ve been referring to. As you know. The start of this entire thread. So, of course you divert to a different comment from a different thread, hoping to distract readers from my utter evisceration of every single thing you’ve said on this thread. Then you accuse me of gaslighting. Funny.
Puffman’s first mistake:
This is so confused as to be ridiculous. His second:
This is false.
Oh, and let readers know that Norman’s comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622870
is a response to this comment by Puffman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1623397
Not that this will prevent Graham D. Warner from trying to pretend that he’s the toastmaster who decides what is relevant or whatnot!
As if Puffman never pulled that trick before anyway…
…and yet you have expressed agreement with him, in your own words:
“The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy.“
Too funny. Thank you for the entertainment.
[ME, A LOWLY PEASANT] Sorry Puffman, but you’re just failing to grasp the word “balance” in “energy-balance model.” A watt per meter does not mean much unless you know how many meters there is to cover, and if you mind your units properly the energy in ought to equal the energy out.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER, A PURE GENIUS] yet you have expressed agreement with him, in your own words
Yes, even in your first response to him, that you have quoted there, you were actually kind of making his point for him. If you know how many metres there are to cover, and you mind your units properly, then when:
“The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy.”
and the total power in equals the total power out, the irradiance flux will be four times greater than the radiant exitance flux.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
He is projecting a surface in Norman’s comment that isn’t there. Just like he has tried to pretend that Joe’s con did not rest on an implicit surface, i.e. the hemisphere. When both side of an energy-balance equation are normalized, fluxes balance. Norman did not commit the mistake Puffman pretends he made.
Graham D. Warner will soldier on, come what may.
Norman’s comment:
“At One AU the Earth will receive 1361 Watts/m^2
The total amount of power received by the Earth will be the area of circle the same radius as Earth. It does not receive more than this.
The area of the Earth receiving circle is 1.275×10^14 m^2
Radius of Earth in meters = 6,371,000 meters
Circle area that will be total possible solar input (pi)(r^2)
Total Power Earth receives from the Sun = 1.739×10^17 Watts. Of that amount only about 70% is absorbed. The total watts the Earth surface receives that is available = 1.2175×10^17 Watts.
To get an effective temperature you equally spread this energy over every square meter of Earth Surface.
Approximate area of Earth’s surface is 5.10×10^14 m^2.
1.2175×10^17 Watts/5.10×10^14 m^2 = 238.7 W/m^2. The 240 will probably come from a different albedo or rounding issues.”
Norman is spreading the total power in over the whole Earth’s surface. Yet, he should be spreading the total power out over the whole Earth’s surface, since the effective temperature is based on what the Earth emits. If you spread the total power in over a quarter of the Earth’s surface, as you suggest, you will get approximately 960 W/m^2 for the irradiance flux.
QED.
“The main thing is, youve agreed with Clint R that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2….”
Sure, if the Earth were a flat disk with the same albedo, it would receive 960 W/m^2.
But not the real Earth.
I see Nate couldn’t resist commenting again…presumably attacking Clint R and Little Willy’s viewpoint that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2. How will Little Willy defend himself from Nate’s attack? Readers await his devastating rebuttal with baited breath…
I see that Graham D. Warner finally realizes that Norman did not say what Puffman thought he was saying.
After his realization that Joe indeed “spreads” the light on the whole hemisphere to get the effective temperature of the hemisphere, that’s great success!
Ah, so Little Willy has just reached the “lying” stage. Whereas, I can’t help it if Little Willy’s own words confirm his agreement with Clint R that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2, Little Willy is just going to lie and claim I agree with things that I don’t. The rational discussion is over, then, astute readers will have already made up their minds.
That’s that. No need to continue.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again, as has never left the lying stage.
Joe indeed “spreads” the light the Earth receives onto the hemisphere:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2023/09/which-one-2.jpg
Check the 480 W/m^2 is right under the “Continual Hemispherical System Input.” This is half the “Continuous Zenith System Input.”
So Joe divides by 2.
Moreover, notice how Joe gets a temperature at each stage: 121C, 87,5C, 30C, etc.
Also notice that Joe does not tell us what would the temperature of the other side of the Earth under “that” model. This is just the same energy balance model, but cut in half.
Therefore it is quite clear that Joe and Norman are doing the same thing. There’s no other way to get an effective temperature with a one-equation model.
QED.
Notice that Postma has the emitted flux from the entire Earth’s surface clearly labelled as 240 W/m^2, and makes sure it is known that this is the Earth’s effective temperature, ruling out Little Willy’s claims that any of the other temperatures referred to are meant to be the Earth’s effective temperature according to Postma. Little Willy’s confusion is without end. Of course, it’s all deliberate.
Little Willy seems to think that the "dark side" of the Earth in the diagram should be labelled with a temperature of 3 K, completely oblivious to the fact that the Earth rotates, and has oceans and an atmosphere in any case. Obviously, at the North Pole, you can be without Sunlight for over a month and the temperatures do not drop even remotely as low as 3 K. We previously discussed that and established the temperatures at the North Pole during this time were maintained by air and ocean currents.
What we need to determine in this shell game is why CO2 via allegedly warming the surface would cause a colder stratosphere and
why if the sun got brighter and warmed the surface it would not cause a colder stratosphere.
Seems to me both would due that via increasing water vapor in the atmosphere.
But Post Normal Science theorizes the stakes are way too high to find out scientifically. . .and thus freedom must be curtailed.
You guys sound like you are aspiring to the rhetoric of that 1934 paper hanger.
Readers will notice that Joe indeed added a lot of emitters:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2023/09/which-one-2.jpg
Each time he adds a temperature, he adds an emitter.
No emitter, no temperature. Cf. S-B.
QED.
> What we need to determine in this shell game is
Ze Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
” attacking Clint R and Little Willys viewpoint that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2″
The charade gets sillier, as DREMT reads my posts and responds to them when he feels like he has an ANSWER.
Thus, on all other occasions he lacks one.
The point is this entire thread was built on DREMT coming to the defense of Clint, even when gets stuff all wrong!
“What we need to determine in this shell game is why CO2 via allegedly warming the surface would cause a colder stratosphere”
You not we. Science has understood this since Manabe and Wetherald 1967.
“But Post Normal Science theorizes the stakes are way too high to find out scientifically. . .and thus freedom must be curtailed.”
OMG
It couldn’t possibly be an issue of Bill being uninformed on some of the science facts determined over the last 40 years.
Thus it must be the case that the science is no longer normal…. and out to get us!
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Little Willy’s nonsense has already been debunked:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1627553
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
He lies about what I criticized in Puffman’s comment.
He lies about Joe’s con.
How low can he go?
I haven’t lied at all. I’m sorry, but your own comments, in the context that they were delivered, express agreement with Clint R. After I had said:
"Flux values (W/m^2) don’t have to balance, so long as energy values (J) balance. If the irradiance flux (W/m^2) is received over a different surface area (m^2) than the radiant exitance flux (W/m^2) leaves from, energy (J) can balance even when the flux values (W/m^2) don’t."
You responded:
"The surface receiving energy is four times smaller than the surface emitting energy."
There is literally no other way I could have taken it besides you were agreeing that the flux values wouldn’t balance, and that the irradiance flux would be four times larger than the radiant exitance flux. 960 W/m^2 in, 240 W/m^2 out. You even said, later on:
"The input, in terms of flux, is twice that, 960 W/m^2"!
You always demand that others are held accountable for their own words, regardless of context or without even considering that they may have changed their minds since they wrote them. When it comes to your own words though, it’s not quite the same story, is it?
I haven’t lied about what Postma is saying. I’ve tried to correct your misrepresentations to the best of my ability. That’s all there is to it.
Graham D. Warner is stuck in another ratiocination loop.
I explained his difficulties with Norman’s comment here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1625725
Understanding this comment should be enough to get Joe’s con.
No emitter. No temperature. Cf. S-B’s law.
QED.
"The spread Norman was alluding to refers to the division by 4 that he still stumbles over after more that five years."
No stumbling here, I understand the division by 4 perfectly well, thanks. In fact, I had to demonstrate it to you with equations, and you still didn’t understand it. I grok Norman’s comment with absolute, crystal clarity. Half of his calculations are in fact what I did myself a couple of years ago. The only difference is that I divided the total power in by the surface area of the hemisphere. Total power out was divided by the surface area of the entire sphere. Oh, and I used 1,370 W/m^2 for the solar constant.
"To make the system reach equilibrium, the surface over which flux is converted into energy needs to be unified. *Only then* can it be converted into temperature."
This is just word salad.
"Sky Dragon cranks wish to sidestep that transformation and turn fluxes directly into temperature. To make such a bonehead mistake is not a way to revise physics."
The temperatures on the diagram besides the Earth’s effective temperature of 255 K are just illustrative of the fact that the Sun can potentially warm areas of the Earth’s surface a lot higher than 255 K, which happens all the time. It’s really just a reminder of the heating power of the Sun. It seems some people think Postma is saying that because the lit hemisphere receives 480 W/m^2 continuously, there’s no need for any GHE because that means the Earth’s effective temperature is 303 K, or 30 C. That is absolutely not what he’s saying. If you actually look closer at the poster, his arguments against the GHE begin in the lapse rate section and on the graphic at the right hand side of the one we’ve been looking at. It stems from the fact that the Earth’s effective temperature is 255 K, but he argues that this 255 K should not be compared with the Earth’s actual ground surface itself…and on it continues. I’m not going to go through every single one of his arguments, you can find them out for yourself. Even more for you to misrepresent!
Graham D. Warner lies about what Norman said. He lies about what Puffman says. He lies about me. And he lies about Joe’s con.
The Stefan-Bolzmann law describes the intensity of the thermal radiation emitted by matter in terms of that matter’s temperature. No surface that emits energy, no temperature possible. Joe gets his temperature by varying his emitters.
Graham D. Warner may never get that. Not my problem.
Let him soldier on.
“Graham D. Warner lies about what Norman said. He lies about what Puffman says. He lies about me. And he lies about Joe’s con.”
Sorry, but you don’t have the right to continually falsely accuse me of lying. GFY.
Graham D. Warner’s lies continue.
The total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s temperature.
QED.
Little Willy is an abusive troll.
QED.
Graham D. Warner is a pathological liar who, besides having mental health issues, does not understand the StefanBoltzmann law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Of course I understand the SB Law, Little Willy, it’s not exactly difficult. Do you realise how ridiculous you sound? Put a black metal plate out in the Sun on a hot day and measure the temperature it can get to.
Of course Graham D. Warner does not really understand Stefan’s Law.
If he did, he’d realize that Joe gets his temperatures by using an emitter!
To understand that 480 W/m^2 does not square with 240 W/m^2, he’d have to understand algebra, however, and it does not seem he learned much since 2021, when he failed to plug in two sides of an equation together…
75 degrees C, according to Google. That’s how hot the black metal plate could get.
"when he failed to plug in two sides of an equation together"
Little Willy wanted me to equate 480 with 240…seemingly oblivious to the fact that 480 does not equal 240! His ignorance was breathtaking…
But what if Joe told Sky Dragon cranks that teh Google’s response was only ThEOriCAl, that it does not tell anything second by second, that fluxes don’t add?
Graham D. Warner still tries to escape from the inevitable by making himself the Toastmaster of this thread.
In the usual energy balance models, it’s either 480W + 0W per square meter, or it’s 240W per square meter all around.
Can’t be 480W + 240W.
Now that Little Willy’s agreement with Clint R that the Earth receives 960 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2 is a matter of permanent internet record, Little Willy is reduced to rambling incoherently.
Now that Graham D. Warner agrees that 480W/m^2 + 0W/m^2 = 240W/m^2 + 240W/m^2, and concedes that this dispels Joe’s con, my work in this subthread is done.
I will respond tomorrow if necessary.
More incoherent rambling.
Graham D. Warner seems to have forgotten Bordo’s own commentary, which starts thus:
He will just deny the most obvious points to get his way.
And then he wonders why he always ends up all “worked” up.
Wrong thread, Little Willy.
Nate says:
February 22, 2024 at 11:58 AM
What we need to determine in this shell game is why CO2 via allegedly warming the surface would cause a colder stratosphere
You not we. Science has understood this since Manabe and Wetherald 1967.
—————————–
Missed responding to this one.
The answer is of course: The stratosphere is characterized by increasing temperature with altitude, which is due primarily to the absorption of solar ultraviolet radiation by ozone.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/stratosphere#:~:text=The%20stratosphere%20is%20characterized%20by,solar%20ultraviolet%20radiation%20by%20ozone.
thus when the sun gets active it produces more UV which blows apart ozone molecules depleting Ozone. . .and the stratosphere cools while the sun is making the surface hotter. Also any Milankovitch movement of the earth on its complex barycenter getting closer will make for more UV radiation as reaching the earth rather than missing it.
And since ozone is also a GHG, less ozone makes for less of the claimed ghe effect, if any, as well due to the cooler stratosphere now with less ozone.
Norman, so exactly how long does our planet remain at 1AU?
Using a single value for albedo is absolutely pointless, it’s like using Wilard as a reference point, it would doom the human race to purgatory.
Why do you doubt everything, though 100% unable to scientifically contradicting it?
It’s like using Flynnson, Clint R or Robertson as reference points.
Do you also believe their utter nonsense about the Moon ‘not rotating about its polar axis’ ?
*
The people Norman talks about of course do consider the average over a full year.
Bindi, you keep bringing up your Moon nonsense because you know you’ve lost the issue. You have no valid model of “orbiting without spin”. That means you don’t have a clue about the science. Moon is “orbiting without spin”, just like the ball-on-a-string.
Get over it.
Bindidon, so you couldn’t answer either of the two questions but start howling at the moon instead. Strange but typical behaviour .
The earths orbit is not circular, simple observation, so you can’t just use an average distance to calculate the energy received. Is there anything the you care to disprove?
The issue with albedo is that it’s not constant from day to day let alone from season to season. The earths tilt, the greening of the planet, wind speeds, snow cover all change the albedo. Again based on observation & science. Is the anything that you want to discuss or clarify?
Please quote what I have posted if you want to discuss
You’re correct Anon. Albedo is constantly changing, as is Earth’s position in orbit. But the cult claims they know how to average it all to come up with an “energy imbalance” accurate to two decimal places!
Even funnier, they try to balance flux, which does not balance!
That’s how the cult works to pervert science and reality.
The earths orbit is not circular, simple observation, so you cant just use an average distance to calculate the energy received.
That is patently false. You can, in fact, use the average distance to calculate the total energy received. It is a consequence of the mean value theorem for integrals which states that the average multiplied by the range is equal to the integral over the range. It is among the most powerful theorems in mathematics.
So Anon is suggesting that I’m like the most powerful theorem in mathematics.
That’s too kind, Anon. You make me blush!
Lol. I guess so. Rant…it is astonishing how often contrarians make blatantly false statements. In this case…it is literally a proven mathematical theorem that is being challenged. If there was ever a case of Dunning-Kruger then this is it.
bdgwx, your “most powerful theory in mathematics” fails with radiative fluxes, since radiative fluxes are non-linear.
But nice try. You tricked silly wily….
And Puffman claims I’m wily…
Love is real!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
That was a Chuck Tingley reference.
Cheers.
Q-Anon
” Bindidon, so you couldnt answer either of the two questions but start howling at the moon instead. Strange but typical behaviour . ”
Try to grasp
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1623346
before you start discrediting me again.
I placed this post in what I thought was the right place, but… it appears that wasn’t the case.
Anon,
1 AU is the average distance over 1 orbital cycle.
340 W/m2 is the average flux received at TOA over 1 orbital cycle.
240 W/m2 is the average flux absorbed over 1 orbital cycle.
Wrong bdgwx. Earth receives the solar constant, about 1366 W/m². Earth absorbs about 960 W/m².
You’re trying to treat flux as energy. That’s a no-no.
[PUFFMAN] Earth receives the solar constant
[ALSO PUFFMAN] Radiative fluxes are non-linear
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
How does can the Earth receive a constant?
Surely not the same way I receive comments that contain a verboten word!
Bdgwx, so you said “that is patently false” to my statement that the earth orbit is not circular. You might want to refresh your astrophysics.
I asked how long does the earth remain at 1AU. To spell it out even further
the earth on January 3rd receives a lot more energy than on July 4th. That’s because of its non circular orbit.
You may want to only work with over simplistic numbers …..
Anon Geek,
It’s the “you can’t just use an average distance to calculate the energy received” that is patently false.
You might wish to brush up your reading skills.
Anon: Bdgwx, so you said that is patently false to my statement that the earth orbit is not circular.
I did no such thing. What I said is that your claim that the average distance cannot be used to calculate the total energy Earth’s receives is patently false.
Anon: To spell it out even further
the earth on January 3rd receives a lot more energy than on July 4th. Thats because of its non circular orbit.
No offense, but duh. Everybody knows Earth’s orbit isn’t circular and that the distance isn’t always 1 AU. That does not preclude us from using Earth’s average distance to calculate how much energy it receives from the Sun over the course of 1 orbital cycle.
Little Willy, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Robertson on February 15, 2024 at 7:25 PM
” GISS has always gotten their data from NOAA and NOAA has admitted they now use less than 1500 stations to cover the solid surface. Why are you in such deep denîal re what NOAA has openly admitted? ”
*
The blog’s scanner is a bit too crazy today.
Anyone can have access to my reply I just uploaded:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16qZy3GgefCEcGyOhHQlfsaYuhCKwCXFA/view
*
WARNING!
Anyone credulously believing Robertson’s incompetent nonsense 100% deserves it.
Next trial re Robertson’s 1500 stations trash
All removed links and file names are stored here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16qZy3GgefCEcGyOhHQlfsaYuhCKwCXFA/view
*
The document you are referring to was written around 2009, was picked up on the Net by Amazon’s Alexa crawling robôt on 2010, March 23 for the first time which stored it together with, since then, millions of other documents in the Wayback Machine corner.
*
You never used any NOAA data of any kind, hence have no idea of where the data still is available and hence don’t have a clue of when it was ALSO picked up by the same crawling robôt – on 2012, September 12 for the first time, and stored in the Wayback Machine corner.
*
Luckily, the Web archive itself crawled through this document and saved all his contents as well (what Alexa didn’t).
*
This compressed tar file can be downloaded, uncompressed and expanded into its contents by any competent UNIX programmer (exactly the inverse of what you are).
The result is a directory containing the following files, named and dated 2013, October 25:
(1) the GHCN V3 station list (786240 bytes)
(2) the GHCN V3 station data (53089952 bytes)
*
A simple look at the station list saved at that time tells you that it has 7280 lines, each containing the metadata for one of the 7280 stations.
And this station list file dated 2013, October 25 contains the same info as the one currently available but no longer in use.
Bindidon, you suggest that you might be a “competent Unix programmer”. May I point out that Unix is not really programed it is command line,or scripted at best. Perhaps you ought not to boast on simplistic skills, especially as you come across as a script-kiddy.
I assume he meant Unix user, which often means programmers.
Nate, on what planet does user = programmer?it’s comments like yours & Bindidon where you try and show off and spectacularly fail. So perhaps my scepticism in yours & bindidon is well placed.
In which logic does often = always, Anon Geek?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
Refrain from your stoopid DREMT sockpuppeting nonsense.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
#2
Refrain from your stoopid DREMT sockpuppeting nonsense.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Anon for a reason
This is a completely ridiculous remark which shows that your competence and technical skills are exactly at Clint R’s or Robertson’s level: zero dot zero.
*
With ‘UNIX programmer’, I meant above of course NOT software engineering activities (for these I use C++).
No software engineer would ever use a shell script interpreter when writing software with a size over 20,000 lines of code.
*
I meant operations like downloading, uncompressing and expanding of files.
Though it is of course possible to integrate such activities in a software package (what I do when I regularly, automatically download the same data streams), it makes NO SENSE at all to write, on a UNIX system, a piece of software for a little task performed only once.
