UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2024: +0.86 deg. C

February 2nd, 2024 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2024 was +0.86 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up slightly from the December, 2023 anomaly of +0.83 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).

New monthly record high temperatures were set in January for:

  • Northern Hemisphere (+1.06 deg. C, previous record +1.02 deg. in October 2023)
  • Northern Hemisphere ocean (+1.08 deg. C, much above the previous record of +0.85 deg. C in February, 2016)
  • Tropics (+1.27 deg. C, previous record +1.15 deg. C in February 1998).

The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 13 months (record highs are in red):

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2023Jan-0.04+0.05-0.13-0.38+0.12-0.12-0.50
2023Feb+0.09+0.17+0.00-0.10+0.68-0.24-0.11
2023Mar+0.20+0.24+0.17-0.13-1.43+0.17+0.40
2023Apr+0.18+0.11+0.26-0.03-0.37+0.53+0.21
2023May+0.37+0.30+0.44+0.40+0.57+0.66-0.09
2023June+0.38+0.47+0.29+0.55-0.35+0.45+0.07
2023July+0.64+0.73+0.56+0.88+0.53+0.91+1.44
2023Aug+0.70+0.88+0.51+0.86+0.94+1.54+1.25
2023Sep+0.90+0.94+0.86+0.93+0.40+1.13+1.17
2023Oct+0.93+1.02+0.83+1.00+0.99+0.92+0.63
2023Nov+0.91+1.01+0.82+1.03+0.65+1.16+0.42
2023Dec+0.83+0.93+0.73+1.08+1.26+0.26+0.85
2024Jan+0.86+1.06+0.66+1.27-0.05+0.40+1.18

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for January, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.

The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days:

Lower Troposphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Mid-Troposphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt

Tropopause:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt

Lower Stratosphere:

/vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt


1,310 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2024: +0.86 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    I expect that LT +0.86 deg. C will end up exceeding the SAT anomaly for January 2024 by a considerable margin.

  2. skeptikal says:

    Anomaly spikes don’t usually sustain themselves for this long. Very unique if it turns out to be real.

  3. Antonin Qwerty says:

    As our resident “expert” Clint has declared the so-called “HTE” “LONG gone”, it seems he will need to come up with a new excuse for these values.

    The ONI is a full 0.7 below the peak ONI of the 2016 El Nino, yet this is 0.15 higher than the peak monthly UAH anomaly from 2016.

    And as this is only 0.07C below the record of three months earlier, I guess that limits the effect of his “HTE” to a maximum of 0.07.

    But no, he has ruled himself out of another excuse by stating categorically just three days ago that “the only remaining abnormal forcing is El Nino”.

    But of course Clint will learn from this mistake by not making ANY solid commitment to ANYTHING in the future.

    • Clint R says:

      Thanks Ant for the opportunity to educate you again.

      I thought a small drop was imminent, due to the end of the HTE, even though the El Niño persists.

      To help you understand this, consider a room heater. When the forcing from the room heater is turned off, residual thermal energy remains in the room, until it is dissipated. The HTE forcing is “long gone”, but some residual thermal energy remains in the system. I have no idea how long it will last, but it is lessening as the Polar Vortex is operating normally again.

      I expect UAH temps to drop over the coming months, especially if the EN continues to weaken.

      • Bindidon says:

        Clint R

        You never came here along with any proof for your vague HTE stuff.

        Conversely, I have shown to you that the lower stratosphere data provided by Roy Spencer contains NO hints on HTE for the year 2023.

        The LS region most influenced by huge events is the land part of the South Pole, and it appears that October and November show maximal positive or negative values, for reasons of course unknown to me.

        Here is an increasing sort of all monthly values in UAH 6.0’s LS data:

        2020 11 -13.46 !!!!!
        2021 11 -9.03
        2015 10 -8.46
        2020 10 -8.23
        2006 11 -8.13
        1987 11 -8.00
        2022 10 -7.63
        2015 11 -7.42
        2022 11 -7.25
        2021 10 -6.92

        As you can see, HTE 2022 is FAR from having played any visibly relevant role – except in your imagination.

        All what people like you and Robertson are able to do, Clint R, is to discredit and denigrate anything that doesn’t fit your personal, egomaniacal narrative.

        • Clint R says:

          Bindi, why all the hatred and animosity? If you don’t like people that know more about science than you, why are you here?

          If you really want to learn, take a chill pill and behave as a responsible adult. Open your mind. Don’t get mad at reality. Currently you seem like an uneducated, belligerent tr0ll.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        HAHAHA – “educate” is not something you’ve ever done here Matey.

        You’ve never stated where your “HTE” has drawn its energy from. Even if ALL the eruption’s released energy went into warming the planet (which could not have been anywhere near the case), it is only enough to warm the planet by 0.02C.

        So apparently your version of the “HTE” has created energy out of nothing.

        • Clint R says:

          Ant, thanks for verifying your ignorance of science.

          The thermal energy did not come from the volcano itself.

          Some people can not be educated. That’s one of the hazards of being in a cult.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            I know it didn’t Clintster. I was simply covering that base, knowing you would default to that claim if I didn’t mention it.

            So when do you plan on “educating” everyone here on where all the energy came from? Or will you keep defaulting to a claim of “ignorance” in order to cover up the fact that you haven’t “researched”/spun that part of your story yet?

          • Clint R says:

            Thanks for admitting you just made that up, Ant. As usual with your cult, you were just throwing crap against the wall, hoping something would stick. But, it does go well with your ignorance of science.

            What will you try next?

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            My statement was “Even if ALL the eruptions released energy went into warming the planet (which could not have been anywhere near the case), it is only enough to warm the planet by 0.02C.”

            Please explain in what sense that was “made up”, and where I “admitted” that it was “made up”.

            Now – where is your explanation for how thermal energy was magically CREATED?

          • Clint R says:

            I was referring to your nonsense about all of the thermal energy coming from the volcano itself.

            Try to keep up.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Perhaps you should learn the meaning of “EVEN IF”.
            Do you understand the concept of a CONDITIONAL statement?
            If I say “even if it rains tomorrow, I will stay dry” am I claiming it will rain tomorrow?

            Clearly basic logic is not your forte.

            Now … where is your explanation for how thermal energy was magically CREATED by the eruption?

          • Clint R says:

            You’re just throwing more crap against the wall, Ant. I’ve explained the HTE more than once. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. You have to want to learn. You don’t. You reject science and reality.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            You have NEVER explained the source of the heat.

          • Clint R says:

            You have never explained the source of your ignorance.

            Hint: It might have something to do with your cult.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            So now it’s official. Clint thinks energy was created out of nothing.

            He has stated categorically that the heat came from an internal source (ie. not from the sun), yet didn’t come directly from the eruption. Yet apparently mysterious “waves” caused SOMETHING to release massive amounts of stored up energy, with the intermediary being the polar vortex.

            Now he has backed himself into a corner where he is unable to nominate the source for the heat. Instead he goes on personal attacks unrelated to science. Apparently he believes this is how science is done.

          • Clint R says:

            What “personal attacks”, Ant?

            You’re an immature cult idi0t. That’s not an attack, that’s fact. You do the crime, you do the time. Not my fault, child.

            If you had any maturity at all you would know that I’m immune to your insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.

            But I’m glad to see you tacitly admit you’ve seen my discussion of the HTE. You’ve seen it explained, but you can’t understand it. That happens a lot in your cult….

            The funny thing is, you seem to deny the troposphere has any thermal energy, yet you believe your cult’s nonsense that CO2 creates energy! At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

            I predict you won’t understand any of this and will just keep throwing crap against the wall.

            Prove me wrong.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Yep AQ is convinced that aerosols cool the planet, ignoring even his own theories of how the surface warms.

            Fact is aerosols are capable of reflecting some sunlight but that doesn’t stop them from getting hotter and acting then as a GHG.

            AQ is stuck bigtime on cold radiation warming the surface despite the science that says otherwise and yes even the science on his own side that project hot spots in the atmosphere from any kind of atmospheric or solar forcing. They correctly understand how the sun does it but still they don’t have an established blueprint for how CO2 does it. Instead they want to get right to the redistribution of power despite their projections failing to materialize. . .demonstrating conclusively the science has never been settled on this matter.

          • Willard says:

            > thats fact.

            That’s actually not fact, Puffman.

            That’s judgment.

            You may need to revise your critical thinking 101.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Bill

            So the vast majority of those on your side of the debate who claim that Maunder-like activity leads to more eruptions, which in turn leads to cooling are all wrong?