For the task above (to look at how data saved in the Web Archive looks like) I simply combine, in one command, tools like ‘wget’, ‘gunzip’ and ‘tar’.
*
You are such an incompetent boy, Anon: the typical 100% pseudo-skep~tic who is only able to discredit and denigrate.
Bindidon, wow you really are upset about being compared to a script-kiddy. Well if the cap fits…..
Btw, the 20,000 line metric is laughable, always has been always will. Try talking to the uncle Bob.
Anyway to do data processing at scale, which you seem to be bluffing on, a functional language is best for obvious reasons.
Anon Geek,
This ain’t a situation where “if the cap fits” works.
And the 20K line of code isn’t a “metric” at all.
You don’t master English well enough to be that pedantic.
” Perhaps you ought not to boast on simplistic skills, especially as you come across as a script-kiddy. ”
And that is really the dûmbest blah blah since quite long a time, Q-Anon.
*
Come back to us here when you will have managed to implement an object oriented system whose generic methods treat so different time series as JMA’s grid, GHCN V3, V4, daily, USHCN, USCRN, RATPAC-B’s 13 pressure level balloons, HadISST1 SST/ICE, let alone the PSMSL tide gauge data set (together with SONEL’s GPS data for vertical land movement correction).
*
You wouldn’t even be able to process anything of the simplest data grid I’ve ever dealt with – UAH 6.0:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
*
And the very best is that you were not even able to produce a meaningful reply to what I wrote about Robertson's permanent 1500 stations lîe: very probably because he is for you what Germans name a 'Vaterfigur', and you think his lîes are true.
*
If there is an absolutely incompetent boaster, Q-Anon: than that’s you, really.
Bindidion, wow it’s mind boggling how you think processing a tiny bit of data needs so much programming skill. Perhaps if you stopped being a smug little script kiddy for 5 minutes you may actually realise it’s only child’s play.
But fair play to, in this one regard, if you genuinely struggled with a relatively small data set then at least you are pushing yourself.
Our Geek “you need a functional language to process data” Guru hath spoken!
Oh look…
The brave Hogle boy who always starts whining when Willard calls him a monkey is suddenly calling me a monkey again too! Interesting.
But as always, he cowardly keeps in the shadow of other posters when he starts insulting me.
False.
If I recall correctly, UNIX itself is written in the old C-language. Maybe it has been updated to C++. I would think UNIX programmer, then, would be a C-language programmer.
We need to distinguish between an OS and a language. I think Apple and Windows are written in C/C++ as well.
A UN*X programmer only needs to code in a shell. No need to touch the kernel. This usage dates back at least to the 70s, e.g.:
https://dspinellis.github.io/unix-v3man/v3man.pdf
The correct epithet nowadays is “coder” or (as Nate remarked) “monkey,” pun intended.
Perhaps Anon Geek has code to show us?
His 1500 station claim is just patently false. BTW…isn’t GHCNv4 close to around 30,000 stations now?
That depends on what you understand with ‘close’ :–)
I just downloaded
http://tinyurl.com/NOAA-GHCN-V4 (this ‘d c’ syndrome is terrifying)
to obtain the most recent V4 inventory:
‘ghcnm.tavg.v4.0.1.20240215.qcu.inv’.
It contains 27,890 stations, 22 more than the inventory I downloaded the last time: ‘ghcnm.tavg.v4.0.1.20231011.qcf.inv’.
bdgwx
Maybe you have a look at Tamino’s reprocessing of the 2011 Foster/Rahmstorf work?
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2024/02/16/adjusted-global-temperature-data/
Interesting stuff.
Rahmstorf thinks the 2nd law is not contradicted if a mysterious summation of EM energies is positive. I am sure the musician Tamino would agree with him on that, and because they both agree, Binny would agree.
Ironically, the scientists who created the 2nd law, Clausius disagreed with all three. He claimed that heat transfer via radiation must also obey the 2nd law.
” He [Clausius] claimed that heat transfer via radiation must also obey the 2nd law. ”
*
One more proof that Robertson not only doesn’t have a clue of what he is talking about, but also systematically lies.
Clausius NEVER claimed this, quite on the contrary.
But ignoramuses like Robertson think that the very same Clausius who in his eyes was plain right in 1854 suddenly became utterly wrong in… 1887.
I guess bdg thinks NOAA are liars…
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
No wonder Bordo keeps citing that archived newsie:
http://tinyurl.com/cmon-bordo-25000
An argument about historical weather observations?
I suppose some people have nothing better to do. The past cannot be altered, and it is impossible to predict future climate states.
Ho hum.
Mike Flynn,
Rather an argument about basic arithmetic.
Not that it matters for you either way.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner needs to take care of is mental health.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Why not?
1500 is statistically sufficient.
Why waste resources on extra stations when they don’t improve the accuracy, resolution and precision of your data?
#2
And once again Robertson refers to a completely deprecated 2009 document crawled out of NOAAs web site in 2010, but DELIBERATELY ignores the reality:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622954
You just need to click and to read.
Then you understand that Robertson doesnt have a clue about how many stations are used by NOAA worldwide in GHCN V3 (till 2017), GHCN daily and GHCN V4.
Robertson is a incompetent liar full of hat~red against everything he doesnt understand and hence dislikes, beginning with NOAA, NASA etc etc.
The planet specular reflection was neglected
For planets and moons with smooth surface, the surface’s specular reflection is not negligible.
The smooth surface planets and moons have a very strong the surface’s specular reflection.
The specular reflection is not included in albedo.
So we had (for those planets and moons with smooth surface, and, therefore, with surface’s strong specular reflection), we had to correct their respective the planet effective temperature Te.
Correcting the Effective temperature (Te) formula:
Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K) (1)
We insert the
Φ – the solar irradiation accepting factor (the planet spherical shape and planet surface roughness coeficient)
Φ =0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons
Φ =1 for heavy cratered (rough surface) planets and moons
Te.correct = [Φ(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K) (2)
Te.correct, for the smooth surface planets and moons, has a much lower, than Te, numerical values.
–
Thus, for Earth, the Te =255K, when corrected,
became Te.correct =210K.
But, notice, it is very important:
The planet effective temperature, even when it is corrected, the planet effective temperature does not exist, the planet effective temperature is a mathematical abstraction.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”…the planet effective temperature is a mathematical abstraction”.
***
Agreed. I think Walter agrees as well.
Yep.
“The specular reflection is not included in albedo.”
Evidence?
Nate, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn competes with Graham D. Warner PSTs.
Thank you, Nate, for your response:
“The specular reflection is not included in albedo.”
“Evidence?”
Moon’s Te = 270,4 K
Moon’s Te.correct = 224 K (corrected for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ = 0,47)
Moon’s satellite measured average surface temperature Tsat = 220 K.
–
When comparing those three temperatures
Te = 270,4 K (calculated with moon’s Albedo a =0,11)
Te.correct = 224 K (calculated with moon’s Albedo a =0,11
and Φ =0,47 )
And the measured Tsat =220 K,
The theoretical Te.correct = 224 K is very much close to the satellite measured Tsat = 220K.
On the opposite, the Te = 270,4 K is very much higher, than the satellite measured Tsat =220 K.
–
And this is an undeniable evidence of the fact that the
The specular reflection is not included in albedo.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Moons Te = 270,4 K”
Where does this number come from? What assumptions are used?
What about the Earth?
I see you use albedo 0.11.
Your calculated 270 K being different from measured 220K, because you neglected the cooling of the dark side that occurs during the long night.
So that isnt valid evidence that The specular reflection is not included in albedo.
To those who think we are in kinda fully increasing El Nino:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig1
It’s Nino3 instead of Nino3+4, but.
And poster Eben shows elsewhere something quite similar, with MEI V2’s most recent bimonthly anomaly moving down:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
Doesn’t wonder when you have learned that MEI’s evaluation region is way way greater than Nino3+4, and encompasses Nino1+2 as well:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino12Mon.gif
Mei is last month news but it makes nice comparasion to others
Agreed.
Once again, Binny van der Klown denies reality.
For anyone who can read English and comprehend it…
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
http://tinyurl.com/cmon-bordo-25000
Ooooooh! Another completely irrelevant link!
How novel!
Mike Flynn,
So refutation is irrelevant to you?
We already knew!
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner has relapsed once again.
Swenson, you waste time on Wilards links? I assume from the usual wilard post that it would all be less than useless.
A,
No. Any link posted by Witless Wee Willy is irrelevant by definition.
He is unable to control himself, and keeps repeating his bizarre behaviour. He’s not the brightest bulb in the box, obviously.
If our Geek Guru could process sentences the same way he pretends being able to process data, the world of Climateball would be a better place!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Have you noticed how our Anon Geek revealed he never reads your comments?
I did. I also noticed you tried to nudge him accordingly.
Cheers.
Gordon, yep it’s in clear black and white so why they are struggling is a puzzle. Perhaps they started reading and freaked out when NOAA confirms issues and urban heat island effects the records.
And once again Robertson refers to a completely deprecated 2009 document crawled out of NOAA’s web site in 2010, but DELIBERATELY ignores the reality:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1622954
You just need to click and to read.
Then you understand that Robertson doesn’t have a clue about how many stations are used by NOAA worldwide in GHCN V3 (till 2017), GHCN daily and GHCN V4.
Robertson is a incompetent liar full of hat~red against everything he doesn’t understand and hence dislikes, beginning with NOAA, NASA etc etc.
[Allegedly from Bill H]… norman, first off is there an atmospheric window? i have heard scientists question this.
[Binny van der Klown]Oh hear hear! The Hunter boy has heard.
And where did he hear that?”
***
Bill may have heard it from sane scientists who question the use of metaphors in science, like the greenhouse effect. Some people seem to need a crutch to help pass off inane theories.
The greenhouse theory suggests the atmosphere acts like glass in a real greenhouse and the atmospheric window theory suggests there is an actual window though which EM is not absorbed, hence a window.
Load of rubbish. What they don’t tell you is its all a theory with no instrumental measurements to back it up.
Gordon, Binny doesn’t even understand seasons.
As always, simple, superficial polemic without any valuable explanation.
And by the way, Hogle: it’s better to be a monkey in your eyes than a coward in mine.
Binny,
Maybe you could provide a description of this ridiculous GHE effect?
Which do you prefer, “not cooling, slower cooling”, or “a pile of blankets”?
Maybe you could compose something ridiculous, and then claim you did so accidentally – after you realise how stupid it made you seem.
You did it before. Care to do better this time, or just keep whining about everybody else?
Off you go now.
Mike Flynn,
You can go now:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Thank you.
There is an atmospheric window, a range of wavelengths which are radiated from the surface and escape to space without being absorbed by the atmosphere.
Remember my old graph showing the frequency distribution of radiation emitted by the surface and what happens to it. The data was observed on a sunny day in Winsconsin and replotted using ModTrans.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
The red line is thermal radiation from the surface. The black line is outward longwave radiation measured by satellites and the vertical gap between them is the amount of radiation absorbed by the atmosphere.
Examine the range between wavenumber 900 and 1250. The red and blue graphs almost coincide because the atmosphere is transparent to longwave radiation at these wavenumbers.
This is the atmospheric window.
This is zenith atmospheric emission, also from Winsconcin, measured by an upwards pouting spectrometer on the surface. This is the spectrum of the longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere, including both thermal radiation and GHG reradiation (including the big peak around wavenumber 700 from CO2).
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png
Note the low emission band between 900 and 1250 in which the atmosphere is not absorbing and reradiating because the surface radiation escapes directly to space.
“…observed on a sunny day in Winsconsin…”
“Spectral Flux at the Top of Atmosphere”
Ent is unable to find the flaws in the crap he throws against the wall.
“the atmospheric window theory suggests there is an actual window”
Gordon is again bothered by standard word usage.
Google
Window definition
Dictionary
Window:
5.PHYSICS
a range of electromagnetic wavelengths for which a medium (especially the atmosphere) is transparent.
Nate,
You need a better authority. It sounds like you are reading from a GHE cult manual.
“a range of electromagnetic wavelengths for which a medium (especially the atmosphere) is transparent.” is just nonsensical. A vacuum is transparent to electromagnetic wavelengths, nothing else. You are probably nutty enough to believe in some magical process which makes thermometers hotter by surrounding them with CO2! Even Bindidon has said that would be nonsensical (unless he’s changed his tiny mind again).
Professor John Tyndall’s experiments showed that for certain pressures and wavelengths, CO2 intercepted infrared about 1750 better than nitrogen and oxygen..
Of course, oxygen and nitrogen molecules are about 2500 times more frequent than CO2 molecules, and so block more infrared than CO2. Gee, reality is a curse to GHE cultists, isn’t it?
No wonder you don’t want to describe the GHE – you are rightly worried about being laughed at!
Robertson the ignoramus-in-chief is exactly as unable as the Hunter boy to explain where the Hunter boy did hear the atmospheric window might not exist at all.
The Hunter boy wasn’t even able to reply to what I explained, but that doesn’t matter to the ignoramus-in-chief, as it seems.
Two friends-in-denîal, well cooperating.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
#3
Refrain from your stoopid DREMT sockpuppeting nonsense.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The passage of time is tracked by counting oscillations of a frequency reference, such as Earths revolutions or swings of a pendulum. By referencing atomic transitions, frequency (and thus time) can be measured more precisely than any other physical quantity, with the current generation of optical atomic clocks reporting fractional performance below the 10−17 level. However, the theory of relativity prescribes that the passage of time is not absolute, but is affected by an observers reference frame. Consequently, clock measurements exhibit sensitivity to relative velocity, acceleration and gravity potential. Here we demonstrate local optical clock measurements that surpass the current ability to account for the gravitational distortion of space-time across the surface of Earth. In two independent ytterbium optical lattice clocks, we demonstrate unprecedented values of three fundamental benchmarks of clock performance. In units of the clock frequency, we report systematic uncertainty of 1.4 10−18, measurement instability of 3.2 10−19 and reproducibility characterized by ten blinded frequency comparisons, yielding a frequency difference of [−7 (5)stat (8)sys] 10−19, where stat and sys indicate statistical and systematic uncertainty, respectively.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0738-2
So much the worse for the idea that an atomic clock has an error of “about 1 ms over a century”!
Willard,
Is this irrelevant excursion supposed to support your contention that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Or just another pointless diversion?
wee willy must be on the same hallucinogens as the author of the quote, they think time ‘passes’. Worse still, they think you can track it.
So, Gordon, do you think that the universe is this shape and all spacetime coexists?
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/index.html
Mike Flynn,
If time did not exist, you would still waste it.
Post hoc, ergo propter.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You were supposed to say “hoc,” Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner should pick a more appropriate Climateball handle and stop playing the moderator.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Winter in the US is not letting up. A sudden warming of the stratosphere is coming.
https://i.ibb.co/82hF2Bx/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-02-17-081653.png
Please consider Earth as a planet, because Earth is a planet which interacts (as all planets do), because Earth interacts with solar energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Who is $355 million lighter?
$450 million with interest.
An extra 1M for two of his sons.
And a CFO banned for life.
Who is the poorer, Trump, or the US, where incompetent Democrats can try to oust a candidate from running for President by charging him with phoney charges? If they were serious about cleaning up New York financially, they would start with Wall Street, not Trump.
“incompetent Democrats can try to oust a candidate from running for President by charging him with phoney charges? ”
And incompetent Republicans try to attack the sitting President by charging his son with phony charges.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68313086
The two sides are equally corrupt.
Face it, the American political system is rotten beyond redemption.
ent…do you seriously believe that Biden and his son are innocent? Biden committed the same faux pas as Trump re retaining documents but they are considering dropping charges against Biden due to his age while continuing to pursue charges against Trump.
Also, Democrat run states have illegally blocked Trump from running for president based on unproved claims he incited a riot.
Unless you live this side of the Pond, and can see it first hand, you cannot begin to imagine how corrupt are the Democrats.
Ent, politics has always been about people willing to pervert reality.to support their false beliefs.
That’s why we know the GHE nonsense is politics, not science. We see people like you trying to claim passenger jets fly backward, just to protect their cult beliefs.
Are you beyond redemption?
A banana is all about being yellow. Therefore Borussia Dortmund is bananas.
Puffman is a genius.
Gordon says:
“do you seriously believe that Biden and his son are innocent?”
Hunter Biden has already been charged for stuff. No, he’s not innocent.
But now the Repubs want him charged for other stuff. He says “fine let’s do it in open hearings,” and the Repubs say no.
Even other Repubs say the Repubs have nothing on Joe and are not voting for impeachment.
After a couple of years of Repubs saying that Joe is crooked, they may yet turn up some solid evidence that this is true. But they’ve been openly speculating on that the whole time. Well, not speculating so much as saying that it is the God-given truth.
It’s called politics.
“phoney charges”
Well if so, then his very expensive lawyers did a horrible job of defending him.
Sorry, he had his lengthy due process and his many days in court, and LOST.
Unlike the courageous Russian opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, who most certainly did not have any due process, and was summarily sent to the Gulag and finally killed by the Russian dictator.
Ludicrous that Trump would compare himself to Navalny.
And this is how he plans to pay the fines.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68329886
March is usually the hottest time of the year for the oceans because it is late summer in the southern hemisphere, where most of the world’s major seas are located.
If that was the case, you would see lots of March data at the top of a descending sort of HadISST1 SST’s worldwide absolute data.
But…
2019 8 18.99 (C)
2015 8 18.97
2020 8 18.95
2016 8 18.92
2022 8 18.91
2014 8 18.89
2017 8 18.87
2021 8 18.83
1997 8 18.83
2009 8 18.81
Sorry…
Source
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
binny…”If that was the case, you would see lots of March data at the top of a descending sort of HadISST1 SSTs worldwide absolute data”.
***
Binny is slow on the uptake, still does not understand that Had-crut are major fudgers, like NOAA and GISS.
As always: all what ignoramus and li~ar Robertson is able to post is discrediting and denigrating.
You’ll never see any of these li~ars on the blog even trying to technically contradict what they discredit.
Rien de nouveau.
Well one must consider the amount of ocean by latitude also. The southern ocean gets larger as you go south. The northern ocean gets smaller as you go north.
Hunter boy
” Well one must consider the amount of ocean by latitude also. ”
*
You are as usual the brazen guy who thinks he is the only one who thinks.
ALL global time series influenced by latitude are processed using latitude weighting, Hunter boy, according to
T = ∑[x=i:j] Tlat(x) * cos(rad(x)) / ∑[x=i:j] cos(rad(x))
where rad(x) = x * (π/180)
Surface, atmospheric layers / temperature, precipitation, sea ice, etc etc etc: ALL of them.
*
The thing is, Hunter boy: people like you, Robertson, Flynnson and a few other braggarts never and never would ever be able to compute any time series about anything, let alone to perform latitude weighting on them.
All you are able to do is to dislike and hence to discredit and denigrate – as ‘academic exercise’, ‘illusion’, … – anything you can’t grasp by your own.
” The southern ocean gets larger as you go south. The northern ocean gets smaller as you go north. ”
Here too, the same level of incompetence due to lack of technical skills. A bit more absurd than above, however.
Are you, Hunter boy, really unable to understand such a simple thing as that when I process HadISST’s SST data, the South will – independently of the latitude weighting – contribute to a much higher part in the global average than the North, and this of course regardless the month we actually consider in the time series?
*
But I have learned through your pointless, incompetent replies that you weren’t even able to grasp how much it matters to perform, when constructing an average of data from several measurement points, an area weighting (aka gridding) prior to the average.
Any 12-year-old child would understand that otherwise areas with a lot of measurement points would overrule areas with very few measurement points, which would totally distort the mean.
You didn’t.
A last hint, which hopefully will help
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vyo_y0CMyJZ5mODhpBlh-tCgiRzrBwA3/view
Trends for 1979-2023, in C / decade
– HadISST1 SST: 0.10 +- 0.003
– UAH oceans: 0.12 +- 0.006
*
Or do you think Roy Spencer would need your help because he doesn’t see that he’s wrong?