            I’ll make sure to link to your comment next time I come across one of those.

            Anyways, tell me about the year without a summer.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Clintster

            Nup – the greenhouse effect TRAPS energy, it doesn’t create it. The source is external.

            Yes – the atmosphere has energy. We see it as heat. You are now claiming that the source of the extra heat in the troposphere is the heat in the troposphere.

          • Clint R says:

            “I predict you won’t understand any of this and will just keep throwing crap against the wall.

            Thanks for proving me right, Ant.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Well there’s one way of making me understand … EXPLAIN IT.

            WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR HEAT?
            And by WHAT PROCESS is the heat being removed from its source?

          • Clint R says:

            Ant, if you sincerely NOW want to learn, after dropping all your immature nonsense, search for the thermodynamic definition of :”heat”. Then admit you didn’t even understand “heat”.

            I don’t have a problem teaching, but I need to know if you can learn. Otherwise you’re just wasting my time.

          • Nate says:

            He never explains things, certainly not with any real science.

            It seems he is just here to irritate people.

          • Clint R says:

            Yeah tr0ll Nate, Ant is just like you.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            If you actually knew the answer you would rush into explaining it to me. You still haven’t explained to anyone how your polar vortex anomaly (which you have claimed was happening only in the southern hemisphere) managed to start up in the SH summer when there is NO polar vortex.

          • Clint R says:

            Ant, you were given an assignment. If you don’t do the assignments, you can’t learn.

            I’ll give you one more chance. What is the thermodynamic definition of “heat”? (You’re allowed to use the Internet, or even a thermo book, if they will let you in a library.)

            Do the assignment so we can continue the learning. You don’t want to be a brain-dead cult tr0ll all your life, do you?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Antonin Qwerty says:

            ”So the vast majority of those on your side of the debate who claim that Maunder-like activity leads to more eruptions, which in turn leads to cooling are all wrong?

            Ill make sure to link to your comment next time I come across one of those.”
            ——————–

            What happens in aerosols first enter the atmosphere is they absorb incoming radiation because they are like lamp black. That radiation doesn’t reach the surface. Yet your theory says that 1/2 that absorbed energy will then be radiated at the surface, meaning that instead of all of it the surface only gets half (or maybe none if the GHE doesn’t work which is what the experiments contend)

            That means in either case surface cooling.

            Now over time these aerosols are broken down into acids that eat away at the ozone layer. First an aerosol must find a water molecule in the stratosphere where very little resides. When ozone is destroyed more UV energy hits the surface so after that period of time after the aerosol destroys ozone it causes warming. Further these acids will keep recycling and destroying ozone like CFCs. Such that it is estimated to take a long time to reverse the warming from ozone destruction. CFCs were ‘effectively’ banned in 1994. The damage to the ozone layer is not expected to be repaired until 2066. So we are 30 years in on a 72 year repair program.

            https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/19/world/cfcs-ozone-montreal-protocol-climate-study-intl-scn/index.html

            https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc#:~:text=If%20current%20policies%20remain%20in,the%20rest%20of%20the%20world.

            CFCs might have gotten a partial bad rap because of the El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions in 1982 and 1991.

            Now we have recently seen a significant reduction in ozone in the past year, right on schedule with volcanic effects on ozone first cooling the planet then converting over to longlived ozone killing molecules. Now we have HTE pumping huge amounts of sodium chloride into the stratosphere and mesosphere. I haven’t seen a discussion of atmospheric breakdown of saltwater in the atmosphere but the electrolysis of saltwater results in hydrogen, chlorine gas, and sodium hydroxide. Hydrogen and chlorine combine to form hcl which when added back to water makes hydrochloric acid that is destructive of ozone like CHCs are.

            It would be good for some analytical work to be done in this area as that could be a big concern considering how much got up there. And the timing for the ozone effects is about right now.

            Antonin Qwerty says:

            ”Anyways, tell me about the year without a summer.”

            don’t know much about it. You had a volcano that caused the so-called year without summer in 1816. May have deepened the Dalton minimum. But temperature records of the era don’t give many details. reconstructions of the period showed the big dip in temperatures came earlier and was a big factor in the destruction of what was left of Napoleon’s army in the retreat from Moscow hitting winter temperatures of -37C.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            He never explains things, certainly not with any real science.

            It seems he is just here to irritate people.

            ———————–
            It especially irritates Nate who sees that as his role.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Antonin Qwerty says:

            Nup the greenhouse effect TRAPS energy, it doesnt create it. The source is external.

            Yes the atmosphere has energy. We see it as heat. You are now claiming that the source of the extra heat in the troposphere is the heat in the troposphere.

            ——————————

            Nobody disagrees that the surface should take on the temperature of its surroundings. But what needs to be established is how the atmosphere got warm, would get warmer, or cooler thus the constant harping on your ”look and see” arguments simply doesn’t even address the issue of how the surface’s surroundings became the temperature that they are.

            this is supposed to be ”settled science”. Its horribly embarrassing to the science community that nobody can explain via the scientific method the answer as to why the mean surroundings are 288k. all you ever get is mumbo jumbo that often doesn’t hold up to experimental testing.

          • Willard says:

            > But what needs to be established is

            Ze Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Clint
            You don’t get to set me assignments. You are not my boss.
            All you need to say is you don’t know.
            This is what happens when you make things up on the fly … you get caught out by very simple questions that your limited knowledge of science didn’t permit you to consider.

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry Ant, but I AM your boss. You want me to explain the HTE to you, so that puts me in charge of educating you.

            Now, do the assignment — Find the thermodynamic definition of “heat”. That’s where you must start.

            This is your last chance. I’m not going to waste any more time with you if you don’t want to learn.

          • Nate says:

            “But what needs to be established is how the atmosphere got warm, would get warmer”

            Bill, I really don’t get what your issue is here.

            This is like adding more insulation to your attic, which makes the house warmer in winter, for a fixed heat input.

            The entire temperature-gradient from the house, through the ceiling, through the plywood, through the existing attic insulation, WARMS, as a result of adding the extra insulation.

            And now you are asking, essentially, what has warmed the insulation? It is the heat input to the house.

            In the Earth system, from the surface through the troposphere, the entire lapse-rate curve warms, as a result of an added GHE.

            What has warmed the atmosphere? The sun, the heat input to the Earth system.

          • Clint R says:

            Wrong Nate. You continue to make the same mistakes as your cult.

            Infrared is NOT the same as “heat”. All infrared is NOT the same. You’re confused by infrared because you have no background in it.

            You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ”This is like adding more insulation to your attic, which makes the house warmer in winter, for a fixed heat input.”

            I am not sure there is a GHE. Since the proper estimation of a GHE is the difference between the solar constant evenly distributed around the globe warming everything on the globe the GHE is at best 9.5K.

            With inaccuracies in the system, the fact that oxygen species have warming potential from failing to absorb or emit IR and thus can have a greenhouse effect as exhibited by the thermosphere by virtue of absorbing high frequency radiation and being incapable of cooling until it emits and equal amount of high frequency radiation. . .the GHE to the extent it exists might not be due to any IR emitting molecule. That said:

            gases have never been established as being insulating in a freely convecting environment. Insulating windows include a minimum of two rigid barriers between the warm space and the cold space and that does insulate. But there are zero barriers to free convection in the atmosphere and none has ever been established as effectively being any without the rigid barriers to convection.

            So your claim there of the atmosphere being insulated has not been established in science. So your ignorance of science in this area is showing. You will need a different argument.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wanders around lost in space again:

            gases have never been established as being insulating in a freely convecting environment.

            But there are zero barriers to free convection in the atmosphere and none has ever been established as effectively being any without the rigid barriers to convection.

            Hunter tr0ll can’t understand that above the Tropopause into the Stratosphere, there’s no vertical convection because the temperature increases with pressure altitude. There’s your “rigid barrier”, mol. Now, you need to understand that the GHG’s cool the upper Tropophere, which is essential for convection to occur. Without that cooling, there would be no descending cold air, which then is able to lift the warm, moist air from the surface upward higher into the Troposphere.

            Your question should be, what would the surface temperature be without any GHG’s, compared to historical data. Then, what would it be with doubled CO2? The only way to assess those questions is with the use of models. Sound familiar?

          • Nate says:

            “So your claim there of the atmosphere being insulated has not been established in science. ”

            There is heat flow from the heated Earth surface to the upper troposphere.

            There is heat flow from the heated house to the colder outside.

            There is a lapse rate from the heated Earth surface to the cold upper troposphere.

            There is a gradient of T from the heated house to the colder outside.

            These are common features of a heated insulated system.

            But this is getting off track from your issue, which was how does the atmosphere get warmed.

          • Nate says:

            “I am not sure there is a GHE.”

            You keep flip-flopping on this. Your issue presently was only how the atmosphere gets warmer.

            Ive addressed that. So try to stay focused on that.

          • Nate says:

            “With inaccuracies in the system, the fact that oxygen species have warming potential from failing to absorb”

            This is getting into the moss on the bark of one of the trees, while what we are talking about here is the whole forest.

            Heat transfer fundamentals.

            For conduction, we have a heat flow produced by a temperature gradient.

            For convection we have heat flow produced by a temperature gradient.

            For radiation we have heat flow produced by a temperature gradient.

            An insulating effect reduces heat flow by any of these modes, through a system for a given T gradient. Or requires a higher T gradient to achieve the same heat flow.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            you are describing a growing hotspot nate with a temperature gradient increase through it. e.g. a change in lapse rate. we have a theory that proposes a mechanism where the primary forcing must be revealed.

            noting it as a feedback increase in sw abso-rp-tion could occur from ozone depletion or other types of forcing. and of course delayed feedbacks would likely arise from the amortization of any existing energy imbalance including an lia recovery.

          • Nate says:

            Again you wander off topic. I answered your issue, which was how the atmosphere warms. So it looks like that’s that.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            all you did was parrot your daddy. we are still looking for this mysterious hotspot.

          • Nate says:

            The reason for the heating is plain ordinary everyday physics.

            But I get it it, you are required to be contrary anyway.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            do you mean the plain ordinary physics of the 3rd grader radiation model and the gas gpe that seim and olsen and others have shown to be false? the experiment that you continuously argue to be flawed but you can’t find the flaws? if not that then what plain ordinary physics are you talking about?

          • Nate says:

            Already explained. Not going to repeat it.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate is always ready with his stock reply whenever anything he wants to say is going to end up being an embarrassment.

          • Willard says:

            Looks like Gill does not succeed in bossing Nate around.

            Perhaps he could ask daddy Gates for help.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            No Willard I am not bossing Nate around. I have no illusions of Nate having any science to back up all the BS he spreads around here. All he has is his lap dog, you, to bark at folks that point out he has no science to back up his assertions.

          • Willard says:

            [GILL] No, I’m not bossing people around.

            [ALSO GILL] the bill gates approach is to feed workers the SAME garbage as they produce on a daily basis.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            LOL, they can choose to not eat it Willard. all depends upon their choice.

          • Willard says:

            Does Gill often fantasize about starving off people over which he could exert power?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  4. Bellman says:

    I had though the spike might have been falling of a little this month, but I still would put money on ’24 not being as warm as ’23- on the assumption that this El Nino is behaving differently to past ones.

    This marks the 7th month in a row where the global anomaly has been a record for that month. February will be interesting as that’s usually the warmest anomaly during an El Nino. The record for February is currently 0.71 set in 2016.

    As far as this January is concerned it beat the previous record by 0.43C, set in 2016.

    Top 10 warmest anomalies for January.

    Year Anomaly
    1 2024 0.86
    2 2016 0.43
    3 2020 0.43
    4 2010 0.36
    5 1998 0.33
    6 2013 0.31
    7 2007 0.28
    8 2017 0.26
    9 2019 0.24
    10 2003 0.20

    https://imgur.com/a/056In5X

    • Bellman says:

      I make the warming rate 0.1447C / decade, which Dr Spencer has rounded to 0.15.

      Cherry-picking the trend from certain start dates, the slowest rate of warming starts in December 2015, and is 0.12C / decade.

      Starting in September 2014, where people where insisting the pause started – the warming rate is now 0.21C / decade.

      The trend over the last 15 years, is 0.30C / decade, starting in January 2009.

      And over the last 20 years it’s 0.24C / decade, starting in January 2004.

      This you may note is longer than the Great Pause that got some people so exited.

      Even starting in 1996, the start of that great pause, the trend is now more or less the same as the overall trend, 0.15C / decade.

      All of this is just a reminder that looking at short term trends over variable data can be misleading.

      • Bellman says:

        For the record, my simple annual model for the year predicts 2024 will be 0.58 +/- 0.24 – and suggests a better than 70% chance of the year being a record.

        But this is based on just 1 month’s data, and last year at this point I was predicting 0% of 2023 being a record. The model simply doesn’t cope with the unusual climate we are currently in.

        I suspect things will cool throughout the year, on the assumption that the effects of this El Nino have peaked much sooner than usual.

        • Nate says:

          “I suspect things will cool throughout the year, on the assumption that the effects of this El Nino have peaked much sooner than usual.”

          why would they do that?

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Because all models are predicting a return to neutral conditions in a few months, possibly heading back into La Nina.

          • Bellman says:

            It’s just my amature speculation. Something caused the very unusual warming we are seeing. The obvious candidate is the return of el Nino conditions, but comparison with previous spikes suggest this is happening much faster and string than would be expected at this time if year.

            My guess is that either this is a much stronger el Nino than seen in the past, or it’s just happening faster than normal. I suspect the second option, but that might just be my wishful thinking. It’s difficult to imagine this level of warming being maintained for anthor year.

            My only uneducated guess is that this may be the result if the extended la Nina’s we’ve seen over the past few years. It’s kept the surface temperatures cooler but meant more heat went into the oceans. Now we are in a positive phase of the enso cycle, all that heat came out in a great rush, which might mean it won’t be sustained.

            We’ll just have to wait and see. Whatever though I expect we’ll soon be hearing about the pause that started just before 2023.

          • Nate says:

            Why would assume that the effects of this El Nino have peaked much sooner than usual.

            The El Nino peaked as usual in ~ December and is decaying ~ as usual. I would expect the usual persistence of its effects to mid year.

          • Nate says:

            I think the ocean warmed in the Atlantic and N Pacific, prior to El Nino.

          • Nate says:

            https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/

            Select N. Atlantic. 2023 is orange. Records broken since March.

          • RLH says:

            “The El Nino peaked as usual”

            And La Nina is coming.

          • Nate says:

            We just had a string of La Ninas. Notice that they didnt stop GW or reaching new high T records last year.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate last year was 2023 an El Nino year.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            He didn’t claim it wasn’t. Try to read Nate’s comment in the light of the comment he was responding to and its implications.

        • Bindidon says:

          Here is by the way a global map provided by Japan’s Met Agency:

          https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/temp_map.html

          Start ‘Monthly’, 2023, 1 (for January) and click on ‘+1 month’.

          JMA publishes the ‘coolest’ of all global temperature grids…

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        I’m getting a trend of 0.14455.
        His trend doesn’t include December 1978.

      • Hans Erren says:

        Note the stepwise increase which models cannot replicate

  5. Antonin Qwerty says:

    Remembering that ENSO seasons run from July to Jun, not Jan to Dec:

    1997-98
    Jul-Jan: +0.03
    Jul-Jun: +0.22

    2015-16
    Jul-Jan: +0.22
    Jul-Jun: +0.34

    2023-24
    Jul-Jan: +0.82
    Jul-Jun: ?

    Funny how we don’t hear mention of 97-98 any more.

  6. Eben says:

    It would be nice if people started using their brainz instead listening the climate shysterz propaganda because then they would realize a little bit of warming is a very good thing

    • Robert Ingersol says:

      So we should listen to the climate science deniers who told us there wouldn’t be any warming? I think I will stick with the people who know what they are talking about and who predicted this dramatic warming in the first place.

  7. E. Swanson says:

    Happy Ground Hog day!! Another El Nino warm January. Who would have thought?

  8. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Will February be warmer in the U.S.?
    https://i.ibb.co/qMBcZ9z/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f000.png

  9. TheFinalNail says:

    According to the Australian BOM data, the current El Nino has been tailing off, having peaked around late November. Values are still well within the El Nino range though. If the usual 3-4 month lag in LT response to ENSO persists this time then we might expect to see record temperatures through Feb and March 2024. Might tail off a bit after that.

  10. Richard M says:

    About as expected. With the typical 3-4 month lag we normally see the highest El Nino anomalies in Jan-Mar. Two more months to go.

    There is an interesting RH anomaly showing up recently.

    https://climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

    A strange dip at 1000mb in 2023 about the time we started seeing the rise in global temperatures. Just as desert climates are dry and hot, we could be seeing a similar effect at the surface. Maybe this was why we saw the higher anomalies last fall. It looks like it has now returned to more normal values.

    Any ideas why this occurred?