*
I’d enjoy the ignoramus de service posting his nonsense again:
” Binny has the temerity to show his faked HadISST and Roy’s honest UAH in lock-step. “
Bindidon is too angry and testy to notice when he was actually getting support for his numbers.
He just assumed that when I said the south has more ocean to the south I must have been talking grid cells.
In the tropics ocean temps only change about 2C over the year. In the polar regions it hardly changes at all. But in the mid latitudes the temperature changes about 8C.
In the southern ocean the area between the high 40’s and 60s doesn’t have any geography to slow wind speeds thus the area has high wind speeds overturning cold water. This subpolar region acts more like polar waters in terms of annual temperature variation. The northern hemisphere does not have such a region.
Hunter boy still didn’t understand that his gut feeling based explanations can’t change anything.
He should spend some more time in comparing the rawest surface SST time series with the rawest LT ocean time series, and learn to draw more relevant conclusion.
*
I’m afraid however that braggarts who discredit the work of people like Kepler, Mayer, Euler, Lagrange, Laplace and their successors till nowadays as ‘academic exercises’ never will feel any need to refrain from their egomaniacal attitude.
Bindidon is so confused now he is essentially claiming his own post was wrong saying August was the warmest month when it wasn’t.
Bottom line is if the northern and southern oceans had the same geography then Christos would be right as the southern hemisphere gets more sun during the southern summer than the northern hemisphere gets in its summer. However, Bindidon asked his daddy for the right answer and this time got the right answer back.
All I did was explain that the southern ocean has a lot more water in the subpolar region and a geography that encourages a great deal of wind whipping around the globe in that region compared to the north. Saying the south ocean was getting wider as you went south. Bindidon apparently read it as criticism of his number thinking I said he didn’t account for the grids getting smaller in the south but the grids don’t get wider as you go south they get narrower and I wasn’t even talking about grids. So Bindidon now completely confused posted the formulas he uses to account for grid size as a rebuff of my comment. If this keeps going in the same direction we will have to reel Bindidon back in from Mars.
Bill Hunter
Thank you for posting the document by Happer and Lindzen. The brief comment about China and Russia resonates as they both would want the economies of the western democracies to fail’ The UN has provided the obvious path way for influence funding. Concerning times we find ourselves in these days.
Really? China wants all the western democracies to run out of money and stop buying all their stuff?
Nate says:
”Really? China wants all the western democracies to run out of money and stop buying all their stuff?”
Nope the Chinese government wants a monopoly so you have nobody else to buy from.
Thus not in agreement that China “want the economies of the western democracies to fail”
How naive can one get?
Bill seems naive about the global economy.
How does destroying the economies of all your customers, help sell your stuff?
“am sure just like the Germans did for their conquered territories”
OMG you think China is going to conquer the US or European territories?
There is no question in my mind Nate that China would love that.
I am sure just like the German’s did for their conquered territories they have a plan for us. I would suspect it kind of looks like their plan for the Uyghurs.
Also I have little doubt that the transition to that plan will look a lot like Hong Kong and this 2022 State Department report on the conditions in Hong Kong.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/china/hong-kong/#:~:text=Significant%20human%20rights%20issues%20included,the%20independence%20of%20the%20judiciary
> There is no question in my mind
Gill got that part right.
LOL!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1631839
And
DREMT’s comment is appropo here,
When I write a perfectly reasonable comment, Bill has to argue against it, to the death, regardless of the facts. Simply because I wrote it.
…Willy, please stop trolling.
He hasn’t commented since your last PST.
…please stop trolling.
He still hasnt commented since your last PST.
…lease stop trolling.
Nobody has commented here for days…
…ease stop trolling.
–California Enjoys the Northwests Water (Megadrought Update)
4 hours ago
Guest Blogger
23 Comments
From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog
Two years ago, media outlets were headlining strident messages that California had moved into a megadrought and that there was little hope for relief.
Story after story claimed that global warming had permanently changed the situation and that Californias reservoirs would remain unfilled.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/17/california-enjoys-the-northwests-water/
Media outlets were wrong.
None of the delusional GHE proponents can even describe the GHE which is the object of their devout worship.
Descriptions range from such idiocies as “not cooling, slower cooling” to “a pile of blankets.”
It is truly surprising that otherwise intelligent people refuse to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years – atmosphere notwithstanding.
Never has so much been wasted at the mad behest of so few to achieve so little.
And the world continues to cool, as it must.
” And the world continues to cool, as it must. ”
Says the Aussie boy who claims that all thermometers would record wrong temperatures worldwide, and that averaging all these wrong temperatures over the globe would be even more wrong.
Right, Flynnson?
*
Just joking, of course.
Binny,
You are just confused, as usual. Thermometers respond to heat, and there is a lot of man-made heat produced. More a anthropogenic heat results in higher temperatures – mainly night time minima, increasing average temperatures.
Measurements taken within the crust, particularly beyond the limit of the Suns influence, show that the Earth continues to cool – as indeed it must, being a large molten blob a long way from the Sun.
Recent photos from space show how close the molten interior is to the surface, in Iceland. I guess any thermometers close to the lava will show increased temperatures. You might claim hotter thermometers are due to some inexplicable effect involving CO2!
Ho ho! Anybody who believes that, is quite mad. Refusing to accept reality is the hallmark of mental failure.
Ho Ho!
” Thermometers respond to heat, and there is a lot of man-made heat produced. More a anthropogenic heat results in higher temperatures… ”
*
Ignoramus Flynnson tries once again to kid us with his ridiculous blah blah.
The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.03 W/m^2.
*
And this below
” Recent photos from space show how close the molten interior is to the surface, in Iceland.
I guess any thermometers close to the lava will show increased temperatures.
You might claim hotter thermometers are due to some inexplicable effect involving CO2! ”
clearly lets him appear dûmber than evah.
” Refusing to accept reality is the hallmark of mental failure. ”
Exactly Flynnson.
You have recently made decisive progress in self-knowledge.
Binny,
You still claim that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, do you?
Good for you. You probably believe in the existence of a GHE which you can’t even describe!
Carry on.
#2
” Refusing to accept reality is the hallmark of mental failure. ”
Exactly Flynnson.
You have recently made decisive progress in self-knowledge.
“Measurements taken within the crust, particularly beyond the limit of the Suns influence, show that the Earth continues to cool as indeed it must, being a large molten blob a long way from the Sun.”
This is made up, and of course demonstrably FALSE.
Borehole measurements clearly show warming accelerating over the last few centuries.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/752
How are the thermometers calibrated and the borehole maintained long enough to record the warming?
If you actually care, do the work to find out…
Well we do know the climate is warming the question is why so this is just a bunny trail.
> the question is
Ze Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
BILL DOESNT actually care that there is no need to ‘maintain the borehole long enough to record the warming’ because its present day T profile contains its T history.
Nate is extrapolating again.
Bill fails to understand science again. Read the link!
The borehole method is quite interesting Bill, if you want to lean about it.
…Willy, please stop trolling.
He hasnt commented since your last PST.
…please stop trolling.
Obviously Willard still hasnt posted, not sure why DREMT needs to respond at all.
…lease stop trolling.
Trying to piss on dead threads again?
…ease stop trolling.
ent…”So, Gordon, do you think that the universe is this shape and all spacetime coexists?”
***
Let me be perfectly clear, there is no such thing as space-time because there is no such thing as time. And that model you presented is a figment of someone’s imagination, not a scientist’s mind.
Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, claimed that Einstein’s claims on relativity, hence space-time, is nothing more than a series of thought experiments. He was right. Einstein completely blew it when he presumed time had a physical existence.
Hopefully, one day, you will receive that insight. It is a real mind-blower when it suddenly dawns on you, that no time has passed anywhere. There is no past and no future, we live in one space that is here and now and everything can be explained within that space. When you see it, space-time and other thought experiments make no sense.
Another important part of that insight. neurotic behavior has a time base related to memory. If you get it that time has no existence then you can apply it to neurotic behavior and watch it disappear. Problem is, humans seem to need certain aspects of neurotic behavior and can’t let it dissolve.
You are proposing an absolute coordinate system in which any point’s location can be defined by four measures of position, x,y,z and time.
The graphic I put is a visualisation of such a system, a graph of the size of the universe plotted against time.
As far as I can infer from your description you see the universe as a four dimensional object in which all the x,y,z and time coordinates and the associated mass exist at once.
This creates problems. Cause and effect does not exist. Not does entropy or free will.
The whole structure x wide, y long a high and t deep coexits. There is no past, present and future. The entire structure is entirely deterministic and inflexible.
You also need to explain why each person exists as a world line, a four dimensional path through time and space. Yet they perceive themselves as existing at a particular x,y,z and t coordinate they perceive as the present. They have limited knowledge of events at earlier t coordinates but no knowledge of events at later t coordinates.
ent…”As far as I can infer from your description you see the universe as a four dimensional object in which all the x,y,z and time coordinates and the associated mass exist at once”.
***
You need to distinguish between what is actually out there and what is defined by the human mind as to what is out there. In reality, there are no coordinates and no time with which to peg them to a time. The human mind introduced the concept of coordinates and time.
I don’t see the universe as anything related to coordinate systems or time. It is just there and it’s up to me to decipher what my mind wants to impose on it and what is actually there. Of course, I need to use coordinate systems and time to place objects in my world view but I need to remain aware that the coordinate system and time were developed by the human mind to do just that. Also, my world-view is an illusion.
By agreeing to use that human imposed system, I am not claiming the universe is actually like that. In reality, I have no idea what the universe is like with regard to its extent or where it came from. For me time and coordinates are tools, not reality.
It amuses me to see scientists, with Ph.Ds, looking into the universe with a telescope and thinking they are looking through time. If they had any idea of what a telescope does, they’d perhaps understand that the telescope is collecting light that is there at the instant they are viewing it, not light-years away.
I get it that the light at a telescope set off on its journey light years ago and that the star from which the light came may no longer be in the same position, or not there at all. That has nothing to do with time, it is about electromagnetic energy moving through a space, albeit a very large space, with no coordinates and no time factor.
BTW…1 light year = 9.46 x 10^12 kilometers.
Philosophers call your world view solipsism.
Unfortunately solipsism is not something I can debate with you since any evidence I put forward might be a figment of your imagination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
Actually science has demonstrated solipsism consistently. Einstein overturning Newton in the areas of Newtonian uncertainty is probably the best example. What it is a caution against is extrapolation of science into untested and unverified realms. We know that Newtonian physics is a good approximation of reality but that its accuracy has limits.
Thus as frequently stated the science must be verifiable to overturn skepticism. Dr. William Happer strongly supports this view. In fact the government has implored science to do a better job of communication, which they could do easily as per Dr. Happer, if their theories had clear proof. But no the governments of the world spend billions on propaganda and the argument pretty much boils down to ”believe your doctor”, ”believe your wannabee Daddy”. some do some don’t, some don’t have an independent opinion, some do.
> Actually science has demonstrated solipsism consistently.
Which one, Gill’s?
ROFL!
All I am doing is properly classifying Post Normal Science for what it is. . .science by fiat.
And Gill throws in another concept he does not understand.
LMAO!
Post Normal Science is science by fiat. It explicitly reverses the burden of proof where one is told to prove something does not exist, something that science isn’t at all equipped to handle.
No, it’s not.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Post-Normal Science is a way to include cranks like you and Gill into Team Science’s sphere of influence and vice versa.
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
”What are you braying about?”
We all know its money that controls the sphere of influence. Post normal science introduces that politic in it and then lies and attempts to justify it as if the ordinary man’s opinion actually mattered. One just has to peruse this forum and your posts to know what a lie that is.
There is more post-normal ‘science’ these days, much of it passed through the piss-poor peer-review of the predatory for-profit journals, which are increasingly prevalent.
Seim and Olsen and Berry’s papers are good examples of that.
Then we have some of the most consequential real science, like Manabe and Wetherald, 1967, that cranks simply fail to understand and detest its implications, and thus falsely label it post-normal science.
Yep Nate goes 100% political opinion to draw the line. Perfect example of what’s wrong.
Nate you can absolutely be depended upon to elucidate the message that needs to be sent by the technocrats that democracy doesn’t work.
“cranks simply fail to understand and detest its implications, and thus falsely label it post-normal science.”
Here is an example of Bill doing just that.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1628334
He labels the prediction of stratospheric cooling with rising CO2, found in the highly regarded paper Manabe and Wetherald 1967, which has since been clearly observed, ‘post-normal’ science.
He decided it must have been what he calls ‘science by fiat’ intended only to ‘curtail our freedom’.
In 1967!
Why?
Because HE was incredulous and ignorant of the science behind this prediction.
As ever, science that Bill has not learned or digested, and runs against his prior beliefs, is rejected, by FIAT.
All you have done is fall for the con game Nate.
Sure with a climate model if you increase solar radiation only you will not have cooling in the stratosphere.
But cooling with CO2 you get more water vapor (and oddly not so with solar forcing as only CO2 can produce more water vapor).
Gill gets caught, throws another squirrel.
“All you have done is fall for the con game Nate.
”
Again Bill confirms that he thinks real science, that he is unable to comprehend and hasnt bothered to learn, must be a con!
I bet Eddington’s first thought after observing the light deflection predicted by Einstein during an eclipse was “I just got conned!” /sarc.
Little Willy, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Indeed there is no interest in probing uncertainty in this forum these guys have their minds made up. When Dr. Curry talks about this she notes how the topic of uncertainty is tremendously under addressed. We just got another huge dose of this politicization of science coming through the pandemic. And yes the unwillingness to engage in properly weighing uncertainty is endemic to all politicized scientific discussions.
So to be clear we are talking about the politicization of science via the the theory of postnormal science that proposes that the burden of proof should be reduced in accordance with the perceived risk.
And gee then all you need is a political declaration of risk to reduce the level of certainty for a scientific prediction. Now we are regaled with this new found power within the grasp of the institutions that stand to benefit.
Exactly what Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech.
“So to be clear we are talking about the politicization of science via the the theory of postnormal science ”
Again, Bill finds comfort in resorting to political/conspiratorial thinking, as a substitute for the actual intellectual ability and effort required to learn the science.
In organizations you have lots of types. Two major types the hard dedicated worker and the brown noser.
Well that describes the two ladders to promotion, bonuses, pay raises and more responsibility.
When politics for example starts branding hard workers and even award winning top rungers as deniers and promoting brown nosers. . .these institutions/businesses tend not to perform well. You can call that a conspiracy but it only takes one person with enough power to make it happen without any evidence of a conspiracy.
Sorry Bill, Manabe and Wetherald’s 1967 prediction of a cooling stratosphere due to rising CO2 was neither a con nor post-normal. It was just solid science.
Even Manabe admits that he didn’t establish any science in his paper.
BS.
Indeed Manabe said he was surprised that he got the Nobel Prize for Applied Physics but was very grateful for the award and the big check.
Application of what physics? Obviously if you already believe that the physics of the GHE was determined one could explain that it isn’t radiation at all that causes the surface to warm but instead a resistance to convection to that produces a hotspot that restricts convection from cooling the surface.
Thats certainly a plausible theory where as the 3rd grader radiation model clearly is not except in cases where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface. But to restrict convection the atmosphere only needs to be the same temperature as the surface. Thus the hotspot theory was born.
“one could explain that it isnt radiation at all that causes the surface to warm but instead a resistance to convection to that produces a hotspot that restricts convection from cooling the surface.”
Is this a certified theory, or just more speculative mutterings?
Nope it is no longer a ”certified” theory. Neither is the theory of Arrhenius. And M&W theory trundles along without a physical description of how convection is restricted. The only place you can probably still find hotspot theory is in the output of arrhenius’ projections of the outcome of CO2 increases of some if not all over modern climate models.
And since its decertification there is no replacement for it known and we can only guess if its still included in climate models.
Nate holds to M&W 1967. The problem he has with that is that the first sentence in that paper says:
”This study is a continuation of the previous study
of the thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a
convective adjustment which was published in the
JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES (Manabe and
Strickler, 1964)”
Hmmmm, its no longer radiation or backradiation causing the warming its now as of 1967 and the recent Nobel Prize in physics a ”convective adjustment”
How would one go about slowing convection? A hotspot was the popular answer that is claimed to be common to all means of top down forcing. But the act of just warming the surface from albedo change or the gradual warming of the ocean doesn’t require that top down forcing to change.
Sorry to throw that on you Nate with you being so occupied with trying to understand what a barycenter is.
Bill insists that science lacks certification.
MW did a physics based simulation and published it in 1967. Its findings have been replicated in later publications many times. It’s predictions been confirmed by observations. It is widely considered a highly influential work.
Of course later publications in the 5+ decades since could have disproved it, but none have.
Meanwhile we have speculations and stream of consciousness from an auditor. No simulations. No model. No physics based theory. No flaws in MW that he can point to. No link to someone else’s publication.
I certify that it is bullshit.
wee willy…”The passage of time is tracked by counting oscillations of a frequency reference, such as Earths revolutions or swings of a pendulum”.
***
Do you ever, even for an instant, consider what you post? That definition of time is one of the dumbest I have encountered.
How can a passage of time be related to a rotating planet? To begin with, what is meant by ‘passing’? When the Earth rotates once, what has passed?
Come on, explain it to me, what has changed, what has passed? And if you say time, I will regard you as even more an ijit that I currently rate you.
> Do you ever, even for an instant
I thought you did not believe in time, Bordo.
Maybe someone values your thoughts, but you would be hard put to name such a person.
Sad, really.
Mike Flynn,
Anyone who believes in the laws of thermodynamics is compelled to believe in the existence of time. The belief in the existence of time is older than relativity theory. Bordo’s flights of fancy have nothing to do about anything.
What are you braying about?
“What are you braying about?”
The echo chamber?
The echo chamber?
According to wee willy, heat is nothing more than a belief system. He admits that time is a belief but does not explain why heat is a belief and not a fact.
Bordo starts every morning by unscrambling eggs he returns to their eggshells.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Please remind me how you bypass moderation by copypasting Graham D. Warner‘s line.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You responded to my comment.
You had nothing much to add.
Time to realize that you agree with me that time indeed exists.
Long live and prosper.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner always ends up PSTing.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
A body with emissivity (ε) very much close to 1
even if it is ε =1
that body doesn’t necessarily mean that it emits as a black body.
–
Earth doesn’t emit as a black body.
For a body to have emissivity ε =1 doesn’t mean it emits as a black body.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”…that body doesnt necessarily mean that it emits as a black body”.
***
1)the blackbody does not exist, it is a theory. It is theorized that BB’s abosorb all incident frequencies and emit frequencies that depend on temperature.
2)a theoretical blackbody, by definition, emits across a wide bandwidth of frequencies, depending on it’s temperature. Normally, that temperature is a very high, like in the thousands of degrees C range. Earth only emits in the infrared frequency band, ruling it out as a blackbody radiator.
It’s clear that emissivity has nothing to do with the classification of a body as a blackbody radiator. Only bodies with high temperatures, hot enough to allow them to emit frequencies in the visible spectrum, can be classified as BBs.
Even then, it’s still a theory. The idea that a BB can absorb all frequencies incident upon it, is silly. The idea contradicts the 2nd law, where a body at a higher temperature can absorb frequencies emitted by a body at a lower temperature. In such a scenario, planets warmed by the Sun would be raising the temperature of the Sun via back-radiation.
BB theory was introduced by Kircheoff, circa 1850, about the same time that Clausius was developing the 2nd law. Neither Kircheoff nor Clausius knew anything about why bodies emit and absorb EM, that came in 1913 with Bohr’s discovery that EM is emitted and absorbed by electrons in the atoms making up a body.
I would venture a guess that BB theory is not only wrong, it has out-lived its usefulness.
Thank you, Gordon.
“1)the blackbody does not exist, it is a theory. It is theorized that BBs abosorb all incident frequencies and emit frequencies that depend on temperature.”
It is a theory.
And this theory doesn’t say anything about a blackbody gets warmed by the incident on it radiation.
The blackbody theory isn’t about warming the blackbodies via radiation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Absolutely correct.
All about as silly as putting a red-hot cannonball in direct sunlight, and claiming you can calculate its temperature by measuring the incoming solar radiation impinging upon it.
Or anything else – the planet Earth, for example.
Vournas
Why are you fixated all the time on this boring blackbody stuff?
Perhaps you should simply consider the blue line’s reality instead:
https://i.postimg.cc/g2Wy7W2d/SURFRAD-Fort-Peck-DSW–ULW-150224.png
If I had time enough to waste, I’d spend some in collecting all US SURFRAD over a complete year, and present the result.
Thank you, Nate, for your response:
“The specular reflection is not included in albedo.”
“Evidence?”
Let’s demonstrate “The specular reflection is not included in albedo.”,
on the Moon’s Te example.
Moon’s Te = 270,4 K
Moon’s Te.correct = 224 K (corrected for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ = 0,47)
Moon’s satellite measured average surface temperature Tsat = 220K.
–
When comparing those three temperatures
Te = 270,4 K (calculated with moon”s Albedo a =0,11)
Te.correct = 224 K (calculated with moon’s Albedo a =0,11
and Φ =0,47 )
And the measured Tsat =220 K,
The theoretical Te.correct = 224 K is very much close to the satellite measured Tsat = 220K.
On the opposite, the Te = 270,4 K is very much higher, than the satellite measured Tsat =220 K.
–
And this is an undeniable evidence of the fact that the
The specular reflection is not included in albedo.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The specular reflection is not included in albedo. ”
Offhand I know of three ways to derive albedo.
1) By observing the outward shortwave radiation (reflected sunlight) using satellites in Earth orbit or from L1.
2) By measuring the amount of sunlight reflected from the Earth onto the Moon, aka Earthshine.
3) By calculation.
Outward shortwave radiation = solar insolation – light absorbed by surface and atmosphere.
3) includes all forms of reflection including specular reflection.
1) and 2) may or may not include specular reflection. If they do not, they would give lower values for outward shortwave radiation than 3).
IIRC 1), 2), and 3) give similar results for albedo and OSR. This suggests that specular reflection is either being detected or is too small to notice.
Notice how EM’s list puts all IR reflection into the ”calculated” bucket.
Enlighten me.
How does one do any quantitative science without calculation?
EM,
Albedo is guessed.
From NASA Earth Observatory –
“The maps above show how the reflectivity of Earththe amount of sunlight reflected back into spacechanged between March 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011. This global picture of reflectivity (also called albedo) appears to be a muddle, with different areas reflecting more or less sunlight over the 12-year record. Shades of blue mark areas that reflected more sunlight over time (increasing albedo), and orange areas denote less reflection (lower albedo).
Taken across the planet, no significant global trend appears. As noted in the anomaly plot below, global albedo rose and fell in different years, but did not necessarily head in either direction for long.”
Claims that the Earth’s albedo can be measured are ludicrous. No instruments exist which can measure the total energy from the Sun reaching the Earth, nor measure the amount reflected.
All dreams and wishful thinking. Of no practical use whatever.
Another undeniable evidence of the fact that the
specular reflection is not included in albedo.
Planet Mars’ Te =210K
and Planet Mars’ Tsat =210K COINCIDENCE!
Planet Mars’ Te =210K is calculated by the use
of Mars’ Albedo a =0,25
Planet Mars’ Tsat =210K is the Mars’ satellite measured average surface temperature.
Those two temperatures, the theoretically calculated 210K and the measured one 210K -there is not any physical explanation of them to coincide, except of the Mars’ specular reflection being ignored.
Why the specular reflection is ignored – because it was considered too small.
And yes, there are planets and moons where the specular reflection is too small to take in consideration. For them Φ =1.
But there also are the smooth surface planets and moons with very strong specular reflection.
Those planets and moons are:
Mercury
Earth
Moon
Mars
Europa
Ganymede
For those planets and moons the Φ =0,47
Thus for the planet Mars, instead of Te =210K
it is Te.correct =174K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It has been well discussed by mainstream researchers that a subset of the CMIP6 models run hot/have higher climate sensitivity range than previous models.
These outliers are not given much credence by the climate community. Were they excluded here, or were they rolled in to the analysis?
Regarding near-term global temperature projections the 2007 IPCC (AR4) said:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”
We’re 16 years on from that forecast, so how has it borne out so far?
Global temperature trends since 2007:
GISS – 0.26° per decade (+/- 0.15)
BEST – 0.27° per decade (+/- 0.13)
Had4 – 0.22° per decade (+/- 0.15)
RSS4 – 0.23° per decade (+/- 0.22)
UAH6 – 0.24° per decade (+/- 0.20)
barry,
0.2C per decade is 2C per century, or 20C per thousand years.
I presume you are not silly enough to believe the seas will start boiling in a few thousand years, and not intelligent enough to explain why the seas arent in any danger of boiling in the next few thousand years.
Do you think the GHE woke up after sleeping for four a half billion years (while the Earth cooled), and is going back to sleep, to prevent the seas boiling?
Only joking, you are so confused that you can’t say what you believe! Go on, boiling seas or not? Why or why not? Show some backbone, and say something definite – no more silly and evasive innuendos. How hard can it be?
swenson…”I presume you are not silly enough…”
***
Barry and his fellow alarmists excel at silliness.
> Do you think
Glad to see that you value the opinion of someone else, Mike!
Unless you simply went for your favorite gotcha once again?
Keep staying irrelevant.
AGW is real.
While CO2 levels increase in the atmosphere over the long term, so will surface temperature over the long term.
Is that definite enough for you?
The 2007 projection is short-term, which comes with a fairly large uncertainty range. About 0.15 to 0.25 C/decade (95% confidence interval) for the mid-range emissions scenarios from AR4.
I apologise if this kind of nuance is too much for you, but I can’t dumb it down any more than this. I also can’t get interested in the asinine things (eg boiling seas) you said above.
barry believes: “While CO2 levels increase in the atmosphere over the long term, so will surface temperature over the long term.”
barry, beliefs ain’t science.
You need to provide the viable science that CO2 can raise surface temperatures.
But, you can’t. That’s why you have to resort to childish insults.
barry,
0.2C per decade is 2C per century, or 20C per thousand years.
I presume you are not silly enough to believe the seas will start boiling in a few thousand years, and not intelligent enough to explain why the seas arent in any danger of boiling in the next few thousand years.
Do you think the GHE woke up after sleeping for four a half billion years (while the Earth cooled), and is going back to sleep, to prevent the seas boiling?
Only joking, you are so confused that you cant say what you believe! Go on, boiling seas or not? Why or why not? Show some backbone, and say something definite no more silly and evasive innuendos. How hard can it be?
Since 2007 there has been much talk of global temperature ‘pauses’ from the usual suspects, and allegedly two ‘pause’ periods over that time frame.
Remarkable with all these pauses in global temperature that the short-term projection of the IPCC above has so far underestimated global warming.
Perhaps the resident ‘skeptics’ could explain why that is.
We have been through this Barry, it was the IPCC who officially claimed in 2013, a 15 year warming hiatus. Are you still in denial, or do I need to dig up the IPCC quote again?
Are you avoiding the point for a reason?
“Remarkable with all these pauses in global temperature that the short-term projection of the IPCC above has so far underestimated global warming.
Perhaps the resident ‘skeptics’ could explain why that is.”
UAH trend since 2007 is higher than the IPCC near-term projection.
We’ve been in 2 so-called ‘pause’ periods since then.
Can you explain why the observed trend is apparently higher than the prediction when there have been 2 “pauses”?
barry, you’re asking why your cult projections are wrong?
The reason is the projections are based on beliefs. Beliefs ain’t science.
You’re chasing your tail, much like Bindi is doing by clinging to centuries-old astrology. You need to take a deep breath, grow up, and learn to accept reality.
Puffman,
But Da Paws is a common Bingo square:
https://climateball.net/but-da-paws/
Why would you denigrate this contrarian talking point?
Yes child, your ignorance and immaturity keep you from any understanding of science.
Sky Dragon cranks like you can’t play on most bingo squares, Puffman. In a few decades, after a few more sock puppets, perhaps you will. As a treat.
If anything, hitting the bullseye with projections on a topic that is so complex, with such little knowledge, just promotes more suspicion. It’s amazing that so many take this at face value.
walter…Barry references AR4 but he fails to mention that in AR3, the IPCC admitted that future climate states cannot be predicted. They even had to drop the word ‘predicted’ when expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, pointed out that unvalidated climate models cannot predict anything. That’s why the IPCC now uses the word ‘project’, an obscure word that claims something might happen but no one knows what with any degree of certaintly.
You have succeeded again at avoiding the point by changing the subject.
barry,
0.2C per decade is 2C per century, or 20C per thousand years.
I presume you are not silly enough to believe the seas will start boiling in a few thousand years, and not intelligent enough to explain why the seas arent in any danger of boiling in the next few thousand years.
Do you think the GHE woke up after sleeping for four a half billion years (while the Earth cooled), and is going back to sleep, to prevent the seas boiling?
Only joking, you are so confused that you cant say what you believe! Go on, boiling seas or not? Why or why not? Show some backbone, and say something definite no more silly and evasive innuendos. How hard can it be?
… avoiding the point by changing the subject.
avoiding the point by changing the subject.
Yes, Mike Flynn.
You avoided the point by changing the subject.
And now you are playing dumb.
Everybody can see that this is your pet two-step.
Cheers.
The projection was made in 2007. It’s not a “bullseye,” if anything it’s an underestimate.
What are you trying to say? You seem to be casting doubt, but your remarks are nebulous.
barry
Don’t waste your time in trying to meaningfully communicate with the Hogle boy.
He is ALWAYS casting doubt and ALL his remarks are nebulous because he NEVER is able to backup his doubts with a valuable contradiction.
And above all, he excels in courageously name calling others as ‘monkey’.
Monkey Man holds some kind of animosity toward Team Science.
Exactement, mais… il n’est pas le seul, loin de là.
The very best example about Hogle’s doubt about nearly everything which, however, lacked as always technical confirmation.
I recently posted a link to SURFRAD data showing for one day downwelling solar SW and upwelling terrestrial LW radiation, e.g.
https://i.postimg.cc/g2Wy7W2d/SURFRAD-Fort-Peck-DSW–ULW-150224.png
and he posted a condescending doubtful reply like
” What about uncertainty? ”
of course instead of presenting its calculation on the basis of the data source accessible to anyone:
https://gml.noaa.gov/aftp/data/radiation/surfrad/Fort_Peck_MT/
*
This is, by the way, the same discrediting technique endlessly used by WUWT’s uncertainty maffia troop, a few brazen posters who always ask others
” Where is your uncertainty calculation? ”
but themselves never presented anything the like by their own.
Barry,
A monkey can draw a straight line with a ruler, but it won’t understand the behavior or the value of data points. That’s what linear regression with climate data is. It doesn’t behave like a straight line, even long term. It’s just cycles upon cycles, in the absence of the unrealistic and hypothetical scenario where CO2-induced warming swamps all natural variability. The IPCC did not predict the natural variability that contributed to what those trends are. Also, none of those datasets are truly raw; they have all been adjusted in some way.
Consider summer two days. One is a wet and cloudy day with a recorded high of 74F and a low of 58F; 0.55 inches of rain were recorded for the day. The other day is bright and sunny with a recorded high of 78F and a low of 54F. Which one is warmer?
A linear regression is not a straight line drawn by a monkey, but a straight line calculated to have the least distance between all the data points it cuts through.
Your remarks have revealed that you are either ignorant of the topic or being deliberately misleading. Perhaps both. Whichever is the case, you are a waste of time.
Lmao, you didnt get the main point; not my problem.
There is no main point in your remarks, just a series of talking points.
Your main point is not stated. But it’s obvious what it is.
“AGW is a lot of nonsense.”
Unfortunately, you have nothing interesting to say about that, just a series of vacuous assertions.
Bye.
Yes, it does.
False.
I asked the resident ‘skeptics’ if they could explain why the observed decadal trend of global temperature data is higher than the prediction made in 2007 by the IPCC.
IPCC in 2007 said about 0.20 C/decade for the next 2 decades.
UAH trend from 2007 = 0.24 C/decade.
Instead of trying to explain it, they all changed the subject.
Unanimously changed the subject.
Can’t you explain this, ‘skeptics’?
And can you explain how this has happened when we have had two supposed ‘pauses’ over the same period?
How? I guess the IPCC doesn’t know what it’s talking about.
Yes, Bill, I know you can’t explain it. Let’s see if any of the other ‘skeptics’ can do it.
Actually I am getting pretty darned close to explaining everything except the LIA recovery which is pretty much a straight line underlying changes in some other phenomena which is a project that’s coming together better than I ever imagined right now. And mind you I am not saying there isn’t a slight exponential curve that is represented by CO2. I just happen to know that is pretty much a side show. A fun ride indeed but not the only ride nor the biggest ride in the park.
> Actually I am getting pretty darned close to explaining everything
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Willard close means at least a significant partial explanation on top of and synchronized to solar cycles. . .traveling down the Milankovitch shorter term cycles. You know Milankovitch don’t you, the favorite non-documented arm waving guiding light of the climate change cabal?
Apparently the biggest problem with Milankovitch theory was the poor state of radiometric dating in the 1920’s. Milankovitch seems to have fallen out of favor many decades ago due apparently to problems with historic dating using proxies for looking deep into the past. However since the 16th century there are a number of unpolluted datasets one can still get their hands on. That will at least cover the LIA recovery to date. It falls well short of the cause of interglacials but should be more than handy enough with dealing with the industrial age.
Gill is not a scientist. He pretends to be an auditor. And I am a ninja.
Having started my Climateball career auditing auditors, I certainly would not mind seeing Gill’s receipts.
Go away Willard you are nothing but a pest.
Every time Gill has to show any kind of work, he chickens out.
LMAO!
Bill Hunter:
“I just happen to know”
Well who needs real science when Bill just happens to know things?
that is correct Barry. Experiments show it to be a sideshow. Experiments trump theory.
I just happen to know of experiments that demonstrate the premise of AGW.
Well I guess that’s that. The Bill Hunter scientific method is surprisingly easy.
which experiment are you referring to Barry?
First you:
How do you ‘just happen to know that CO2 is pretty much a side show’?
Bill, if you want to change the method from Bill Hunter to corroboration, you go ahead, as Nate requested.
I’m definitely not going to provide you any corroboration for claims I make until you start doing it.
I have given you a lot of experiments that don’t show any radiant forcing from CO2 as modeled. Seim and Olson is probably the best of the bunch.
So what is your best of the bunch? Oh thats right you don’t have one. One has never been seen. Its a unicorn and you want the skeptics to run out and catch it for you.
You guys are like if Jonas Salk had only ”claimed” he had proof of his polio vaccine and didn’t go out an vaccinate millions of kids. Imagine how many kids would have died from polio.
Here you guys are advocating for the killing of people to prevent some unproven harm in the future and you have no proof. Thats pretty danged treasonous. Maybe not so much for some dufus that doesn’t know better that nobody is going to pay attention to. But a scientist is blasphemy to the scientific method to claim proof when you have none.
“I have given you a lot of experiments that dont show any radiant forcing from CO2 as modeled. Seim and Olson is probably the best of the bunch.”
Link it. I haven’t seen it.
Flawed lab experiment, lacking key properties of the Earth’s atmosphere, aint ‘certified’ as a model for the GHE!
To claim it is flawed you need to demonstrate why it’s flawed. Its am empirical study of the GPE thought experiment you hug using CO2 as the greenplate. It didn’t come close to working as proscribed by your models.
[GILL] To claim it is flawed you need to demonstrate why its flawed.
[ALSO GILL] Post Normal Science is science by fiat. It explicitly reverses the burden of proof where one is told to prove something does not exist, something that science isnt at all equipped to handle.
Imagine when Gill will notice that when a thing is flawed it means that its perfection does not exist. LMAO!
Willard says:
”Imagine when Gill will notice that when a thing is flawed it means that its perfection does not exist. LMAO!”
The question is when will Nate notice.
Ze question – Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
Perhaps one day Gill will realize that it’s really hard to have asymmetric roles in the symmetric logic Popper presumed.
Still no link from Bill. Still no surprises.
barry says:
February 22, 2024 at 5:45 PM
”Still no link from Bill. Still no surprises.”
———————
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2023042615431593.pdf
Still no link from Barry. Still no surprises.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/18/review-of-seim-and-olsen-paper/
Experimental evidence of GHE.
Tyndall’s experiment of the 1860s. But since Skeptics write that off, here are a few more.
Plass, G. N. (1956). The influence of the 15μ band on the atmospheric infra-red cooling rate. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 82(353), 310-324.
https://www.rescuethatfrog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Plass-1956c.pdf
Gryvnak, D. A. (1966). Absorp.tion of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines. Journal of Chemical Physics, 44(2), 748-756.
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.59.000267
Harries, J., Brindley, H., Sagoo, P. et al. (2001) Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410, 355357
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Harries-4/publication/12065270_Increases_in_greenhouse_forcing_inferred_from_the_outgoing_longwave_radiation_spectra_of_the_Earth_in_1970_and_1997/links/02e7e5360e06d47ed4000000/Increases-in-greenhouse-forcing-inferred-from-the-outgoing-longwave-radiation-spectra-of-the-Earth-in-1970-and-1997.pdf
Feldman DR, Collins WD, Gero PJ, Torn MS, Mlawer EJ, Shippert TR. (2015) Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature. Mar 19;519(7543):339-43.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25731165/
Huang, T. (2016). Temperature dependent absorp.tion cross-sections of CO2 isotopologues in the 1.6 μm region. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 178, 335-341.
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2012.11.009
Levendis Yiannis A., Kowalski Gregory, Lu Yang and Baldassarre Gregory (2020) A simple experiment on global warming. Soc. Open Sci.7192075192075
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075
There are also plenty of experiments on youtube, but avoid the ones using thermometers or IR devices inside/outside of glass chambers, as glass blocks/absorbs IR. Experiments using PVC vessels are better, as clear PVC is relatively transparent to IR in the major emission bands of CO2.
Here’s one, for example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
I could go on, but you get the picture.
Why would you favour one or two papers by people who are not experts in the field, over a century of science confirming the opposite result?
This is the mystery of AGW ‘skepticism’. They apply skepticism selectively.
I posted a brace of links to studies on experiments with CO2 and warming in the lab, Bill. But the post went into moderation.
I’ve captured the image of that.
https://i.imgur.com/1iw5BGo.png
https://i.imgur.com/ekWEv2I.png
Seim & Olsen replied to that “review” of their first experiment in a separate article [a “review” of an experiment, whatever next!?]
http://tinyurl.com/ycx2e6fe
“To claim it is flawed you need to demonstrate why its flawed.”
Lots of people have pointed out the flaws in the experiment, many times. Even the authors admit to flaws.
From my Email conversation with Seim:
“Hello Nathan
Some answers to your questions:
1. You measure a back radiation of 17 W/m^2 at the rear wall of the apparatus from the CO2 in the front section of the . But you don’t measure the expected rise in temperature of the gas in that rear section of 2.4-4.0 C. Instead you measure ~ 0.25 C rise. I am puzzled by this. Do you have any physics explanation for this?
Sorry, we have not found a physical explanation. The paper would have been much better if we had such an explanation! But we decided to publish it anyway and hope for some response from other scientists, with more knowledge about radiation theory than we possess.
2. The 17 W/m^2 is hitting the rear wall, which is ~ a black body, thus it should be absorbed and heating the wall. It seems you are finding that it is not? Isnt this a violation of the First Law and of Kirchoff’s Law?