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Your causation is back to front. This is RELATIVE humidity. It measures how much water vapour the atmosphere holds as a percentage of what it CAN hold. The extreme temperatures allow the air to hold more water. So the graph simply shows that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere hasn’t risen to match the temperatures, NOT that it has fallen.

      • Richard M says:

        That is one possibility, but that goes against climate change theory which states that RH is supposed to increase right along with any warming. Thanks for pointing out the problem this poses for climate alarmists.

  11. Tim Folkerts says:

    Its just a small change in values that is emphasized by rounding, but I am surprised now one has commented that the trends all increased by 0.01 C/decade.

    The linear warming trend since January, 1979 stands at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).

    [Although I get 0.144546 C/decade from Jan 79 to Jan 2024, which still rounds to 0.14]

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Bellman mentioned it two hours ago.
      It’s not really a significant detail anyway. It might be more significant if it’s still up there a couple of years from now.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        I guess I missed that post! And, yes it is a small change, but probably significant in a statistical sense. From 0.134 to 0.145 in 8 months is rather remarkable.

    • gbaikie says:

      Yeah went from +.13 to +.14 , and than +.15 C, from a time period where New York Times were saying we were going to enter an Ice Age.
      NYT is often wrong.
      First we been in Ice Age for million of years, and if history repeats, it will be tens of thousands of year before we reach the next Glacial Maximum. Which many seem to mistakenly call an Ice Age- because during that fairly short period of time, there are ice sheets everywhere.
      But an Ice Age just require one ice sheet, and we have one in Antarctic and another in Greenland, both have been “permanent”
      for last couple million years.
      And this relatively short period of time, is also commonly called an Ice Age, or last Ice Age. But the Late Cenozoic Ice Age has going on for about 33.9 million years, at a time Earth oceans started to cool.
      And our Ocean average temperature currently is about 3.5 C and when the Late Cenozoic Ice Age began, the average ocean temperature temperature warmer than 5 C.

      And in recent previous inter glacial periods at the time of their thermal Maximum or at the peak of inter glacial period, the ocean was thought to be 4 C or warmer and sea levels + 4 meter higher than our present sea levels.
      During the Holocene thermal max, the sea levels were considered to be 1 to 2 meters higher than present levels.

      Anyways take very long time to cool back down to Glacial Max.

    • Bellman says:

      I’ll get attacked for this – but to my mind this is the problem with not showing enough digits. For one thing the rounding should make it still 0.14, but I assume it was based on a rounding to 3 digits, 0.145 and then round up again to 0.15C / decade.

      But showing just 2 digits means you have months where there is no apparent change in the trend, and then a sudden jump. 0.14 to 0.15 is a 7% jump in the trend, yet the actual change this month was from 0.143 to 0.145, an increase of only 1%.

  12. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Tropical storm in northern Australia.
    https://i.ibb.co/Wkc5mVp/himawari9-ir-07-P-202402021330.gif

  13. Antonin Qwerty says:

    Decadal anomalies:

    1980s -0.28
    1990s -0.14 (up 0.14)
    2000s -0.03 (up 0.11)
    2010s +0.12 (up 0.15)
    2020s +0.31 (up 0.19 after only 41% of the decade, and despite having 28 La Nina months to 8 El Nino months)

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      My gut feeling is that this decade is looking very much like the 70s.

      The 1970s began with 5 La Ninas in 6 years, with the odd year being an El Nina of roughly the same strength as this one (very slightly stronger).

      Then when all the La Ninas were over, the PDO flipped to positive.

      I wouldn’t be surprised to see a similar finish to the decade – another La Nina or two, possible strong this time, then a switch to El Nino dominant conditions.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        “… being an El NinO …”

      • Richard M says:

        The big difference from the 1970s is the PDO had been mostly negative since 1945 and AMO was also negative. We are due for an AMO phase change next year. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

        • Bindidon says:

          You are telling that nonsense since years.

          I have explained to you that it is based on AMOS’s detrended variant.

          Use the undetrended one, Richard M, and come back to us with the result.

          • Richard M says:

            Yes, the AMO is usually detrended, that doesn’t change it from being a cycle. It piggy backs on the millennial cycle. It won’t take us all the way back to the 1960s and 70s unless we are at the peak of the millennial cycle. It will lead to an increase in Arctic sea ice which will cool the rest of the NH. Going to be hard to push the the climate hoax when that occurs.

            The AMO has been tracked back multiple centuries. The “nonsense” is all yours.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Not sure Bindidon whether you appreciate suggestions regarding your English, but I’ll assume you are OK with it.

            Your first sentence is one of the very few examples I have seen from you which suggest that you are not a native speaker. In fact whenever I see that it tells me there is a very good chance that the writer speaks German.

            “Since” is followed only by a specific moment or period in time, which might be “yesterday”, “Sep 11 2001”, “the 17th century” or “I started school”. “Years” is not specific. I understand that “seit” in German is used more expansively, and would be used in this situation. But “for” is the correct word here. And whether it is “since” or “for”, it is always written in the past. So the correct statement is “You have been telling that nonsense for years”.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          It is never possible to nominate a specific year in which we are “due” for anything related to ocean circulation patterns.

          And NO – the PDO was positive from the late 70s to the late 90s.

          • Richard M says:

            I said nothing about the 70s through the 90s. I said from 1945 into the 70s. Read a little more carefully.

            I do agree that no one pick the exact year. But, 2025 is the 30 year anniversary of the last phase change.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Or perhaps you should write a little more carefully.

          • Swenson says:

            Antonin, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Dave G says:

      Here are the decadal anomalies with the decades grouped a little differently:

      1979-1988 -.31
      1989-1998 -.16 (up .15)
      1999-2008 -.04 (up .12)
      2009-2018 +.09 (up .13)
      2019-January, 2024 +.31 (up .22 with 61 months, 51% of a decade, in the bank)

      Not much difference, but it includes 1979’s data and it gets the final grouping a little closer to a decade.

  14. bdgwx says:

    The maximum length of the Monckton Pause hit 107 months on the 2023/04 update. The start date at that time was 2014/06.

    In just 9 months the trend from 2014/06 went from 0.00 C/decade to 0.23 C/decade.

  15. Pravda Pundit says:

    Why not also publish NASA CERES global cloud cover and absorbed shortwave insolation together with the global temperature in one graph. I think you will find good correlation. The cloud scale should be upside-down.

    • bdgwx says:

      Contrarians are often dismissive of CERES because 1) it shows an increase in ASR consistent with the positive shortwave feedback predicted by models, 2) it shows a concerning increase in EEI that all but guarantees that we have no yet seen the long term top in temperatures and suggests it is likely that the warming is accelerating, and 3) its creator and maintainer is about as “alarmist” as it gets in terms of the future warming potential and the effects it will have. In that regard I don’t know how well it will be received here.

      • Richard M says:

        Not dismissive at all. The ASR mostly jumped during a 2 year period while the PDO changed signs. Looked quite natural. The reason for more SW energy was a reduction in cloud cover by about 1.5%. Hardly a sign that CO2 had any effect whatsoever.

        • bdgwx says:

          CERES believes the increase in ASR is the result of a reduction in aerosols and a positive feedback from the GHG induced warming. See Loeb et al 2021 and Hansen et al 2023 for details.

          • Clint R says:

            “CERES believes”

            Correct bdgwx, it’s all about believing. The problem is beliefs ain’t science.

            ASR is not known, it Is “believed”. OLR is not known, it is “believed”. So their result — EEI, is also “believed”. It’s all bogus.

          • Richard M says:

            Cult beliefs don’t interest me.

            What’s very interesting is the cloud cover reduction in 2022 right after HTE. This just went to the top of my list for causes of the extra 2023 warming.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            changes in albedo can come from many sources. We have known for 60 years what Hansen believes the source is but we haven’t seen a blueprint for the mechanism that melts ice and snow. Are we just to assume it is so?

          • Nate says:

            “we havent seen a blueprint for the mechanism”

            Oh stop. Yes you have.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate has been lying about this for years. Finally got him to post what he claimed to be proof. And it wasn’t. It was merely information about how CO2 might be able to warm the surface.

            Here is the exchange:
            Nate proved that with this thread where he claimed to have produced evidence of the scientific basis of the GHE CO2 theory:
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567
            that is only conditional with this reference of Nates on the basis of a falsification of the Isothermic Atmosphere Hypothesis:
            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
            Based upon the longheld isothermic atmosphere hypothesis at the center of meteorology:
            https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Isothermal_atmosphere
            That states that when pressure and water presence is stabilized the atmosphere is isothermic.