We agree that the following response to increased IR radiation, absorbed in the back wall should be:
– The absorbed energy should rise the temperature of the back wall. Thermal energy transfer to the air in the back chamber should rise its temperature. This process should continue until balance is obtained with the incoming IR energy and the loss of energy due to higher IR radiation from the back wall. This conservation of energy is expected from the first law of thermodynamics and Kirchoff’s Law. But these laws are valid, so some other explanation must exist!
– One explanation is that so much energy is lost due to losses through the walls and windows in the boxes. But the measurements of losses done by us do not support this.
– The loss of energy due to expansion of the gas during heating (First Law) was also discussed, and found not to be the cause of the missing heating.”
This experiment has less in common with the Earth’s real atmosphere than it does with a real greenhouse, which you all agree is a bad model of the Earth’s GHE.
“[a ‘review’ of an experiment, whatever next!?]”
Right? Tyndall’s experiment should be sacrosanct, too!
Anyhoo, check my previous posts for plenty of experiments confirming the heating effect of CO2 in the lab and in the real atmosphere.
I didn’t even get around to posting the numerous papers on satellite retrieval of OLR over time, confirming that upwelling IR is being absorbed more and more by CO2 and other GHGs.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
The beauty of dealing with emissivity of gases is that they are so easy to distinguish due to their discrete emission profiles.
And you can do the same with downwelling IR, measured by ground instruments over time.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/
More and more IR is being returned to the surface by the atmosphere over time, in the spectra associated with GHGs.
The observational evidence is a large repository.
Versus a handful of ‘skeptic’ papers describing experiments made by amateurs with questionable set-ups and results.
Yet ‘skeptics’ belie their monicker and favour these handful of papers over a century of research confirming the opposite.
What’s up with that?
Sure, barry. Trouble is, total OLR has been rising since 1985, correlating well with the rising global temperature.
No need to apologise, that is well-known.
It is also well-known by the research community studying OLR that there is also change specific to the spectra of GHGs.
Eg,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/27/2/jcli-d-13-00047.1.xml
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00205-7
The observational evidence of radiative changes in the atmosphere in the spectra associated with GHGs adds to the other practical and observational evidence of the warming effects of CO2 that Bill requested upthread.
Side note: as soon as Bill provided corroboration I was more than happy to do what is proper and provide substantiation for what I’m saying.
It’s like pulling teeth, getting ‘skeptics’ to provide links to research corroborating their views. Mostly, they don’t, so neither do I. Why waste the effort with people who eschew the proper way of discussing scientific understanding?
I didn’t apologise.
"that is well-known"
Good, then the complete empirical annihilation of your entire religion is well-known. Fair enough.
Nate says:
”1. You measure a back radiation of 17 W/m^2 at the rear wall of the apparatus from the CO2 in the front section of the . But you dont measure the expected rise in temperature of the gas in that rear section of 2.4-4.0 C. Instead you measure ~ 0.25 C rise. I am puzzled by this. Do you have any physics explanation for this?”
Well the answer is clear Nate. Your theory is wrong.
The sensor is measuring the temperature difference between the thermocouple and the gas and since the gas is colder than the heated plate it obviously can’t make the heated plate hotter.
Its a complete failure of your pet theory the GPE when the plate becomes a convecting gas. What happens is the heated plate heats the gas until that gas warms enough to emit all it needs to emit to cool either by conduction, convection, or radiation or all three simultaneously. Its obvious that you can’t pretend that cold stuff warms hotstuff and not vice versa where the hot plate warms the gas and it convects like conveyor belt dumping the heat out the window by all means available to it.
If you disagree its on you to produce the same experiment where that ceases to happen and the heated plate warms. But that should be obvious to you so I don’t know why I have to say that.
[GRAHAM] Sorry, Barry.
[BARRY] No need to apologize.
[GRAHAM] I did not apologize.
If there is a comment saying, "sorry, barry", it’s not showing on my screen. I see one beginning, "sure, barry".
More incoherent rambling.
OK, Little Willy.
“Good, then the complete empirical annihilation of your entire religion is well-known. Fair enough.”
DREMT, please stop tr0lling.
You said it yourself, barry:
“That is the basic mechanism of the “Greenhouse Effect”.
An object receiving continual energy that has its rate of energy loss slowed must perforce became warmer. That’s basic thermodynamics.
And that’s the GHE.”
As the OLR is increasing, that is the exact opposite of Earth having "its rate of energy loss slowed".
“Well the answer is clear Nate. Your theory is wrong.
The sensor is measuring the temperature difference between”
Bill drifts off topic again, while ignoring that the AUTHORS agree with me that there is nothing WRONG with the theory.
” The absorbed energy should rise the temperature of the back wall. Thermal energy transfer to the air in the back chamber should rise its temperature. This process should continue until balance is obtained with the incoming IR energy and the loss of energy due to higher IR radiation from the back wall. This conservation of energy is expected from the first law of thermodynamics and Kirchoffs Law. But these LAWS ARE VALID, so some other explanation must exist!”
‘Some other explanation’ clearly means a problem with their understanding of their measurements.
“Its a complete failure of your pet theory the GPE when the plate becomes a convecting gas. What happens is the heated plate heats the gas until that gas warms enough to emit all it needs to emit to cool either by conduction, convection, or radiation or all three simultaneously.”
Strawman alert.
Bill totally fails to understand that different experiments are different, and mixes them all up in a great big stew of utter confusion, often seasoned with political/conspiratorial thinking.
Unlike Bill, I can fully understand how a different heat transfer setup leads to different results.
I have never suggested that the GPE, which is in vacuum, should give the same results as the Seim experiment in air!
“Sure, barry. Trouble is, total OLR has been rising since 1985, correlating well with the rising global temperature.”
Yes, but science aint simply qualitative, it is QUANTITATIVE.
The reality is that if abs.orbed solar rises, all else being equal, the surface T and OLR should rise.
Whereas if the GHE also rises, then the OLR rise should be partly cancelled, thus rise more SLOWLY or stay constant.
So the qualitative observation of a rising OLR doesnt tell us anything about the GHE!
Oh well!
Nate says:
”Bill totally fails to understand that different experiments are different, and mixes them all up in a great big stew of utter confusion, often seasoned with political/conspiratorial thinking.
Unlike Bill, I can fully understand how a different heat transfer setup leads to different results.
I have never suggested that the GPE, which is in vacuum, should give the same results as the Seim experiment in air!”
Strawman Alert!!
Seim and Olson did not compare their results to an experiment in a vacuum. They compared it to calculations used by Modtran in the atmosphere and found no warming of the heated plate.
“Seim and Olson did not compare their results to an experiment in a vacuum. ”
Nor did I, Bill.
So why are you creating this strawman?
“Its a complete failure of your pet theory the GPE when the plate becomes a convecting gas”
How can it be a failure when NO ONE is suggesting it applies?
Here’s an independent review of the Seim and Olsen experiment
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/18/review-of-seim-and-olsen-paper/
Because the M&W theory is merely a variation of the GPE where the plates are convecting gases. You say you are in agreement with the failure so I guess we are done here.
Nate says:
”Bill drifts off topic again, while ignoring that the AUTHORS agree with me that there is nothing WRONG with the theory.”
Did you get that in writing? LMAO! They probably knew they had a doofus on the line so what better way to shorten the conversation?
Nate says:
”How can it be a failure when NO ONE is suggesting it applies”
That sort of leaves you with no theory
Is there a different theory on how the heat gets from the co2 molecules high in the atmosphere to the ground?
How can it be a failure when NO ONE is suggesting it applies
That sort of leaves you with no theory”
Bill is dum, or plays dum, again.
“Because the M&W theory is merely a variation of the GPE where the plates are convecting gases. ”
Increasingly, Bill just says stuff that has no basis in reality.
“Is there a different theory on how the heat gets from the co2 molecules high in the atmosphere to the ground?”
Nope, explained may times. Did you forget again?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1624382
Nate says:
” ”Because the M&W theory is merely a variation of the GPE where the plates are convecting gases. ”
Increasingly, Bill just says stuff that has no basis in reality.”
So if you believe my take is wrong then how is it wrong? What is the correct take?
Apparently Nate doesn’t have a take and can’t explain how M&W works.
When Gill wakes up and he wants a sammich!
My explanations don’t stick.
Last try:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1624382
“Because the M&W theory is merely a variation of the GPE where the plates are convecting gases”
Nobody has suggested that GPE theory should be applied to S&O experiment, so your claim that it fails is a strawman.
Nobody has claimed that MW applies to the S&O experiment either.
S&O is not in the real atmosphere with a lapse rate, water vapor, clouds etc.
But MW does model the real atmosphere with those features.
There is no good reason to confuse all the models, other to obfuscate.
Nate says:
”My explanations dont stick.”
Of course they don’t Nate. The scientific method says its wrong and experiment trumps theory.
Your explanation:
”The whole point of the layer model MW 1967, is that thermal energy is shared upward and downward between the layers. The entire stack of layers adjusts to a change in the highest layers and reaches a new equilibrium.”
Indeed thats the 3rd grader radiation theory. . .developed out of the imagination of Arhennius. Many experiments show that the energy is not shared downwards, the only heat passage occurring is towards the cooler objects or space.
“The whole point of the layer model MW 1967, is that thermal energy is shared upward and downward between the layers. The entire stack of layers adjusts to a change in the highest layers and reaches a new equilibrium.
Indeed thats the 3rd grader radiation theory”
Oh I see, your 3rd grader model is a moving target!
It is no longer a just a cartoon model.
Now it includes convection, a lapse rate, water vapor, and numerical solution of differential equations!
Which neither 3rd graders nor you Bill, can comprehend.
You’ve really gone over the edge, Bill.
“Many experiments show that the energy is not shared downwards, the only heat passage occurring is towards the cooler objects or space.”
Except everyday in the real atmosphere it is shared downward.
Most weather is driven by movements of the jet stream which is the high-speed air in the upper troposphere.
It moves the warm and cold air masses around and changes the weather. This just happened where I live in New England, the Jet Stream meandered south over us last night, and brought cold air down from Canada to our upper troposphere.
And sure enough the cold was shared down to the surface.
In a few days warm air will blow in, also high in the troposphere, and that warmth will propagate down to the surface, warming us up again.
nate right continue to be obtuse. it would be embarrassing for you to actually come out and defend the model. i get that. so what is your special interest here in obtusely attacking any criticism of it while failing to defend its principle.
obviously since you have been calling the atmosphere as insulation where is the evidence that convection is constrained, other than by oxygen species heating up under uv assault? and what is co2’s role in that?
I imagine we will continue to hear Bill attaching the now meaningless ‘3rd grader’ label to any science he cannot understand.
That or ‘it’s a con’.
Whatever. Nobody is buying his crap.
The 3rd grader label applies to any canard of an experiment that doesn’t correspond to the actual limitations of a thermal barrier.
A thermal barrier is one that restricts at a minimum radiation and convection (within a convecting system)
Thus, the GPE is a 3rd grader level deception using it to establish the earths GHE.
Roys, ice chest experiment is a 3rd grader level deception using it to establish the earth’s GHE as it is upside down thus as he stated designed that way to restrict convection.
I have said in here many times that reflective radiant barriers do work to control downwelling heat because the trigger for convection is a buoyancy factor and heat makes anything more buoyant.
The Harvard and other University depictions of the GHE as preserved in Joe Postma’s poster but wiped from the internet by the Universities was a 3rd grade level deception when using it to establish the earth’s GHE.
Yes because convection only operates in a liquid or gas is bottom heated. Turning it on its head restricts convection because convection does not occur in liquids and gases from top down heating.
That said there is a small portion of top down heating in our atmosphere as the sun shines without regard to the angle of the earth’s surface, thus early first light and sunrise air warms the air faster than the surface while during sunset to twilight the atmosphere is warmed more than the surface. I see no compelling reason to believe that the GHE can be explained by that in combination with the excess heat convected non-thermally by water from the surface up into the atmosphere as those two items add up to about 180watts to the atmosphere and at most we are only looking for 150-160watts. . .and at least 35-60watts.
“Thus, the GPE is a 3rd grader level deception, using it to establish the earths GHE.”
Bill is very determined to erect strawmen, shine a spotlight on them, and then push them over!
For the 47th time, nobody has suggested that the GPE is the GHE or a real model of it.
While Bill has seen real GHE blueprints such as Manabe and Weatherald, 1967, which he cannot understand and will not make an effort to understand, he ironically labels them ‘3rd grader’ models, or ‘cons’, while mixing all models and experiments up in a big obfuscatory stew of confusion.
Good luck with that endeavor, Bill.
No I understand the difference.
To make the M&W model work you need a tropospheric hotspot. To make the 3rd grader model work you need to violate 2LOT.
Which presents a real problem once you go full circle of how to create a tropospheric hotspot without violating 2LOT. And of course we are then bounced between the theories like a ping pong ball without further explanation.
“No I understand the difference.
To make the M&W model work you need a tropospheric hotspot. To make the 3rd grader model work you need to violate 2LOT.”
As ever, none of that is true. And you offer no evidence to support it.
Goobye, Bill.
Well there are major fractures in your argument Nate.
Skeptical science lays out the hotspot as one of two key aspects of an increasing GHE. And what is there opinion on if there is a hotspot or not?
”So, does the hot spot actually exist? That is to say, is the tropsosphere actually warming as expected? Unfortunately, the answer to this is much less cut and dry.”
Thats as about as big of a wavering answer one could ever hope to get out of SkS and you are going to try to just handwave it away?
“Skeptical science lays out the hotspot as one of two key aspects of an increasing GHE.”
False.
ANY warming mechanism was expected to have it in the Tropics, and there is evidence for it.
Nate says:
”False.
ANY warming mechanism was expected to have it in the Tropics, and there is evidence for it.”
you really are ignorant. only a top down increase in forcing causes a hotspot. feedback from ocean warming and albedo change from snow and ice. thus the feedback portion of a recovery from the lia would not create a hotspot. its an absolute joke that you guys believe only co2 has feedbacks.
Wrong.
No link, no evidence, no credit.
yep for nate to consider anything he needs the approval of the cabal.
Bill, you are plainly presenting uncertified BS, and yet expect it to be taken seriously and considered.
No thanks.
I wonder why Swenson doesn’t provide the link to the NASA quote?
Maybe because at the top of the page it says:
“This page contains archived content and is no longer being updated. At the time of publication, it represented the best available science.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
The article appeared in 2014.
This is a short-term record – only 10 years. Does the same page have anything to say about that?
“What the results show is that even at global scales, Earth’s albedo fluctuates markedly over short time periods due to natural variations in the climate system,” said Norman Loeb, CERES principal investigator at NASA’s Langley Research Center…
“The results also suggest that in order to confidently detect changes in Earth’s albedo above natural variability, a much longer record is needed”
From memory, there are longer-term studies since then that have a negative global albedo trend, but the trends are not statistically significant.
barry,
Claims that the Earths albedo can be measured are ludicrous. No instruments exist which can measure the total energy from the Sun reaching the Earth, nor measure the amount reflected.
All dreams and wishful thinking. Of no practical use whatever.
If you disagree, maybe you could support your disagreement with some facts.
Just whining that NASA admits that the Earth’s albedo is just a guess, but is trying to imply it isn’t, wont help.
There is no GHE. AGW is indeed due to man-made heat. That’s why it is called anthropogenic global warming. Don’t you agree?
I don’t think you know very much about the various ways albedo is measured. Here is just one method – measuring changes in Earthshine as it falls on the Moon.
“We have observed earthshine from Big Bear Solar Observatory to measure the terrestrial albedo. For earthshine we measure the sunlight reflected from Earth to the dark part of the lunar face and back to the nighttime observer, yielding an instantaneous large-scale reflectance of the Earth. In these relative measurements, we also observe the sunlit, bright part of the lunar face. We report here reflectance data (monthly, seasonal and annual) covering two decades, 19982017.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2021GL094888
“The two-decade decrease in earthshine-derived albedo corresponds to an increase in radiative forcing of about 0.5 W/m², which is climatologically significant (Miller et al., 2014).”
If that’s correct, it accounts for a large part of the warming trend, aka “natural variability”.
Yes, Puffman. Most of the short trends are imputable to natural variability.
You discovered weather. It took you more than a decade, but you made it. Congratulations!
Your cult beliefs fail again, child.
Your comment confirms that you got NOTHING, Puffman.
Riddle me this: do you think natural variability only adds to the warming?
Child, get a responsible adult to explain “variability” to you.
The answer is that sometimes natural variability can have a cooling effect, Puffman. This is why we know that the anthropogenic contribution to our current warming is more than 100%.
No wonder you’re into Skies-Shooting-Down-Cold-Rays fantasy.
Whacky Wee Willy,
“This is why we know that the anthropogenic contribution to our current warming is more than 100%.”
You are quite deranged, obviously.
Man generates substantial waste heat. Thermometers react to this by indicating increased temperatures under appropriate conditions.
The planet continues to cool, as it must, and the temporary AGW heat is ephemeral, eventually vanishing into space. More humans, more heat. It’s not advanced science, although it’s obviously beyond your understanding. That is no doubt why you believe in the heating power of a GHE which you have described as “not cooling, slower cooling”. No wonder you descend to gibberish when confronted with your own silliness.
Carry on regardless.
Mike Flynn,
Put down.
Irrelevant truism.
Ringtone.
Fall.
Closing phrase.
Whacky Wee Willy,
This is why we know that the anthropogenic contribution to our current warming is more than 100%.”
You are quite deranged, obviously.
Man generates substantial waste heat. Thermometers react to this by indicating increased temperatures under appropriate conditions.
The planet continues to cool, as it must, and the temporary AGW heat is ephemeral, eventually vanishing into space. More humans, more heat. Its not advanced science, although its obviously beyond your understanding. That is no doubt why you believe in the heating power of a GHE which you have described as not cooling, slower cooling. No wonder you descend to gibberish when confronted with your own silliness.
Carry on regardless.
Mike Flynn,
To estimate a time series regression model, a trend must be estimated. You begin by creating a line chart of the time series. The line chart shows how a variable changes over time; it can be used to inspect the characteristics of the data, in particular, to see whether a trend exists.
What are you braying about?
Except you have never believed in radiative forcing, Clint.
why should he?
and of course we are talking here about radiative forcing from a cold object. That can only ever happen if the cold objects 1) are actually getting warmer, and 2) the amount it gets warmer overrides the negative feedback of convection. Its the latter point that thoughtful skeptics allow for the possibility of some warming.
“why should he?”
Read his post that I responded to.
“No instruments exist which can measure the total energy from the Sun reaching the Earth, nor measure the amount reflected.”
Evidence?
Nah. Swenson is too ignorant to figure out how science does so many things that he declares impossible.
Nate,
No instruments exist which can measure the total energy from the Sun reaching the Earth, nor measure the amount reflected.
The evidence that no such instruments exist is that no such instruments exist.
Why do you willingly blather such nonsense? The instrument measuring Earthshine from Earth is described in this paper.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003JD003610
No point festooning this thread with links to the other instruments measuring solar radiation and terrestrial reflected radiation. You’ll never pull your head out of the sand to read them.
barry, please stop trolling.
lost my place…troubleshooting…
ent…solipsism my pituity. I am talking the antithesis of self. I am trying to get through to you that the self is an illusion created by thought. A self image is just that, an image, where image comes from imaginary.
You claim to have a degree in biology and you cannot figure out a simple statement of awareness, labeling it as a self-centred projection. When humans discovered the Sun does not orbit the Earth, that was awareness in action. Till that time, humans were caught up in an illusion created by the human mind, via misdirected thought processes.
They (mainly the Church) were so outraged over that insight from Copernicus they were willing to kill him unless he recanted. A lot like climate alarmists today.
Can you not understand the simple message I am trying to convey? Perhaps that’s why you are an alarmist. I have claimed several times that the universe exists independently of the human mind. Of course, the organic part of the brain is part of that universe but the content is not. I am talking about the content of consciousness which under normal circumstances cannot understand that the Sun does not move across the sky, it is the Earth’s rotation causing that illusion.