            Proof positive that Nate has never seen, offered, or posted a blueprint because he certainly would not have posted what he did post if he knew of one that actually was a blueprint.

          • Nate says:

            “that is only conditional with this reference of Nates on the basis of a falsification of the Isothermic Atmosphere Hypothesis”

            Ugggh.

            “An idealized atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium in which the TEMPERATURE IS CONSTANT WITH HEIGHT”

            FYI for the perpetually clueless, it aint!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Thats not the hypothesis Nate. Thats the definition of an isothermal atmosphere. A definition is not an hypothesis. The hypothesis is that those are the only two parameters that changes trends in the atmosphere. If thats false then maybe CO2 will be one. But so far no evidence of that has emerged. You will have to wait for the observations to confirm the models.

      • Nate says:

        3) its creator and maintainer is about as alarmist as it gets in terms of the future warming potential and the effects it will have. ”

        Whos that Loeb? Really?

        • bdgwx says:

          Yeah. Loeb is a coauthor on the Hansen et al. 2023 Global Warming in the Pipeline publication. He’s also said in the past that everything we are currently seeing in the news like forest fires and droughts are going to get worse.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            thats baloney on the droughts and forest fires. Climate changes and when changes occur both warming a cooling vegetation in some regions prosper other regions not so much. But drought and fires are connected and in general drought means less precipitation as experienced recently in a Western US exposed to dry conditions from a dominance of La Ninas in recent years. Since California draws its water resources from as far as Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Oregon, and Nevada these states have shared in the droughts.

          • Willard says:

            Let’s hope Gill never was into forest management.

          • bdgwx says:

            Bill, would you describe Loeb as an “alarmist” then?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            my comment here explains my position on loeb.
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1614355

            but imo the topic of forest fires and drought is as follows. droughts have occurred forever. i see no credible evidence being put forward linking drought or forest fires.

            most increases in forest fires is linked to a growing population and fires resulting from carelessness or arson.

            second is an increase in lightning caused fires linked generally perhaps to increases in precipitation.

            seems maybe it would be better to link fires to increases in precipitation. but generally that isn’t as effective as less precipitation from an alarmist point of view.

        • Nate says:

          “everything we are currently seeing in the news like forest fires and droughts are going to get worse.”

          Reasonable extrapolation.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Forest fires and drought in the US is associated with cold climate not warm climate Nate.

            Compare archive drought maps here between say Nov 22 and Nov 23 as we transitioned from La Nina to El Nino. California deluges set in after that as the climate indicators pointed at El Nino.

            We are now seeing the fruits of a grand maximum. Whether its TSI or something else precipitation has been increasing world wide. When we enter into a grand minimum precipitation will likely decrease as it does in the Western US during times of La Nina events.

          • Nate says:

            “Forest fires and drought in the US is associated with cold climate not warm climate Nate.”

            Evidence?

          • Nate says:

            Drought and forest fires are exacerbated by high temperatures.

          • Nate says:

            ENSO is not AGW.

          • Nate says:

            El Nino makes certain parts of the globe warmer and drier, Australia Indonesia, and surroundings, other parts wetter and cooler, on average.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            drought in the west is brought on by cooling of ocean waters off the west coast. that has been a recognized consequence of la nina since i was a child. the question is do you have any evidence to overturn the evidence of history. california had record rains in 2022/23 season as the oceans progressed towards an el nino pattern as the most recent example.

            you bring your support and if i get time i will show you what has been happening in the west for the last 2 to 3 decades.

          • Nate says:

            I dont get what you are driving at.

            ENSO has different effects around the world. Some places none at all.

            It is not AGW.

            The Earth has different climates, including some very dry deserts.

            AGW may cause some regions to get drier and others to get wetter, on average.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Indeed Nate and the climate has been warming and worldwide precipitation has been increasing. EOS.

        • bdgwx says:

          Agreed. The best I’ve been able to understand the definition of “alarmist” includes those that believe the effects of global warming will get worse. And considering that Loeb indicts the IPCC of reticence and believes warming, sea level rise, etc. will be worse then the IPCC is expecting is probably sufficient for most contrarians to pin the “alarmist” tag to him.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Well thats probably fair since denialist is frequently tagged on to Roy, Judith, Richard, William, Syun, Don and so many other luke warmers.

            Solar activity events and approximate dates
            Event Start End
            Oort minimum 1010 1050
            Medieval max 1100 1250
            Wolf minimum 1280 1350
            Sprer Minimum 1460 1550
            Maunder Minimum 1645 1715
            Dalton Minimum 1790 1830
            Modern Maximum 1950 2009

            So what happens now?

          • Willard says:

            Here is simpler:

            Alarmism is excessive or exaggerated alarm of a real or imagined threat. Alarmism connotes attempts to excite fears or giving warnings of great danger in a manner that is amplified, overemphasized or unwarranted.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarmism

            The whole idea of calling the IPCC alarmist is pure crap.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            actually willard the political body of the un that edits the policy advice for the ipcc has a majority of votes. these governments are expecting to get fat grants from the developed nations. which in turn after those governments have deducted their administration costs are expected to spend the rest on ”qualified” high technology from corporations from the developed countries. they have also been ordered to fire any public employees who are investigating any fraud related to those funding processes deemed contrary to developed nation interests.

            to which willard calls out as pure crap.

          • Willard says:

            Actually Gill has no leg to stand on.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            bdgwx says:
            ”And considering that Loeb indicts the IPCC of reticence and believes warming, sea level rise, etc. will be worse then the IPCC is expecting is probably sufficient for most contrarians to pin the alarmist tag to him.”

            1) i don’t consider the ipcc mainstream report to be alarmist, though alarmists do contribute.

            2) the political editing of the summary for policymakers doesn’t give adequate consideration to all voices engaged in the ipcc process.

            3) alarmists tend to call anybody not in sync with that summary to be deniers.

            4) so it might follow any person who thinks the ipcc to be too reticent probably is as much of an alarmist as a denier is a denier.

            5) imo, people are entitled to voice their opinions including their vote and to advocate for their position without government restraint, whether denier or alarmist.

          • bdgwx says:

            It’s a weird thing. I get called an “alarmist” all of the time. It’s not offensive to me or anything, but it is interesting since I usually argue for a more a pragmatic and measured position regarding equilibrium climate sensitivity, attribution to current weather events, future effects, etc.

            Those who have tracked my posts over the years know that I have never labeled anyone a “denier”. Instead I use the word “contrarian” which I define as anyone who holds a position that is contrary to the consilience of evidence and which does not carry with it the same negative connotation and stigma as “denier”. I do this because I want to treat people with respect and want them to feel like they have and focus more on the merits (or lack therefore) of their arguments as opposed to a cliche ad-hominem in disguise. So far no one has ever objected to the term “contrarian” or taken offense to it.

          • Nate says:

            “And considering that Loeb indicts the IPCC of reticence and believes warming, sea level rise, etc. will be worse then the IPCC is expecting ”

            Does he?

            My impression is he is a measurer, and good at it, and he reports the results of those measurements and analyses.

          • bdgwx says:

            Nate: Does he?

            Yes. See Hansen et al. 2023 Global Warming in the Pipeline.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Maybe Hansen conned Loeb into putting his name on that paper?

          • Willard says:

            Maybe Gill will read neither?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            bdgwx informed me of the fact his name is on the paper. Of course I checked and sure enough its there. I just figured I would help Nate out with a counter argument that I am sure he won’t double check up on. . .or you for that matter also.

          • Nate says:

            Yes he is a coauthor, but my guess is because he contributed data and analysis. His expertise is not modeling projections or paleo.

    • bdgwx says:

      Pravda Pundit: Why not also publish NASA CERES

      As you can you see Clint R challenges the fact that they measure ASR and OLR at all and Richard M is calling them a cult. This what I mean when I say contrarians are dismissive of CERES.

  16. Pravda Pundit says:

    Take a look at the graphs at the bottom of this article:
    https://www.climate-veritas.com/?page_id=26
    Perfect match, kills SGW.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      I wonder what did happen to Skeptic Gone Wild?

      In any case, you presumably meant "kills AGW". Of course, but then that’s been dead for years. Not sure why anyone bothers discussing it any more. That’s partly why I got more interested in the moon stuff…just didn’t seem worth talking about the GHE, the world’s most comprehensively debunked sub-conjecture, any more.

      Occasionally it’s worth bringing up again, to annihilate for any new readers, I suppose.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      I hadn’t seen any comments under Pravda Pundit’s 12:29 PM post for about a day, but I knew as soon as I wrote something, that might change. Sure enough, twelve minutes after I posted…

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      …then, a little later this time, another comment!