Same with time and space-time, which are similar illusions. The human consciousness has created an illusion that such an entity as time exists but no human can explain it. Therefore it persists as an illusion, which confused even Einstein.
This is your chance to challenge such illusions, or do you believe the Sun actually rises in the East and sets in the West?
Go into it…please. Try to identify the meaning of time while staying away from gross generalizations like the arrow of time. That arrow in most humans goes in one ear and extends out the other. That’s the only place time can exist, between human ears.
I have asked several postrs in Roy’s blog to…please…show me where this time is located that they go on about. If clocks measure time as they claim, what is it they are measuring?
> show me where this time is located
Right here, Bordo:
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike aFlynn,
When?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Modeling your behavior on Graham D. Warner isn’t the way.
You already have a voice.
Gordon,
Spencer and Christy publish time series data.
Every time you talk about pauses and trends you are inferring time.
barry,
Every time? Are you sure?
Or are you talking about a different sort of time?
About time you took the time to describe what time you are talking about. In the meantime, you might find it timely to take a short time-out.
Good times, wot?
Flynnson’s one and only interest: to discredit other people’s meaning by endlessly blathering irrelevant, intentionally distorting stuff.
Antonin Qwerty is right: Flynnson is this blog’s worst and dûmbest tr0ll.
“Antonin Qwerty is right: Flynnson is this blogs worst and dmbest tr0ll.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Your post is headed February 18th at 10.16pm.
Your previous post was headed February 18th at 10.14pm.
That is how external reality in the form of the server’s clock function processed the time interval between you clicking “Submit comment” for the two comments.
How did your mind process this time interval? Was it aware that the two events were distinct and consecutive?
Your contention that there is no time is bullshit, as your own subjective experience demonstrates.
I think you have also become confused by the difference between subjective and objective reality.
Subjective reality is how you process and attempt to explain what you perceive. It also includes the beliefs that you generate. Much of that may well be illusion.
Objective reality is what actually happens regardless of your belief.
Incidentally, do you realise that it have biological clocks. Inside your hypothalamus is an oscillator with a natural period of slightly more than 24 hours. This controls your circadian rhythms, the changes in your body over the 24 hour cycle. Secondary oscillators scattered through your body control specific cycles and are reset by the master clock in your hypothalamus.
If you are isolated in constant light with no outside cues and no clocks, your sleep cycle gradually lags behind normal and your “day” becomes somewhere between 24 and 25 hours.
Normally light resets the clock every 24 hours so you stay in synch with the Earth’s rotation.
It’s also why you get jet lag. Air travel moves you around the world fast enough that your sleep cycle is out of synch with the local day/night cycle when you arrive. It may take several days for your primary and secondary oscillator to reset to the new timing.
There is a school of thought which regards consciousness and a sense of self as an emergent illusion created as the brain coordinates processes going on in its different parts.
An analogy from computing would be the clock function which keeps different processes within the hardware synchronised.
What does this have to do with the interpretation and attempted explanation of evidence from external reality?
ent…you are talking philosophy, which is essentially a study of thought, by thought, an impossible procss. Thought is the problem, it is usually distorted and very seldom intelligent. There is a good reason for that, thought and intelligence have little in common.
When we refer to ourselves as ‘self’, there are two things going on. Obviously there are biological processes that are real and enable the ‘sense of self’, and a psychological process, for want of a better word, that is undefined. Most of that undefined state is a collection of ideas conditioned into us either intentionally by parents and peers, or through our own impressions of what we observe.
Most thought, by nature, is distorted, yet we often rely on that distortion to run our lives. When what we observe does not align with our self-defined distortion, we experience different emotions, like hatred, anger, envy, jealousy.
We are even deluded as to who we are. When I look back on my life, I feel numb trying to explain ridiculous behavior that conflicts with my definition of self. Obviously, who I have imagined myself to be is not who I am in actuality. At best, I can only define myself in generalities and the only upside is that I have strived to be better than I have behaved in the past.
I think that is what is meant by illusion, not that the self does not exist. I think the word illusion is being applied incorrectly. If you apply the word self, it can obviously mean the real, physical body. However, the content of consciousness that sees itself as an image in the mind, is more appropriately defined as an illusion, but only because the mind is incapable of seeing itself as it is in actuality.
As a fellow Scot once put it…
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!”
That was Burns talking to a mouse he had uprooted from its home as he plowed his fields.
I don’t see a clock in a computer being analogous to the human brain. The beauty of the human brain is that it can operate without a central clock while running parallel processes which no computer can emulate. In fact, without its connections to the extremities and organs, the brain would not function well at all.
I see the brain as a multiple, complex feedback system of the servo type. In other words, the brain serves as a central processor that is dependent on peripherals. A computer on the other hand functions well without any peripherals attached. One might argue that a keyboard and display are mandatory, but the absence of each does not stop the processor completing housekeeping tasks in the back ground that are dependent on the clock.
I am thinking of an example by biologist Rupert Sheldrake. He described human vision in a way that describes the image-forming process and its complexity. When a human looks at an object, or a scene, light from the object reaches the human lens where it is inverted and focused on the retina. The retina has no means of assessing a 3-D scenario and it passed a 3-D image on to the brain by converting the 2-D image to electrical impulses.
A camera does something similar but it produces only a 2-D image. When the human brain observes that image it adds depth that is not there on the photograph.
Something in the brain takes the electrical impulses and converts them to an internal image which must also be a representation of a 2-D field. However, the brain has a means of converting this 2-D image to a 3-D image in the brain.
So far, so good, but how does the brain manage to instantly convert a 2-D panorama at the retina to a 3-D image then project it so we can see the panorama as a scenario with depth, through our eyes in real time? Apparently, we learn to add depth and people who have been blind for some time and recover vision have difficulty with that.
It appears that even processes we regard as natural involve a certain amount of illusion. Is that why humans can perceive a situation and completely misinterpret it?
That’s what I am getting at re the universe. We humans lack the ability to observe it in an unbiased manner and often we leap to illogical conclusions. It can be very difficult to overcome those biases and look with an objective mind. I am claiming that time is an illusion and that we must be very careful when applying it to real life processes.
MORE reasons why the GHE is bogus.
REASON #8 — Radiative flux is not energy and can NOT be treated as energy.
The cultists have shown, over and over, that they have no understanding of radiative flux. That’s one of the reasons they can’t understand why the GHE is bogus.
For those capable of learning, let’s try to make it simple.
Radiative flux has units of “Watts per square meter”, usually seen here as “W/m²”. The units even confuse some. For example, “300 W/m²” does NOT mean the same as three 100 Watt lightbulbs. I block of ice emits about 300 W/m², but that is nowhere near the same as three 100 Watt lightbulbs. Confusing “Watts” with “W/m²” is a lot of the confusion.
“Watts” are units of “power”. “Joules” are units of “energy”. Power is not energy. Power is energy per time. Watts = Joules/second.
Radiative flux has units of “power per area”, or “energy per time per area”. Confusing flux with energy is a common mistake in climate “science”.
Stop here and review the above if you don’t have a firm grasp of the issues. Going further will only be confusing if you don’t understand the above.
Energy is a “conserved” quantity. That means energy must always be accountable, just as money in your bank account. Energy-in and energy-out must always result in a “balance”, just as money-in and money-out must always result in your bank balance.
But flux does not have to balance. An object can absorb more flux than it emits. Energy and bank accounts must always balance, or laws are being broken. There are no laws requiring flux to balance.
The energy in radiative flux is the combined energy of the flux photons. The flux is that combined energy per time per area.
Often a simple analogy is useful:
Three bricks are all identical — same mass (m) and composition. Each would have the same thermal energy, if at the same temperature, T. With each brick having the same thermal capacity, C, each would have thermal energy E = CmT.
From the Stefan/Boltzmann Law, and emissivity of 1, each would be emitting a flux of σT⁴.
Let’s use some simple numbers — m = 1, C = 1, T = 400K
The thermal energy in each brick is then 400 Joules, with total thermal energy of 1200 Joules. And each is emitting 1452 W/m².
If we change the temperatures to 200K, 400K, and 600K, the three bricks still have the same total thermal energy, 1200 Joules. But the emitted fluxes change to 91, 1452, and 7348 W/m². The total energy remains the same, but look what happens to the emitted fluxes!
The cult would attempt to average the fluxes, getting a bogus value of 2964 W/m². But that flux would correspond to a temperature of 478 K, which is NOT the average temperature of 400K. Fluxes can not be averaged.
Tr0ll Clint R
” The units even confuse some. For example, “300 W/m²” does NOT mean the same as three 100 Watt lightbulbs. I block of ice emits about 300 W/m², but that is nowhere near the same as three 100 Watt lightbulbs. Confusing “Watts” with “W/m²” is a lot of the confusion. ”
No one is confused.
What you write is your own nonsense which you endlessly use to intentionally distort the discussion.
Bindi, you must have missed Gordon’s ongoing confusion about flux.
You seem to miss a lot….
Riddle me this, Puffman –
Isn’t Bordo a Sky Dragon crank like you?
No child, Gordon is a brain-dead cult idi0t like you.
He just belongs to his own cult.
Yes, Puffman. To be a Sky Dragon cranks all one has to do is deny the greenhouse effect.
Riddle me this – what’s energy flux?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Imitating Graham D. Warner does not good well on you.
Clint, you did a very important explanation on why the fluxes cannot add.
Unfortunately they consider planets (Earth) as blackbodies. Blackbodies do not have differentiated surface temperatures, like planets and moons have.
Blackbodies have uniform surface temperatures.
Thus a planet (Earth) doesn’t emit at its average surface temperature. A planet emits with its every infinitesimal point, which point has its own (and ever changing) temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…nothing Clint offers is important, he is an angry person who likes to spread propaganda. Don’t fear him, he is a nobody. His entire post on fluxes and watts is nonsense.
Christos
Are you familiar with the concept of the “black box” used in system theory?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box
A black box is an open system with a boundary. You study the inputs and outputs across the boundary without necessarily knowing what goes on inside.
Studying the Earth’s energy budget you can take the same approach.
Using satellites you can take multiple measurements of energy flow into and out of the Earth black box and build up a picture of the totals.
You can describe the flow into and out of the black box as three terms – total incoming shortwave radiation, total outgoing shortwave radiation and total outgoing longwave radiation.(aka solar insolation, albedo and OLR.
For a stable open system
Solar insolation – albedo = OLR
For a cooling system
Solar insolation – albedo OLR
The third alternative is what the satellites observe.
I repeat, you don’t need to know anything about the details of what goes on inside the box, just measurements of what goes in and out.
EM,
Or you can just observe that the Earth has cooled.
No measurements needed – just notice that you are not standing on glowing rock, as was the case four and a half billion years ago.
If you believe in the existence of a GHE, you should have no trouble explaining its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, should you?
Of course, if you are just imagining the GHE, you won’t even be able to describe how it cooled the Earth.
Over to you.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“A black box is an open system with a boundary. You study the inputs and outputs across the boundary without necessarily knowing what goes on inside.”
–
Sorry, it is too late in Athens, Greece. Shall we continue tomorrow?
I have to go now.
Christos
ent…”A black box is an open system with a boundary. You study the inputs and outputs across the boundary without necessarily knowing what goes on inside”.
***
The black box model is used in electronics theory to help a student apply concepts. Other than that, it has no practical value.
The problem with current climate alarm theory is that far too many black boxes with no apparent value are being used.
Newton’s theory of gravitation is a “black box” theory, and has had myriad practical applications and continues to do so in the present day.
“The black box model is used in electronics theory to help a student apply concepts. Other than that, it has no practical value.”
How little regard you have for science.
Yes Barry, Newton’s theory of gravitation has been validated.
barry,
It’s Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. There is no Newtonian theory of gravitation.
If you can find a way to break that law, I will be surprised.
You are an idiot who can’t even describe the GHE, but are convinced it does something or other – you just aren’t sure what, are you?
Accept reality. CO2 heats nothing. There is no GHE.
Bill,
You have a knack for missing the point.
Newton’s gravitational theory is a black box. He couldn’t explain why gravity works the way it does, only that successful predictions could be made from his deductions.
Principia, 2nd Edition:
“I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses…. It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies.”
Gordon dismissed black boxes as mere learning tools. No, they are ever-present in science, and the acceptance of these voids in complete knowledge has allowed science to continue to develop without being hampered by some overly-fastidious need to account for every molecule before formulating a theory.
barry,
Blabbering about black boxes or black bodies does not disguise the fact that you cannot even describe the GHE.
Be a man, and develop a backbone. Tell everyone what you believe – is there a GHE? Wha5 do you believe it does?
You won’t commit yourself, will you? That’s why you want to babble about everything else!
I would say its you Barry thats missing the point.
Newton’s law of gravity isn’t imputed from its underlying characteristics its imputed from experiment.
CO2 theory is in the same category of the problem of cold stuff warming hot stuff. Yes its possible the surface will get warmer from a hot spot in the atmosphere making the surrounds warmer.
But now we are being bombarded with how the atmosphere is getting colder the further you go up into it and thats a completely different theory of how the greenhouse effect works. . .and unfortunately as a result has deviated from the surrounds getting warmer in a way that it could be linked to CO2 by some theory of warming.
This theory is on its last legs and is only going to hang around like the theory that aliens are being housed in Area 51 hangs in there.
Bill,
“Newton’s law of gravity isn’t imputed from its underlying characteristics its imputed from experiment.”
It’s still a black box theory – as I just quoted Newton verifying, and you’re still not getting the point.
You can make successful predictions about a thing without knowing much about its inner workings.
It was posited above that you could treat the Earth climate system as a black box and still work out whether it is changing overall. Like a black box, the system has inputs and outputs which can be empirically measured. It is not necessary to know the inner workings of the climate system/gravity to be able to describe and predict response to inputs/outputs.
That is the point.
Barry I know what a black box model is. A blackbox model is validated by outcomes where you can either control the variables or you can observe changes in the variables and you can show a consistent result arising after X number of changes in the variable, then you can build a statistical validation of the model. . .like NOAA is trying to do with their ENSO modeling that as of 5 years ago was still not showing any skill at predicting through the spring prediction barrier.
No, Nill, you have not described a black box. You are, as usual, throwing words around to shoehorn in whatever it is you want to talk about.
Black box definition: “In science, computing, and engineering, a black box is a system which can be viewed in terms of its inputs and outputs (or transfer characteristics), without any knowledge of its internal workings.”
Bill box definition: “A blackbox model is validated by outcomes where you can either control the variables or you can observe changes in the variables and you can show a consistent result arising after X number of changes in the variable, then you can build a statistical validation of the model. . .like NOAA is trying to do with their ENSO modeling that as of 5 years ago was still not showing any skill at predicting through the spring prediction barrier.”
That’s not a black box. That’s a model.
The climate system as “black box” is not an experimental model as you describe, but is a system with radiative inputs and outputs which we do not control, for which all we need is knowledge of radiative transfer and 3 terms.
Perhaps you should read the originating comment.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1626033
barry that was a long post without appearing to say anything at all.
And yours is a short post that definitely says nothing at all.
I posted the link to the original comment above. Why don’t you read it to finally understand what the discussion is about.
Barry maybe you ought to read.
I didn’t disagree with you on what a blackbox is. I simply pointed out that some blackboxes are validated and some are not.
You though don’t want to post how you know the CO2 blackbox actually warms the surface.
If you read the original comment I won’t need to rehash the conversation just because you’re too lazy to click on a link.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1626033
Ent has already covered your question:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1626766
If you want to discuss Ent’s thesis, don’t you think you’d be better off talking to Ent?
barry says:
”Bill,
Newtons law of gravity isnt imputed from its underlying characteristics its imputed from experiment.
Its still a black box theory as I just quoted Newton verifying, and youre still not getting the point.
You can make successful predictions about a thing without knowing much about its inner workings.”
Yep, Newton’s black box essentially never fails and gets results with and extremely low margin of error.
Just a teensy bit of difference don’t you think Barry?
Teensy bit of difference between gravity and what, Bill?
Whatever your answer is, I will bet my bottom dollar that it is not the black box that Ent described.
I look forward to saying what you are comparing the black box of gravity to as a “teensy difference.” Anyone lurking will see yet again how you are missing the point and yet again talking about something else.
barry, please stop trolling.
The blackbox that Ent describes, a study of inflow and outflow, does not have the resolution to detect the net difference.
What they are doing is estimating short term warming rates in only a portion of the climate system and attributing that as the imbalance.
short term rates of energy accumulation could be attributable to natural climate change from a large array of potential causes.
And since actual resolution of the monitoring system is several times worse than the estimated energy imbalance they don’t even know if the energy imbalance is growing or shrinking.
All we have in here is a bunch of parrots claiming they do know.
binny…”Why are you fixated all the time on this boring blackbody stuff?”
***
Intepretation…Binny wants Christos to post some simple stuff that Binny may be able to understand.
… says this blog most ignorant poster who doesn’t even understand what is time, endlessly writes lengthy posts about everything but containing nothing.
All what Robertson is able to do is to polemically discredit and denigrate instead of technically let alone scientifically contradict.
“All what Robertson is able to do is to polemically discredit and denigrate instead of technically let alone scientifically contradict.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
I have invited anyone who cares to submit their definition of time, to explain what it is. No one, including you, can offer such an explanation, even though you bray about it as if you do know what it is.
When did Bindidon “bray” about time, Gordon?
A few posts above he brayed that I don’t understand what time is. He can’t explain it and I have acknowledged it does not exist, ergo I can’t know what it is if it doesn’t exist.
How about you, Barry, care to define time as anything other than a human idea?
“A few posts above”
A you referring to his post at 3:48pm?
I’m pretty sure he didn’t post it yet. Time being an illusion and all.
I get your humour Barry, and I am sure we could have a few laughs over this stuff, but you are evading what time is. It’s not there as a real entity other than in the thought processes of humans.
Are you saying that the time series that are updated once a month here and at other institutes are works of fiction because they assume that time flows in one direction?
I would say that time is objectively real because we constantly make scientific predictions with time as an essential component and we are almost always right about the time, if not about other components of the prediction.
There is a philosophical level where subjective time can be discussed, but for everyday purposes like arriving to work, setting an alarm, or making time series out of data, there is not much to talk about. Time flows in one direction only (physics explains why, entropy etc), and however we divide it into discrete units, or experience it on a personal level, or experience it differently at different velocities, it’s not enough to blow the concept out of usefulness or predictability here on Earth.
The ontology of Time is a deep well, and in my experience good for flexing the mind, at best, but not much else.
Gordon,
This is a very lengthy article from an encyclopedia of philosophy covering the major inquiries into Time over… the centuries? From Plato to Quantum Mechanics.
https://iep.utm.edu/time/
It’s very comprehensive for an overview.
barry, please stop trolling.
One of the more stoopid posts by Clint above on fluxes. He clearly lacks the understanding of what flux means or what the watt means.
If one considers magnets, which have definite flux fields, putting two magnets together doubles the flux field strength, so clearly, in some cases fluxes can add. So, we have to differentiate between a magnetic flux field and the flux field associated with EM, which has both an electric and magnetic flux field.
The problem is, Clint does not understand the meaning of flux, which is more an imaginary notion than an actual physical entity. Because ‘something’ is influencing another body, does not mean it exists as we visualize it. The word flux comes from Newton’s ‘fluxion’ which he intended as a representation of our modern ‘derivative’ in modern calculus. Essentially, flux is a reference to a rate of change, not a physical quantity.
Therefore, flux is a reference to how quickly a field is changing instantaneously and is not a quantity anyone would need to add. Clint is clearly confusing flux with an actual physical process that is changing over an area wrt time.
We have no idea what it is that is changing wrt energy. With EM, when we claim the orthogonally related E and M field are changing wrt time at so many hertz/second, we have no idea what the E and M field are. They are simply classified as energy, and in the most generic sense.