      Some commenters here have experienced the joy of just being able to post something without any response. I wonder what that feels like?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        I wouldn’t know what that feels like. Some tosser and his copycat won’t let anyone comment without replying “please stop tr0111ng”.
        Have you experience that yet?

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          …and, there we have it. It’s officially another personal thread, within just a few comments. Let’s see how long this one will be.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Please explain what is meant by a “personal thread”, what protection is offered you by nominating it as such, and whether you offer others the same protection.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Just another thread devoted to personal, petty issues between commenters, no protection, and no.

            Pravda Pundit linked to something he claims “kills AGW”. You would think that would be of more interest to AGW defenders than whether it’s right that the trolls here get politely asked to stop, but here we are.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            You would think that someone who maliciously posts the same nonsense comment over every post he chooses to disagree with would not feel the need to preach, but here we are.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Two graphs, one of ASR compared to temperatures, and one of ASR compared to cloud cover:

            “The following figures show the latest CERES satellite data for absorbed shortwave (SW) radiation, the global cloud cover and the corresponding temperature change from 2000 to 2024. Note that decreasing cloud cover corresponds to a lower albedo which causes more solar radiation to be absorbed which raises the earth’s temperature. Green house gases play no role in the warming of the planet. It is warmed because more solar radiation is absorbed because of decreasing cloud cover.”

            Why people need to try to torture the data so much to come to other conclusions, e.g.

            “ CERES believes the increase in ASR is the result of a reduction in aerosols and a positive feedback from the GHG induced warming. See Loeb et al 2021 and Hansen et al 2023 for details.”

            Once you’ve freed your mind from the GHE nonsense, the data speaks for itself. More about how bad I am for saying PST, please.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            My comment was about how much of a hypocrite you are.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, but even if I were a hypocrite, there is no excuse for you to go around trolling these threads like you do at the beginning of every month, only to disappear after a certain number of days because you believe the readership dies down.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            I disappear after a few days because I get bored with the level of intellect on offer here … it’s quite depressing actually. And the moment anyone does makes an intelligent comment you and Flynn jump straight on to it with your nonsense copy-paste comment.

            And unlike you and your buddies, I actually have a life to lead. How sad it must be to think your day is not complete without coming here.

            Who are you to guess at my motives.
            And you don’t get to define “tr0111ng” as “challenging nonsense”. Or in this case, playing the same game as the person I am replying to.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Antonin is another person who has problems accepting he’s a troll. Well, don’t worry, I’m sure other people don’t have a problem seeing you that way.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Never have, never will.

  17. RLH says:

    The global data is skewed towards the southern hemisphere (in the negative sense because there is more water than land in the SH).

    What does statistics tells us about what average or central tendency to use when the underlying data in skewed?

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      You really need to learn the difference between skew and bias.

      • Swenson says:

        Antonin, please stop tro‌lling.

      • RLH says:

        Statistics is concerned with skew, not bias.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          You have got to be kidding. Imagine all the statistics you must be misinterpreting by not recognising the underlying biases.

          SKEW is an asymmetry in RELATIVE FREQUENCIES (in a statistical analysis) or in PROBABILITIES (in a probability analysis) with respect to the variable being measured.

          That has NOTHING to do with what you described.

          • RLH says:

            “SKEW is an asymmetry”

            An asymmetry is a bias.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Oh really. So if I wish to undertake a survey of how many hours students study for each week, and I take a biased survey by only surveying students from academically selective schools, that will automatically lead to an asymmetric distribution will it?

            Alternatively, if I undertake the survey with no such bias, are you claiming that the resulting distribution cannot be asymmetrical?

        • RLH says:

          Unless the bias shows up as a skew.

      • RLH says:

        “Bias can be introduced by various factors, such as sampling methods, data collection procedures, measurement errors, or human judgments. Skew can be caused by outliers, missing values, or inherent characteristics of the data”

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          Yes? How does that challenge what I said, and how does it support your claim that you are dealing with skew?

          Let’s say the NH is averaging +0.8 and the SH is averaging +0.4.
          You average them to get +0.6. Where is the skew? It tells you NOTHING about the symmetry of the distribution or lack thereof.

          The only way this is skewed towards the SH is if the SH has a greater variance, as there will then be a larger tail on that side of the distribution.

          And to answer your original question, one facet of the central limit theorem tells us that if you average skewed distributions you get a new distribution with LESS skew, ie. closer to normal.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            The last paragraph should be phrased:
            … if you average samples taken from skewed distributions, the sample distribution asymptotically approaches zero skew as the number of samples grows. (Although the skew can potentially grow for a small number of samples before settling down to its asymptotic approach to zero skew).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Antonin, please stop trolling.

  18. RLH says:

    So which statistic should we use for average/central tendency over the whole globe given that there is more land than ocean in the NH and vice versa in the SH?

    • barry says:

      You mean for time series temperature data?

      • barry says:

        For global, weight the data as equally as possible around the globe. Get the average of sectors in a grid, account for and adjust for a preponderance of data in some areas and a dearth in another.

        If the globe is well gridded then you don’t have to counterweight land/ocean.

        • RLH says:

          Do you accept that land and ocean have different temperature ranges over time?

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Results of class A (20 students) in a maths test:
            77 78 78 79 79 79 79 80 80 80 80 80 80 81 81 81 81 82 82 83
            Average: 80

            Results of class B (20 students) in the same maths test:
            24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96
            Average: 60

            Average of the two classes: 70

            Results of the entire cohort of 40:
            24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 60 64 68 72 76 77 78 78 79 79
            79 79 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 81 81 81 81 82 82 83 84 88 92 96
            Average: 70

            No difference. The average of means of two equally sized subsets of the full set with vastly different spreads (‘temperature ranges’) gives PRECISELY the mean of the full set.

        • Nate says:

          RLH, are you trying to create a faux controversy again?

          It is well known that the SH is warming slower than the NH, because of the land/ocean ratio.

          And?

        • barry says:

          “Do you accept that land and ocean have different temperature ranges over time?”

          Sure. You can split the globe any number of ways and find that warming is not uniform. This is news?

          Get to your point.

          • barry says:

            It’s hard to make sense of what you’ve written. “Ranges” would ordinarily refer to the variability, but I think you mean ‘trends’, and I answered under that assumption.

    • Bindidon says:

      It’s not the first time that RLH (I call the guy ‘Blindsley H00d, as he stûpidly calls me ‘Blinny’) desperately tries to insinuate major mistakes in weather data averaging.

      Three years ago he started on the blog kinda campaign against historical thermometer TMIN/TMAX readings.

      He claimed – based on nothing else than generic information he probably found in Wikipedia or statistics text books – that the mean of TMIN and TMAX would unduly elevate the average temperatures, and that only the median of hourly data would be accurate.

      The goal was obvious: to denigrate the entire historical temperature measurements.

      *
      I answered with an evaluation of the Germany’s DWD weather station data

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n1XsuuPoLUhMvtZg9SJoLPE4CX7Gc9Ss/view

      and proved him wrong by giving for several periods the trends computed for (TMIN+TMAX)/2, median and 24 hour average.

      Instead of honestly admitting his misrepresentation of the reality, he claimed that the German stations wouldn’t be accurate enough and requested the pristine USCRN stations to be used instead.

      I invested a lot of work at that time by showing with charts and data that in USCRN, the differences between means and medians wrt 24h averages would be spatially and temporally biased.

      *
      Recently I updated the USCRN charts with data till Dec 2023:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FEoidp-brB2oZ_WyCnHNXZxW8pHS32JI/view

      using this time fifth order polynomial means to show how tiny the differences are.

      Here is, for the three methods mentioned above, the daily average of all stations in all years from 2002 till 2023:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view

      *
      All what Blindsley H00d was ever able to offer was a ridiculous school boy level chart telling us nothing valuable:

      https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values-3.jpg

      *
      But like Robertson, Clint R, the Hunter boy and a few other ‘specialist’s, Blindsley H00d never will admit being wrong with regard to anything.

      You can’t discuss with completely opinionated persons.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Bindidon, please stop trolling.

  19. gbaikie says:

    The New York Times
    Could a Giant Parasol in Outer Space Help Solve the Climate Crisis?
    Cara Buckley
    Fri, February 2, 2024
    “Its come to this. With Earth at its hottest point in recorded history, and humans doing far from enough to stop its overheating, a small but growing number of astronomers and physicists are proposing a potential fix that could have leaped from the pages of science fiction: the equivalent of a giant beach umbrella, floating in outer space.”
    linked from: https://instapundit.com/

    HELP US, ELON, YOURE OUR ONLY HOPE: Could a Giant Parasol in Outer Space Help Solve the Climate Crisis?