With a magnet, the magnetic strength is rated in flux lines per unit area but obviously no one can see those lines. ‘Something’ can be indicated by placing a sheet of paper over the magnetic and pouring iron filings on the paper. The filings will align themselves with the mysterious magnetic field.
It should be noted that a field is not the same as a flux. A flux is a mathematical term and a field is the human-based definition of that mathematical entity.
Clint, in his naivete. thinks this changing energy field can be measured in watts, even though the watt is clearly defined based on the horsepower, hence is clearly a measure of mechanical energy. It is used with reference to heat because so many watts of mechanical power have a heat equivalent (not equality) when applied to a medium like water. However, there is no way the watt can be applied to an energy form that has no mass.
Of course, this is well over Clint’s head and he will come back with ad homs and insults because that’s all he has. Quite paaathetic, actually. In short, if Clint had an ounce of sense, he’d steer clear of talking about subjects he clearly does not understand, and to stop insulting people who know far more about a subject than he does.
Gordon Robertson
Clint R would be correct and you would be wrong on this one.
Scientists can easily measure the energy in EMR by how it heats up things. Not sure why you are going on some type of ridiculous reasoning. You really should read some science to see what it is about, the evidence they have for the ideas that they come up with and things of this nature. At the time you do not sound informed at all. You actually sound quite the opposite, like a person who really knows nothing about the subject (like time or energy or any other of the established physics concepts that have been studied and thought about for many years).
What a meltdown from Gordon.
Obviously his therapy sessions aren’t helping….
As I predicted, Clint has no scientific comeback, just more hot air.
Gordon, when you don’t even know the difference between a magnetic field and radiative flux, there is no way to discuss science with you.
You’re at the bottom of the barrel here. You’re down there with barry, bindi, Nate, and silly willy. Even Norman knows more about science than you.
And the fact that you have spent years here trying to fake being an engineer just means you’ve got serious issues.
Get help.
Puffman,
Riddle me this – what does the concept of radiative flux generalize?
“Riddle me this ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
“Radiative” means emitting or causing the emission of radiation.
In physics, radiation is the emission or transmission of energy in the form of waves or particles through space or a material medium.
What are you braying about?
clint….”Gordon, when you dont even know the difference between a magnetic field and radiative flux, there is no way to discuss science with you”.
***
I brought the subject up because I have studied magnetic and electromagnetic fields formally. In practice, I have had to shield against those fields.
There is little difference between a magnetic field and the electromagnetic field you call a radiative flux. The field in either case, is an imaginary concept created by the human mind and flux is an attempt to measure the field strength over an area.
It is debatable as to whether the word flux can be applied to a magnetic field, unless the field is changing regularly, as in a transformer. A transformer relies on an alternating current in the primary creating a varying magnetic field which cuts stationary windings in the transformer secondary, inducing an alternating current/voltage.
The varying magnetic field is referred to as both a field and a flux, but the meaning is slightly different. A field simply defines a magnetic force field around a magnetic source whereas the flux is a measure of the field strength. Again, flux is a measure of the rate at which the field is changing over a specified area it is not a physically identifiable entity
One would never talk about adding fluxes, one would talk about increasing the field strength by adding imaginary lines of force to a specified area. Flux is essentially the number of those imaginary lines of force per unit area. In either case, the flux and the field are both imaginary, even though a force can be generated by ‘something’.
Over to you. If you truly understand this, you should be able to debate the points I have made.
gordon, if you’ve really studied magnetic fields, you would know radiative flux is completely different. But, you don’t know that. You just clog the blog with endless rambling about things you don’t understand.
But, thanks for avoiding your usual insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations. That’s a start to facing reality.
Good news for the ‘La Nina’ aficionados:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/19/the-coming-collapse-of-el-nino-and-the-ramifications-on-the-atlantic-basin-tropical-season/
La Nina is coming.
Recent ENSO forecasts:
“A transition from El Niño to ENSO-neutral is likely by April-June 2024 (79% chance), with increasing odds of La Niña developing in June-August 2024 (55% chance)”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
“Sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific are expected to return to neutral El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) levels in the southern hemisphere autumn 2024.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
“El Niño conditions have persisted in the equatorial Pacific since boreal spring last year.
It is more likely to transition to ENSO-neutral conditions by the end of boreal spring (60%) than El Niño conditions will persist (40%). ENSO-neutral conditions are likely during boreal summer (70%).”
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
Let’s not forget:
“…models have problems in predicting boreal winter tropical Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) when forecasts start in boreal spring (February–May). This is called the spring predictability barrier” (Lai et al. 2018).
https://tinyurl.com/ycsdr7lq
Are you saying that La Nina will not happen?
rlh…Barry is hoping La Nina won’t happen because it interferes with his alarmist dogma.
barry really doesn’t care either way, Gordon.
You’ll find that it is the ‘skeptics’ who are always predicting/hoping/wishing for la Ninas. Eben constantly tells us one is coming, but never that an el Nino is coming. And RLH is patently more interested to know if a la Nina is coming.
Because those bozos actually DO care about whether its an el Nino or a la Nina.
It’s asinine. Childish. These are peaks and troughs that have nothing to do with the general premise of AGW, but because they don’t like AGW they’ll make everything about it.
Let me anticipate the usual nonsense.
No, I don’t think an el Nino means anything WRT long-term global warming.
No, I don’t think CO2 was the cause of the recent spike in global temps.
Hopefully you and your ilk can say something new one day.
“RLH is patently more interested to know if a la Nina is coming.”
Are you saying that La Nina is NOT coming?
Are you saying that’s what I’m saying?
Let me check and see if I work at any of the institutes I just quoted. Hmmm….
…
No, I don’t believe that I had any input whatsoever to the quotes I provided from professional research groups.
So the models are correct – except when they aren’t.
Are you saying I’m saying what you seem to be saying I’m saying?
I’ve just posted three different forecasts with different results. And I’ve posted immediately after that a reminder about the Spring predictability barrier. The message being that uncertainty is high right now.
And your response is that fatuous, flea-bitten jibe.
How about you talk about what the institutes are saying instead of making comically incorrect guesses about what I’m saying.
If you want to know what I’m saying….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1626145
“The message being that uncertainty is high right now.”
The message being that the models have a wide variation in what they are predicting. They cannot all be correct.
“They cannot all be correct.”
The banality of your offerings is proportional to your argumentativeness. I can’t remember you saying anything interesting in a very long while.
It looks like La Nina is coming. How deep and how long is the question.
Are you saying there is zero uncertainty that a la Nina is coming this year?
Remember who told you first two month ago
I remember you said el Nino was past the peak before it was past the peak.
If you said that a la Nina will come someday, well aren’t you brilliant.
As brilliant as RLH.
Are skeptics so childishly binary that they actually believe realists care either way if a la Nina or an el Nino develops?
Bring on a la Nina. Or neutral. Or el Nino. What difference does it make to the general debate?
Are things going to get colder or warmer?
Why do you care?
We just had a string of La Ninas, and now an El Nino.
But the mean over this period, the last 5 years, just broke a record, @ 0.303 C.
I predict that the 5 y running mean will continue to break records for awhile.
Longer running means are more sensitive to climate change. The 10 y running mean just broke a record @ 0.25 C.
I predict it will keep rising and breaking records for the rest of the year. What say you?
records are made to be broken. There are a million records around climate at least. What records do you expect to be broken?
I expect the trend will continue that every year since 2002 has seen more hot records broken than cold in cities and towns around the world.
https://www.mherrera.org/records.htm
https://www.mherrera.org/records1.htm
https://www.mherrera.org/records2.htm
Here are the results up to 2021, when I last checked 19 months ago:
2002 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 204
Minimum 22
2003 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 394
Minimum 20
2004 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 113
Minimum 13
2005 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 120
Minimum 29
2006 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 145
Minimum 20
2007 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 297
Minimum 17
2008 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 90
Minimum 32
2009 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 138
Minimum 21
2010 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 505
Minimum 44
2011 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 169
Minimum 39
2012 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 296
Minimum 16
2013 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 405
Minimum 16
2014 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 217
Minimum 19
2015 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 328
Minimum 14
2016 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 323
Minimum 21
2017 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 219
Minimum 18
2018 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 435
Minimum 41
2019 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 647
Minimum 18
2020 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 354
Minimum 15
2021 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 404
Minimum 59
If you click on the 3rd link you can check the results for 2022 and 2023, which I’ve not yet done.
Go on, add up the minima and maxima for 2022 and 2023 and see if my prediction is falsified in those two years.
To make it easier, just do 2022. 2023 was a record-breaking warm year, so you won’t have any luck with that.
But 2022 was the 3rd year of successive la Ninas.
I really haven’t checked it yet, so go ahead and see what the result is. I’ve made a prediction that can be falsified. Are you curious?
A better measure of the impact of more water vapor and CO2, would be the comparison between maximums and how many warmest minimums is occurring.
That would put the greenhouse effect into a more proper light of how it will actually might work. then you can show trends in deaths from cold vs deaths from heat. As it stands homelessness and associated deaths from that are in part caused by increases in the costs of housing insulation standards and in the prices of housing and warming a house from increased costs for access to energy.
You guys need to realize that you are killing people without having a good grasp on what you hope to gain.
Bill, you asked:
“records are made to be broken. There are a million records around climate at least. What records do you expect to be broken?”
I answered that question.
In reply you changed the subject.
Do you have anything to say about my reply to your question?
My reply was to Nate.
barry says:
”Do you have anything to say about my reply to your question?”
No. It was my feeling your question which wasn’t addressed to anybody in particular would be best answered by somebody who doesn’t believe the globe has warmed over the past 4 decades.
As Nate hadn’t replied to your last post I assumed you were talking to me.
Your comment didn’t have anything to do with what Nate said, either.
You keep doing that.
Bill had already tried to change the subject when he responded to my post:
“There are a million records around climate at least. ”
Of course there are millions of LOCAL records.
But not millions of GLOBAL records.
The long running means of Global temperature, in this case the 10 y one, keeps breaking warm records.
Without a nearly non-stop GW trend, this cannot keep happening.
Both the 5 year and 10 year means include the period with a string of three La Ninas.
My point was that having 3 La Ninas in a row did not stop global warming.
Thus the possible return to La Nina this year is also unlikely to stop GW and put us into a cooling trend.
Nate says:
The long running means of Global temperature, in this case the 10 y one, keeps breaking warm records.
Without a nearly non-stop GW trend, this cannot keep happening.
Both the 5 year and 10 year means include the period with a string of three La Ninas.
My point was that having 3 La Ninas in a row did not stop global warming.
Thus the possible return to La Nina this year is also unlikely to stop GW and put us into a cooling trend.
——————–
Obviously that is exactly what an LIA recovery should look like Nate. What is your estimate of how long warming would continue if tomorrow CO2 in the atmosphere stopped increasing its concentration from human emissions but only from any increases from Henry’s Law as the ocean continued to find an equilibrium on all fronts?
An “LIA recovery” with no causal mechanisms that pass the smell tests.
Which is why casual proponents use the phrase instead of the mechanism/s. It’s just a lazy assertion. The word “recovery” is a piece of rhetoric all by itself, as if the global climate is a piece of elastic rebounding to some (fictional) normal.
Figured I’d update 2022 and 2023, seeing as I got the links out.
Regarding maxima and minima under global warming, I got data for record-breaking local temperatures around the world since 2002 (as much data as I could find for this metric). I posted the results in 2019, updated in 2022, and updating again today.
This is a count of how many record-breaking hot days, and record-breaking cold days there were at weather stations around the world for each year from 2002 to 2023.
—————————————————————–
2002 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 204
Minimum 22
2003 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 394
Minimum 20
2004 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 113
Minimum 13
2005 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 120
Minimum 29
2006 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 145
Minimum 20
2007 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 297
Minimum 17
2008 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 90
Minimum 32
2009 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 138
Minimum 21
2010 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 505
Minimum 44
2011 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 169
Minimum 39
2012 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 296
Minimum 16
2013 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 405
Minimum 16
2014 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 217
Minimum 19
2015 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 328
Minimum 14
2016 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 323
Minimum 21
2017 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 219
Minimum 18
2018 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 435
Minimum 41
2019 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 647
Minimum 18
2020 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 354
Minimum 15
2021 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 404
Minimum 59
2022 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 770
Minimum 14
2023 record-breaking local temps
Maximum 598
Minimum 43
—————————————————————–
Data:
2002-2010
2011-2020
2021 to latest complete year
Data methods detailed at that website.
“Obviously that is exactly what an LIA recovery should look like Nate.”
According to what falsifiable theory? According to what ‘certified’ mechanism?
And why was nobody predicting such a thing before warming accelerated in the 1980s?
Nate says:
”According to what falsifiable theory? According to what certified mechanism?”
———————
Glaciers melting and oceans warming Nate, via the amortization of an energy imbalance that was supplemented by an increasingly active sun and possibly planetary gravitational forces on earth’s orbit, delayed feedbacks from these effects, errors in attributing UHE that increases warming trends, a cavalier attitude of academic scientists that owe no duty to anybody other themselves in down adjusting historic records to increase the warming trend to meet expectations, errors in surface records arising from UHE via adjusting historic records. I am sure I left some stuff out, but that is what science is supposed to be doing versus just trying to prove their pet theory correct.
Nate says:
”And why was nobody predicting such a thing before warming accelerated in the 1980s?”
—————————–
Seems to me the many scientists trying to get in the Nostradamus prediction business and essentially all the NGOs were alarmed about other things and too busy to bother.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
So just gish galloping to nowhere.
No real theory or ‘certified’ mechanism. No prior predictions.
Just post hoc rationalization.
You are constantly bemoaning the lack of ‘certification’ of science.
And yet are eager to promote your amateurish speculations as bonified alternatives.
every bit as certified as your theory Nate.
False. The GHE theory is based on established physics, has many published ‘blueprints’, several you have seen, has
testable predictions, many have been confirmed.
Whereas your post-hoc speculation has what? Any of that?
Sure they have ocean bottom samples that have never been mixed with surface water for more than 1500 years. Which is more validation that any of your models have.
Your so-called blueprint I take is the Harvard blueprint of the GHE that Harvard pulled off their website years ago AKA the 3rd grader radiation model that has been repetitively debunked?
“AKA the 3rd grader radiation model”
None of the papers you have been shown use that, whatever it is.
So this is disingenuous.
Intentional misrepresentation on your part.
You just can’t win debating honestly, Bill.
“Sure they have …”
More mutterings from Bill.
But still no falsifiable theory, nor mechanism, nor predictions of any kind, from any real source.
The 3rd grader radiation model is the one sold to the public years ago. It was widely published including on Harvards site where I saw it probably 15 years ago. They took it down as some point but I just saw it again in the link to Joe Postma’s poster that DREMT linked to above.
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2023/09/which-one-2.jpg bottom right corner.
Its the backradiation model that was widely dispersed. You can tell me you never have seen it because I know its easy for you to lie.
Joe Postma…pullleez!
Sorry Bill, you have been shown the real models many times.
To suggest that a cartoon model is all there is, is…to be kind, total bullshit.
And you know it.
But still no falsifiable theory, nor mechanism, nor predictions of any kind, from any real source.
Still waiting.
Nate you have at least a thousand posts in here directly defending the 3rd grader radiation model cartoon. Now you deny it? LMAO!
Well victory is indeed sweet.
Then it should be easy to quote me doing that.
Meanwhile, still no falsifiable theory, nor mechanism, nor predictions of any kind, from any real source on you alternative LIA recovery notion.
Nates best science case to date. The pot calling the kettle black.
Why do you contradict your own principles, to promote an ‘uncertified’ speculation, with no theory, no mechanism, no predictions, no confirmations?
I am not promoting anything Nate. I am just pointing out that there is a lot of natural variation that is unaccounted for. Its your theory that wants to look a specific time and attribute all change to CO2.
But thats wrong on the face of it because the CO2 model cannot even account for all the change that has occurred or not occurred during the window of time when it wants to claim total control.
It falls drastically short of accounting for 1940’s and has vastly over estimated the warming from 2000 to 2024. The last several posts by Roy clearly demonstrates that leaving only one means of establishing anything out of the whole exercise is a complete list of all parameterizations of all models, compare those parameterizations to what nature has given us and determine which model was closest. Then and only then are we going to make progress in weeding out the stuff that isn’t working. And we will have to deal with the parameterization that all the models have by looking at that correlation with the other parameters.
Of course the modelers know this but they aren’t doing it. Why? Instead they mull around talking in private groups discussing what do they do now while treating the public like a mushroom farm keeping them in the dark and feeding them shit.
Sounds like you realize that you don’t have anything to support your uncertified LIA recovery speculation.
So you hardly mention it and, as so often happens, meander on to something else…
One needs a budget to find strong evidence. But the wrong people control the budget. Certainly the evidence exists in the temperature record and in known lack of completion of adjustments of the world heat sinks. . .despite Al Gore’s and Michael Mann’s attempts to make that evidence go away with the help of heavily slanted movie, sacred Siberian trees, Mike’s Trick, etc.
So you were predicting future climate records but you didn’t regale us with any details of those predictions Nate?
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Christos
Are you familiar with the concept of the “black box” used in system theory?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box
A black box is an open system with a boundary. You study the inputs and outputs across the boundary without necessarily knowing what goes on inside.
Studying the Earth’s energy budget you can take the same approach.
Using satellites you can take multiple measurements of energy flow into and out of the Earth black box and build up a picture of the totals.
You can describe the flow into and out of the black box as three terms – total incoming shortwave radiation, total outgoing shortwave radiation and total outgoing longwave radiation.(aka solar insolation, albedo and OLR.
For a stable open system
Solar insolation – albedo = OLR
For a cooling system
Solar insolation – albedo = OLR
The third alternative is what the satellites observe.
I repeat, you dont need to know anything about the details of what goes on inside the box, just measurements of what goes in and out.
–
–
1). For smooth surface planets and moons
Mercury
Earth
Moon
Mars
Europa
Ganymede
the specular reflection is very strong and it is being ignored as insignificant. Thus it led to “energy in” much higher estimations.
2). The “Energy in = Energy out” concept is about the black box, which is an open system with a boundary.
You study the inputs and outputs across the boundary without necessarily knowing what goes on inside.
(In GHE theory the average surface temperature differs because of the rising greenhouse gases content.)
In my point the solar energy “Energy in = Energy out” concept is the basic concept, it should be necessarily met.
The average surface temperature is a measured value. So we know what the planets’ and moon’s the average surface temperatures are
And yes, “Energy in = Energy out”, but the energy interacts with surface’s matter. When interacting the average surface temperature occurs.
–
–
There is a well known scientific POSTULAT:
When two identical spheres emitting the same amount of EM energy, the less surface temperature differentiated the higher the average surface temperature.
What is New, is that when considering spheres (planets or moons), which are getting warmed by incoming EM energy, because they are solar irradiated, the less surface temperature differentiated the more solar energy the planet or moon absorbs!
–
It is the “black box”, or the radiative equilibrium.
When the radiative equilibrium gets “switched” up – the average surface temperature rise. When it is “switched” down – the average surface temperature lessens.
In my opinion the currently observed global warming is not due to CO2 (not due to fossil fuels intensive burning), but because of orbital forcing, because of the current orbital circumstance our planet Earth is subjected to.
–
Thank you again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Why do you think specular reflection is being neglected?
In the literature are a number of papers like this specifically discussing how to identify specular reflection in satellite observations of outward shortwave radiation.
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/972492#:~:text=Among%20the%20background%20signals%20commonly%20seen%20by%20Earth-monitoring,Earth%27s%20surface%2C%20commonly%20referred%20to%20as%20a%20glint.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0038092X19301653
One common factor in the literature is that albedo is the sum of diffuse reflection and specular reflection.
“In my point the solar energy Energy in = Energy out concept is the basic concept, it should be necessarily met.”
If the climate is stable I agree. However in a cooling climate Energy in is less than Energy out. In a warming climate Energy in is larger than Energy out, which is what we observe and which confirms the average surface measurements.