    It needs to do double duty as a solar power satellite.
    Posted at 8:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds —

    • Ken says:

      What could possibly go wrong when a bunch of geeks build a giant parasol in outer space?

      No.

      No.

      No.

      I tell you three times, No.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Why would anybody want to put a giant parasol out in space?

      Svante Arrhenius may not be right about everything but what he has been consistently right about for 115 years is his projection of the only outcome that makes any difference:

      ”We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      And how do you propose making this parasol track the sun?

      • Swenson says:

        Antonin, please stop tro‌lling.

      • gbaikie says:

        Well there is place, called Earth/Sun L-1.

        It’s vast volume of Space between Sun and Earth. It could even be related, to us being in Ice Age.
        But only because we know almost nothing.
        Such as, how much dust is currently in L-1. Though it’s known there are rings of dust, they can be seen, but how much dust, are we guessing, right?
        A lot things are guessed about for centuries.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Put it in orbit around the sun at the same rate the earth rotates around the sun? You know like how a geostationary satellite orbits.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          You DO understand that it will rotate at the same rate as the earth only if it is EXACTLY the same distance from the sun as the earth, right?

          As as the aim is for the orbit to have the same inclination as the earth’s orbit, that mean it must BE the earth.

          • Swenson says:

            Antonin, please stop tro‌lling.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            No I didn’t know that. But thanks for pointing that out. I looked that up and see that orbit distance and speed is related. that helps a lot because I have just started working on orbit eccentricity variation and I was wondering if there was a speed element to it. this simplifies that problem considerably.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            so it appears it would have to go faster than its natural orbit speed. So the problem seems likely to boil down to keeping such a craft fueled to keep it from crashing to earth.

        • gbaikie says:

          GEO sits above some place on Earth, and that place has a night. But GEO is so far from Earth, that Earth doesn’t block to sun, as much. Or somewhere around 90 percent orbit is in direct sunlight. But only blocking sunlight from reaching earth in few hours around noon.
          You would block more sunlight from reaching Earth if in LEO. And since SpaceX has thousands of satellite in LEO, it “could” alter the direction of solar panel face so they block more sunlight as compared what they “normally” do. Or they harvesting solar energy, but they could harvest solar energy, but do it a way that also blocks the most sunlight. Starlink satellite could focus on blocking the most amount sunlight getting to Earth and thereby make our Ice Age a bit more colder.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            What is “geo”? Is it geostationary or geosynchronous?

            The ONLY geoSTATIONARY orbit is around the equator.

            And geoSYNCHRONOUS orbits do NOT sit above the same location.

            Due to the tilt of the earth’s rotation, a geoSTATIONARY object would be between the sun and the point on the earth it rotates with for only about 2 minutes on two days of the year – the equinoxes. IF the earth’s orbit had no tilt it would be 2 minutes every day.

            A geoSYNCHRONOUS object would sit between a particular point on the earth and the sun on a handful of very brief “random” periods each year.

            And you have your distances ass about. The L1 point is 42 times as far from the earth as the geostationary altitude. That is, L1 is about FOUR earth-moon distances from the earth, while the geosynchronous altitude is about 0.1 earth-moon distances from the earth.

            To cover just one percent of the sun’s surface, a parasol at the L1 point would need to be about 1400 km in diameter. Do you think that is feasible?

            And the killer blow … the L1 point is only a semi-stable point. An object cannot sit stably at L1. It can only rotate about L1 at a radius far too large to lie between the earth and sun for ANY time.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Due to the tilt of the earths rotation, a geoSTATIONARY object would be between the sun and the point on the earth it rotates with for only about 2 minutes on two days of the year the equinoxes. IF the earths orbit had no tilt it would be 2 minutes every day.”

            We are not talking about shading a point on Earth, we talking shading the entire earth in regards to sunlight reaching Earth.
            If want to shade someone’s house from sunlight, as some kind of prank, it’s pretty complicated/difficult and limited. Though an interesting prank.
            The point of GEO orbit whether geoSTATIONARY or geoSYNCHRONOUS
            is a station {and many stations in different spots on Earth surface} can always receive and transmit signals from and to it.
            If got station on Earth- somewhere in Oregon and somewhere in Ohio
            you use the same geoSTATIONARY or geoSYNCHRONOUS satellite. But it will rarely shade the sunlight at that these locations or any location. And doesn’t work well at higher latitudes than that. And would not work in Japan or France. Russian don’t use GEO, they have a special polar orbit. Called: Molniya orbit
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit

            “And you have your distances ass about. The L1 point is 42 times as far from the earth as the geostationary altitude. ”

            Earth has two L-1 points. Earth/Moon L-1 and Earth/Sun L-1.
            The Point of Earth/Sun L-1 is about 1.5 million km from Earth and the point is always between Sun and Earth. Though a vast region and you can orbit the point. You could have far more satellites orbit that L-1 point then one can have orbiting Earth. Big volume of space.
            The Earth/Moon L-1 is the closest of all 10 L points and it’s always between Earth and Moon. And Earth/Moon L-2 is always on farside of Moon. L-3 is in orbit on opposite side of Moon orbit around Earth.
            L-4/5 point is 60 degree ahead and behind the moon.
            L-5 colonies is talking about Earth/Moon L-5 {which you put many “colonies in” and is quite small volume of Space compared to Earth/Sun L-1 [or L-2 which is where the Webb telescope is}.

          • gbaikie says:

            “To cover just one percent of the suns surface, a parasol at the L1 point would need to be about 1400 km in diameter. Do you think that is feasible?”

            I would use Space dust. There is lot of it. I mine space rocks which are brought to Earth/Sun L-1.
            There lots of useful satellites in L-1, and this dust would not be useful for such assets.
            But if want to spend trillion of dollars and you thing it’s very important.
            One make money from mining Space rocks and only charge say 10 billion for all the dust you purpose waste for this silly project of cooling Earth.
            Or the dust has some value, but you pay 10 billion for dust, it’s more money than one make from the dust- and it’s easy to make dust- some govt normally wants to limit how much dust you accidentally make. So sell millions of tons of dust for 10 billion dollars, would play significant role in incentizing mining rocks {for some other reasons that just making a lot dust in L-1.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Why are you mentioning the earth-moon L1??
            An object placed there would only be between the earth and the sun during a solar eclipse.
            And it is 0.84 earth-moon distances from the earth, still 8 times the geostationary altitude.

            If you want to shade the whole earth from the whole sun, your parasol at L1 will now need a diameter of 150 000 km. That is an area of 70 billion square kilometres. Do you honestly believe “millions of tons” of dust spread over that area would make a dent?

          • gbaikie says:

            “That is an area of 70 billion square kilometres. Do you honestly believe millions of tons of dust spread over that area would make a dent?”

            70 billion {or 1/4} with billions of kg far less than 1 kg per square km or say 3.5 billion kg or 3500 billions gram is 350070: 50 grams per square km
            {or 70/4 is 17.5, 3500 / 17.5 is 200 gram per square km} “would make a dent?”

            Supposing not trying to make uniform, say 1 square km has zero and another has 400 grams in square km.
            Also I don’t know how much dust is there already. Say it’s doubling the amount present and it’s also not uniform. So range of average amount is 100 grams to density as much as 800 grams
            per square km- in terms of not whole Earth disk but just 3000 km radius centered in middle of Earth’s disk.

            What amount of dust in Earth Atmosphere?
            “The National Science Foundation-funded researchers found that Earth’s atmosphere contains 17 million metric tons of coarse dust — the equivalent of 17 million elephants, or the mass of every person in America, put together.”
            https://new.nsf.gov/news/earths-atmosphere-far-dustier-previously-believed
            Knowing how much coarse dust is in the atmosphere is essential for understanding not only the atmospheric phenomena dust influences, but also the degree to which dust may be warming the planet.
            [Fine dust is suppose to cool and coarse dust warms. But btw not sure I agree, but as general issue fine dust would be more reflective as compared to absorbing as general idea. Though fine dust could
            tend have stuff sticking to it].