“The average surface temperature is a measured value. So we know what the planets and moons the average surface temperatures are
And yes, Energy in = Energy out, but the energy interacts with surfaces matter. When interacting the average surface temperature occurs.”
Yes, though it gets quite complex. For a planet with a transparent atmosphere, or no atmosphere at all, you can predict the surface temperature using the SB equation. It will stabilise when the Energy in = Energy out. For Earth the energy in and energy out both have a total flux close to 240W/m^2, which corresponds to an average surface temperature of 255K.
Clearly something else is going on. The current average surface temperature is 288K.
For me it’s easy. GHGs neatly explain the difference.
For you it must be harder it you eliminate GHGs. I doubt that phi is sufficient on its own to raise Earth’s average temperature by 33C. Any other ideas?
Ent is STILL confused: “For Earth the energy in and energy out both have a total flux close to 240W/m^2, which corresponds to an average surface temperature of 255K.”
Wrong Ent. Flux NOT energy. The “240 W/m²” and the “255K”, and the “33K”, are nonsense. They originate with your cult using an imaginary sphere. That ain’t science.
You keep trying to pervert reality, like when you claim passenger jets fly backward. You have no interest in science or reality.
Why are you here?
“Energy flux, the rate of transfer of energy through a unit area (Jm−2s−1). The radiative flux and heat flux are specific cases of energy flux.
Radiative flux, the amount of energy transferred in the form of photons at a certain distance from the source per unit area per second (Jm−2s−1). Used in astronomy to determine the magnitude and spectral class of a star. Also acts as a generalization of heat flux, which is equal to the radiative flux when restricted to the electromagnetic spectrum.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
Flux is derived from the Latin “flow,” and in physics “describes any effect that appears to pass or travel (whether it actually moves or not) through a surface or substance.”
Ent is clearly referring to energy flux, specifically radiative flux. The flux being described here IS energy flow.
barry, you get so confused so easily.
You can call radiative flux “energy flux” if you want, but if only adds confusion. Radiative flux is NOT energy, just as “energy flux” is NOT energy. The units give it away — W/m².
Maybe you’re confused because you don’t realize “W/m²” is the same as “Jm−2s−1”. “Energy” has units of “J”.
Maybe you’re just uneducated and confused, or maybe like Ent, you’re purposely trying to pervert reality….
You might as well argue that a banana split does not contain a banana or that a car crash does not involve a car, Puffman.
Do bananas and cars add?
Yes, W/m2 is joules per second per sq metre. A flux in this context is the amount of energy passing through an object or surface.
So when you say, “Flux NOT energy,” it’s like saying “Flow NOT water,” when someone says a river is flowing at 50 cubic metres a second.
Whatever semantic quibble you are attempting, it doesn’t negate that water is the property heading downstream, or that energy is the property interacting with a surface.
barry, if you want to continue your quibbling over semantics, tell us which is larger — A flow of 100 cubic meters of water per second, or 100 cubic meters of water?
Are you just uneducated and confused, or purposefully trying to pervert reality?
One is flow rate, the other volume. One is a vector quantity and the other is static mass. They have qualitatively different units and therefore can’t be compared in terms of “size.”
But you can determine how long it would take at the stated flow rate for more water to flow than is in the static volume (ie, more than one second).
Seems it is you who want to confuse things.
You’re FINALLY starting to get it, barry. The light, although dim, is starting to glow.
You can NOT compare a quantity to a rate. You can NOT compare energy to power. Even worse, you can NOT compare energy to a radiative flux.
You’re on your way out of the cult. Don’t turn back.
Puffman finally realizes his mistake. When we “compare” two things, we do not “confuse” them. The violence of his agreement is as delicious as the silence under which he hides it.
He should not be playing word games with Barry.
Who is comparing the “size” of flux to quantity but you, Clint? Certainly not Ent or I.
This ‘confusion’ is entirely of your own making. Your fallacy is red herring.
Barry, you can NOT compare a quantity to a rate. You can NOT compare energy to power. Even worse, you can NOT compare energy to a radiative flux.
That’s one of the reasons your cult’s “EEI” is bogus.
The longer you hold a herring the more it will stink.
Puffman,
Riddle me this –
What is the best deal, ten bucks at a 1 = 0.2 rate or 5 bucks?
If you can solve that riddle, you can see that it’s not that hard apply a flux to the object you want to model, i.e. the Earth.
barry and silly willy appear to be in a contest to see which one can be the most desperate.
Puffman still plays dumb about the fact that rates don’t stand alone. They can only be compared by normalizing to an object or a task. A cheetah can reach 130 km/h…for 30 seconds. That performance does not win marathons.
Besides, a Watt is a joule per second. The time dimension is usually implicit. Since an energy-balance model is supposed to apply at all times, this should be fine.
Perhaps the concept of averaging is just too hard for Sky Dragon cranks.
Silly willy you don’t understand any of this.
A quantity is NOT the same as a rate. 40 miles is NOT the same as 40 mph. 40 Joules is NOT the same as 40 Joules/sec/m².
What will you try next?
Puffman only has CAPS LOCK for arguments.
Power is the amount of energy PER UNIT TIME.
Flux is an amount of power PER UNIT AREA.
Both ARE quantities. Both ARE rates.
Puffman should stick to IT menial tasks.
Entropic man says:
” ”In my point the solar energy Energy in = Energy out concept is the basic concept, it should be necessarily met.”
If the climate is stable I agree. However in a cooling climate Energy in is less than Energy out. In a warming climate Energy in is larger than Energy out, which is what we observe and which confirms the average surface measurements.
————————
Yes indeed. When I first started studying this issue back in 2006 settled science meant that there was no need for an imbalance because the oceans would adjust within a decade and that would show up with a basic anomaly against the most recent 30 year time period ended decadally.
Of course that was probably due to bias.
It seems unquestionable that scientists with any degree of independence and experience would know that the oceans are part of the climate system.
So why this naive conclusion sold as settled science that within the span of a couple of decades completely collapses and now long term positive feedbacks are expected in the system with the climate modelers hinging their bets while keeping the money rolling it in the meantime by posting for the first time an imbalance not resolved within the 40 to 50 years period previously thought to not have an imbalance that would not be resolved in that span of time?
Well the answer is simple actually. By recognizing an imbalance that opens the door to oceans taking an awful longtime to spit out that imbalance even after emissions reach a level where CO2 is no longer increasing.
And heck Syun Akasofu was all over that before that recognition kicked in for the climate cabal, because that legitimizes an LIA recovery.
More on that in my next post.
As I see it since IR cannot penetrate the ocean surface but a handful of millimeters but visible light can down to perhaps more than a million times deeper and UV even deeper than that.
The difference in warming rate between the southern ocean and the northern ocean despite the southern ocean getting up to 7% more sunlight than the northern ocean is interesting.
Certainly its not due to IR forcing as the few millimeters that IR is absorbed is well above where we take ocean measurements. That strongly suggests the difference has something to do a change in high frequency light and since we don’t see much of that it must have been a change that primarily occurred outside of the incoming sunlight monitoring program which means the satellite era at best.
Seems to me that effect that makes up a significant part of the modern warming since SH is only warming at 60% of the rate of the NH warming. That itself explains why IPCC didn’t identify half the modern warming to increases in CO2.
And what about Milankovitch the accepted cause of interglacial glacial periods that naturally changes the climate by about 9C?
That isn’t documented nor does there seem to be any effort to document it all the while accepting it as settled science.
In my history of working on policy issues there is propensity for non-independent, non-career civil service employees to wear blinders to anything that distracts from the mission to push the policy in a direction that favors the pecuniary interest of persons and the institutions they work for.
Of course the civil service despite direct independence has their own swamp of golden parachutes. . .double and triple dipping. But that pales to starting out without any independence.
Why do you think specular reflection is being neglected?
In the literature are a number of papers like this specifically discussing how to identify specular reflection in satellite observations of outward shortwave radiation.
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/972492#:~:text=Among%20the%20background%20signals%20commonly%20seen%20by%20Earth-monitoring,Earth%27s%20surface%2C%20commonly%20referred%20to%20as%20a%20glint.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0038092X19301653
One common factor in the literature is that albedo is the sum of diffuse reflection and specular reflection.
Thank you, Ent.
I am reading your references right now.
Something occurred to me while reading your post. Since any kind of reflection is frequency dependent how can it be used as a representation of energy in or out?
Take sand, a bucket of it if you like. Light-coloured sand is generally made up mainly of quartz and feldspars, both light-coloured materials. It may have mica and other materials. Due to the orientation of the quartz and crystal faces it ill likely disperse light rather than offering a straight reflection, like placid water.
Anyone who walks on sand barefoot in a hot climate knows how hot it can get, yet light-coloured sand is claimed to a have a high albedo. If it is reflecting most of the energy incident upon it, why does it get so hot? Obviously, it is absorbing far more energy than is claimed by its albedo rating.
That can be explained by the frequency-dependence of reflection. The sand is likely absorbing strongly at certain frequencies.
Sand is basically irregular glass crystals with impurities. It’s albedo is usually between 40% and 50%. Being mostly glass it is not surprising that it is so reflective. High albedo has a cooling effec t.(think how much hotter it would be if it was black!)
So why does sand get hot ? Being effectively transparent it will let light pass below the surface and be absorbed by the impurities, so light penetrates and warms the surface to a greater depth than for normal soil.
Glass also has a high specific heat capacity, so it can effectively store the energy it has absorbed as heat. It is not surprising that desert and beach sand gets so warm on a sunny day.
EM,
Glass absorbs (blocks) much infrared. When glass absorbs energy, its temperature rises. Place your hand against a transparent glass window exposed to bright sunlight, and you will notice that its temperature is above yours – it feels hot.
Sand gets hot because it is absorbing energy. So do rocks. Places like the Lut desert or Death Valley get so hot (sand or rock – makes no difference) is because there is less H2O in the atmosphere between the Sun and the surface. Less GHGs, higher temperatures.
As to dark sands, glass, etc, better absorbers are also better emitters. Heat faster, but also cool faster.
What many people don’t realise is that objects with different albedos, at the same temperature, are emitting the same IR wavelengths. Shiny, dull, it makes no difference. For example, put both in a block of ice. Some people will say the dull object must be hotter. Not so.
And, exposed to the same environment, both will reach equilibrium with that environment, and all will be at the same temperature. The zeroth law of thermodynamics applies. If anybody’s cunning calculations say otherwise, they are wrong.
Anyway, no GHE. Less GHGs result in higher temperatures, not lower ones.
“What many people don’t realise is that objects with different albedos, at the same temperature, are emitting the same IR wavelengths.”
All blackbody objects have the same IR profile at the same temperature.
Objects with different emissivities have different IR curves at the same temperature. They emit at a broad range of wavelengths but the IR spectra are not identical.
Gases are quantum emitters and emit in discrete bands of the EM spectrum. A volume of gas at the same temperature as an adjacent blackbody has a VERY different IR spectrum to the blackbody.
Yes, Gordon, you are absolutely right.
It happens so because water has five times higher specific heat capacity than sand.
Take sand, a bucket of it, and take water, also a bucket of it.
Put those two buckets under the sun in hot climate.
Sand in the bucket becomes ubearably hot. Water in another bucket becomes plesantly warm.
At the late afternoon, sand and water have about the same temperature.
A few hours later sand is cold, but water is still pleasantly warm.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
NASA Technical Memorandum
The Albedo Model
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42788037.pdf
The conclusion states that the derived model was designed to be applied to a coarse Sun sensor.
specular reflection was neglected. Thinking about this I suggest two reasons.
1) The Sun is about 0.5 degrees across. Geometry suggests that the specular reflection forms a beam or a plane perhaps 2 degrees across. A satellite in a 90 minute orbit will pass through this beam in 90 *2/360 =0.5 minutes.
The coarse Sun sensor will only see the specular reflection glint for 30 seconds, which is not long enough for the satellite’navigation software to usefully respond.
2) The critical reflection angle for water is 41 degrees. Specular reflection will only occur where the Sun is no more than 41 degrees above the horizon. The reflected light will travel downsun towards the terminator and will only be visible to a satellite whose coarse Sun sensor is looking towards the Sun. A coarse Sun sensor will see both the glint and the Sun and will fix on the brighter of the two, which will always be the Sun.
In measuring albedo I don’t think specular reflection is ignored. However, in recording it there is some variation over both short and long term cycles due to gravitational influences of the moon and the planets and their effect on the sun and earth barycenter (e.g. the pull on the two will vary depending upon angle and distance of the pull.)
We see how the range of the solar constant is recorded by different labs at values that span 1359w/m2 to 1380w/m2. One would suspect that variance has a lot to do with the elliptical orbit and perhaps if actually measured versus calculated from set figures may or may not include the Milankovitch short term effects.
This stuff is amazingly complex and we as readers tend to get stuck in the mud as to a single value. So you have that natural variation that has been very badly treated by the IPCC as if they were wearing horse blinders while being perfectly aware of the situation.
So that deals with earth’s albedo and it is a figure not entirely linked to observation. After all earth does emit LW and the Sun also emits some longwave. But one cannot separate earth’s albedo in longwave from earth’s emission of longwave as to a detector they look the same. All one can do is try to accurately estimate sw albedo and the detectors may only look at a few spectral lines to do that. Thus there has to be uncertainty bars around the result from deducing the full spectra albedo.
So you have these for error bars:
1) sensor sensitivity to measuring each spectral line the detector is sensitive to.
2) potential error of imputing the measurements of spectral lines from 1 above to all spectral lines and the sensitivity of those frequencies.
3) potential error related to the 3 first paragraphs above. . .i.e. is today’s measurment matched to the solar constant of the same day.
4) potential errors in the solar constant as outlined in 1) and 2) above.
So without a comprehensive analysis of this its probable that albedo is somewhere in the range of the various measurements made of it over the past couple of decades.
https://www.bbso.njit.edu/Earthshine_webpage.html
the above page discusses some of this stuff wrt earthshine. Note Figure 4 where three projects combined are shown vs one of the three (CERES) in pretty good agreement and the error bars tend to average around 2w/m2 but the actual mean annual albedo change can reach 4w/m2 considering the span and unstated error bar confidence. Should give some confidence in the correct albedo but it would be a lot better with more quantification of the various elements and a considerably longer dataset. With 80+ year orbit variations of unknown Milankovitch intensity due to a lack of documentation wrt to how the interglacial vs glacial temperature changes came about over the alleged 100,000 year cycle this seems to be a very much ignored source of climate change recognized by science as very powerful.
EARTH ALBEDO AND
EMITTED RADIATION
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80651232.pdf
Below I am attaching some excerp.ts followed by comments.
” Concep.ts
The albedo of the Earth is the fraction of the total incident solar radiation that is reflected into space as a result of scattering in the atmosphere and reflection from clouds and the surface.
Page 1 – 2
“Albedo
* Reflectance tends to increase with a decreasing solar elevation angle.
* Continental areas generally have higher albedo values than ocean areas.
* Albedo increases with latitude due in part to the decreasing solar elevation angle, snow and ice cover near the poles, and increased cloud cover associated with large scale weather activity.
Page 3
Nimbus 2 was the first satellite to measure radiation fluxes over the entire Earth with high areal resolution.
This spacecraft was placed into a nearly polar, Sun-synchronous, circular orbit, northbound near local noon and southbound near local midnight (ref. 28).
Its orbital period provided for observations over the entire globe, day and night, within a 24-hour period.
These measurements were used in computations of the
outgoinglong wave radiation flux,
the reflected solar radiation flux,
and the radiation balance (refs. 27 to 3 1).
Comment:
In 1971 the Nimbus 2 was orbiting Earth polar -wise. Spacecraft orbited earth at 24 hours cycle.
Nimbus was always near the local noon on the day time and the local midnight at night.
So Nimbus couldn’t see Earth’s surface specular reflection, because it was always at noon position for all latitudes in its polar-wise orbit.
End of comment
Page 6
Until recently, most of the analyses of albedo data have used models involving the following simplifying assump.tions:
The reflectance of the Earth is isotropic and diffuse.
Earth’s reflectance is independent of wavelength, i.e., the spectral distribution of reflected radiation is equivalent to that of the incident radiation.
Some investigators have further simplified the model by assuming the Earth and atmosphere to be homogeneous reflectors.
The requirements of a precise model for albedo were separated into two parts by Bartman (ref. 7) as follows:
The geometrical-physical aspects of a surface, scattering by the clear ,atmosphere and clouds, and reflectance of the whole Earth.
The geographical-meteorological aspects as a function of time and location on the Earth.
Page 13
”
3.1 Global Annual Averages
As a fmt approximation, suitable for estimating the effects of Earth emission and albedo on spacecraft subsystems and elements having relatively long thermal time constants, the Earth may be treated as a uniform and diffuse (Lambertian) emitter and reflector. The mean annual values to be used are:
Emission: 237 + -7 watts m-2 (0.34 k0.01 cal cm-2 min-l
(it is the discussed 240 W/m2 – and it was “on the table” since 1971.
And they were averaging over the entire globe the emission uniformly)
Albedo: 0.30 + – 0.02
These values were derived from analyses of data acquired by spacecraft (ref. 38). It should be recognized that they were derived from albedo values that range from about 0.10 to 0.80 and from long wave radiation values ranging from about 105 to greater than 350 watts m-2 (0.15 to 0.50 cal cm-‘ min-‘) over limited geographical regions. ”
Page 27
Comment:
“the Earth may be treated as a uniform and diffuse (Lambertian) emitter and reflector.”
They followed the “simplifying assump.tions”
“The reflectance of the Earth is isotropic and diffuse. ”
The above is written in 1971, and at the time Earth’s albedo was estimated as
a = 0,3
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
–
ME: “The average surface temperature is a measured value. So we know what the planets and moons the average surface temperatures are
And yes, Energy in = Energy out, but the energy interacts with surfaces matter. When interacting the average surface temperature occurs.”
Ent: “Yes, though it gets quite complex. For a planet with a transparent atmosphere, or no atmosphere at all, you can predict the surface temperature using the SB equation. It will stabilise when the Energy in = Energy out. For Earth the energy in and energy out both have a total flux close to 240W/m^2, which corresponds to an average surface temperature of 255K.
Clearly something else is going on. The current average surface temperature is 288K.
For me it’s easy. GHGs neatly explain the difference.
For you it must be harder it you eliminate GHGs. I doubt that phi is sufficient on its own to raise Earths average temperature by 33C. Any other ideas?”
–
–
“I doubt that phi is sufficient on its own to raise Earth’s average temperature by 33C.”
For smooth surface planets and moons Φ =0,47.
“For Earth the energy in and energy out both have a total flux close to 240W/m^2, which corresponds to an average surface temperature of 255K.”
Earth’s Te =255K, it is not average surface temperature, but it is (by definition) the Earth’s uniform surface effective temperature.
When applying Φ =0,47 we shall have Earth’s the corrected effective temperature Te.correct =210K which is much lower
than Earth’s Te =255K.
Thus, Φ =0,47 does not raise Earth’s surface temperature.
What Φ =0,47 does, is to correct Earth’s effective temperature, because the not reflected portion of the incident on the planet solar flux is not
Energy in = (1 -a)So W/m^2
but it should be considered with diffuse +specular reflection as
Energy in = Φ(1 – a)So W/m^2 = 0,47*(1 – a)So W/m^2
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Could you put numbers on that.
IIRC the total outward shortwave radiation (which is how I think of albedo) is about 100W/m^2 averaged across the planet.
How much of this is diffuse reflection and how much is specular reflection?
“IIRC the total outward shortwave radiation (which is how I think of albedo) is about 100W/m^2 averaged across the planet.”
You need to change your thinking.
It makes no difference anyway – the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion year. All this diversionary nonsense about albedo won’t create a planet warming GHE. That would just be silly, wouldn’t it?
Maybe you could try to describe this mythical GHE. Your previous effort “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets” is not terribly confidence inspiring, is it?