            And also related to search of dust:
            Now, in a study recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, a team measuring micrometeorite accumulation in the pristine snow of Antarctica has provided the best-yet estimate for incoming extraterrestrial debris. With clean sampling techniques and accurate ages for dust deposits, the researchers calculated around 5,200 metric tons of micrometeorites fall to Earth every year.
            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-study-shows-how-much-space-dust-hits-earth-every-year/

        • Bindidon says:

          Many thanks to Antonin Qwerty for his excellent explanation, which further shows us the poorish, absolutely superficial pseudo-scientific knowledge that the braggadocio Hunter boy always displays.

  20. gbaikie says:

    Japans moon lander sleeps again after sending science
    https://cosmiclog.com/2024/02/01/japans-moon-lander-sleeps-again-after-sending-science/#more-29038

    So upside down lander did get solar energy, as they predicted it might. So been mostly a success, they charged batteries, hoping it lives again when sun comes back {it’s not designed to and it’s upside down, but maybe}.

  21. barry says:

    Curious to see if high monthly temps sustain for a few more months. That would be usual after el Nino peaks.

    How long before this is called a step-jump? Place your bets!

    IIRC it took less than 18 months after the peak of the 2015/16 el Nino before someone started talking about it being a pause.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      What they refer to as a “step jump” is of course precisely what one would expect to see when natural variation is superimposed on a steady rising trend, and is visible only when the period over which averages are taken is not sufficiently large in comparison to the period of natural variability.

    • barry says:

      Dr Roy Spencer:

      “step-like behavior can be the result of a linear trend superimposed on a low frequency cycle. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        If Dr Spencer agrees with me than I guess the denier cult will have no choice but to remain silent on the subject.

        I had to reminisce over Salvatore making yet another of his failed predictions. I see his “Climatebusters” website has been deleted. And there are no longer any posts about climate on his Facebook page. Just 50s and 60s music … and the occasional anti-Trump post. Maybe Salvatore is not so bad after all.

        • walterrh03 says:

          That is strange logic.

        • walterrh03 says:

          Why do people think science is about consensus?

        • Bindidon says:

          Hogle

          Science is not about consensus: it is about scientific contradiction of scientific results.

          Polemicists like you are ‘light years’ away from such processes.

          • walterrh03 says:

            Say what you want. At least I grasp the distinction between absolute temperatures and anomalies, Binny. The fact that you regard them as interchangeable with identical values speaks volumes.

          • Clint R says:

            Bindi, where are your “scientific results” for a viable model of “orbiting without spin”?

          • Bindidon says:

            Hogle

            ” At least I grasp the distinction between absolute temperatures and anomalies, Binny. ”

            No you don’t. Not at all.

            I have shown often enough double examples explaining exactly how absolute and anomaly data differ resp. how they wonderfully correlate.

            1. Germany

            1.1 Absolute data

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n1XsuuPoLUhMvtZg9SJoLPE4CX7Gc9Ss/view

            1.2 Anomaly data

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iEdxm4i1JxbVPOa_ZA5GVR1Er8OE2GY2/view

            2. UAH LT

            2.1 Absolute data

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EuZxQTmZynMurw68n5lBo6g35Vh00foK/view

            2.2 Anomaly data

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view

            2.3 Anomaly data together with their absolute origin

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zMrnVDsGrI63WWKdlKmt2ez_RWvNpyag/view

            *
            I repeat: you are just a polemicist, unable to prove your contrarian claims because you lack both scientific education and technical skills to do so.

          • Bindidon says:

            Clint R

            Ask Hogle!

            He has all the ‘science’ you need, even if, if I do well recall, seems to be convinced of Moon’s spin about its polar axis.

          • walterrh03 says:

            Well, no. My point was really about averaging. But you thought that choosing one form over the other was really addressing my point, even though the linear regression trends you gave me for your DWD spaghetti graphs revealed both forms had statistically inseparable trends from one another.

            My point eluded you then and continues to now. I refrained from responding, because I relished the possibility that your behavior might be a symptom of deeper, irreparable intellectual decay. I decided to generously allow you to have that small victory in your head; such hollow triumphs are a rare spectacle and must be cherished for someone of your intellectual capabilities. I also took into account that data crunching spaghetti graphs is your self-proclaimed niche; I wouldn’t dream of taking away that precious accomplishment of yours.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            walterrh03
            Your mode of speech is very familiar. Who were you in your past lives on this site?

          • Swenson says:

            Willard, Bindidon, please stop tro‌lling.

          • Bindidon says:

            Hogle

            You are, like Robertson, manifestly unable to understand how anomalies are computed out of absolute data, but nonetheless discredit and denigrate anything what what I wrote.

            Stop talking your superficial, psychedelic blah blah, and start technically contradicting me – if you are able to do so.

          • walterrh03 says:

            Here’s is the average temperature index at a station located in Fairbanks, Alaska:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/12elfNYCmFODiJBTbX9qjJFN-9MHiWVpy/view?usp=share_link

            Here’s the snow cover index at the same station in Fairbanks, Alaska:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bXriri4-npWDjbox0Z7ZG_k32ts3mS7Q/view?usp=share_link

            Here are the trends for the average temperature index:

            Y = 0.05824*X – 66.38 (Average Temperature Trend for May)

            0.58C per decade
            P-value: <0.0001

            Here are the trends for the snow cover index

            Y = 8.505e-005*X + 0.4523 (Snow Cover for May)
            P-value: 0.9901

            One might anticipate that the trend in snow cover would align with the temperature index, but instead, the trajectories of these two trends diverge significantly from each other.

          • walterrh03 says:

            *Snowfall not snow cover*

          • Bindidon says:

            Hogle told us above

            ” My point was really about averaging. ”

            Oh, was it really?

            Ah well ah well. I remind him proudly telling somewhere – on this blog or at Watts’ WUWT – that averages are basically wrong.

            But… why then does the Hogle genius write

            ” My statement is grounded in the observation of the current conditions at the North Pole. ”

            based on a graph showing a bit of UAH 6.0’s North Pole anomalies, a graph itself originating from data generated by a huge series of averaging processes?

            This is typical for polemicists who mostly don’t have a clue of what the’re talking about.

            *
            UAH 6.0’s North Pole time series is constructed out of nine 2.5 degree latitude bands, each consisting of 144 cells.

            Each cell’s value is the result of a complex process where numerous daily temperature measurements via microwave sounding performed by different satellites are subject to a weighted average of anomalies wrt the local satellite data departures:

            Each latitude band then is averaged, and a monthly Arctic anomaly finally is computed out of a latitudinal weighting of the average array: it is the sum of all products of each latitude average by the latitude’s cosine, divided by the sum of the cosines of all involved latitudes.

            *
            In the sum: any UAH time series – Globe, hemispheres, land or ocean surfaces, hemispheres, Poles etc etc – is the result of a huge amount of… averages.

            Why do ignoramuses discredit and denigrate things they indirectly themselves use all the time?

          • walterrh03 says:

            Is that your counter to the data I provided per your request?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”How long before this is called a step-jump? Place your bets!”

      ***

      The great alarmist hope, that El Nino highs will establish themselves as the norm. 1998 fell back below the baseline and 2016 almost to the baseline. What evidence do you have this is any different?

      As Walter and I have been trying to point out, the averages upon which the trends are based are not true global averages. Thy are a result of a few hot spots and cold spots drawing the temperature average into a slight warming.

      In other words, the entire plant has not warmed by 0.81C.

      Here is the UAH anomaly map for december 2022…

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/december2022/2022_Map.png

      Here it is for last december 2023…

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/december2024/202312_Map.png

      Note to Roy…December 2023 is marker December 2024 in URL.

      then January 2024…

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2024/JANUARY/202401_Map.png

      Are you trying to infer the recent warming spike is related to CO2? If so, how does CO2 produce such a patchwork quilt that varies month to month and year to year?

      • barry says:

        Gordon,

        barry: “How long before this is called a step-jump? Place your bets!”

        ***

        Gordon: “The great alarmist hope, that El Nino highs will establish themselves as the norm.”

        My comment was sarcastic. It is AGW ‘skeptics’ who push the step-jump idea – including you.

        “The 1998 EN drove the average above the baseline, establishing a new average global warming around the +0.25C mark. That +0.25C represents a step function that cannot be explained by EN alone.”

        And

        Vladimir Paar: “…between the 1979-1997 and 1998-2017 intervals there is an obvious ‘physical phase transition’ (of unknown origin ?) so there is an argument for separate consideration of these two intervals.”

        Gordon Robertson:

        “The abrupt transition is obvious on the red running average curve which has no noise in it.”

        But today you seem to have changed your mind.

        “1998 fell back below the baseline and 2016 almost to the baseline. What evidence do you have this is any different?”

        Gordon, I agree that the ‘step-jumps’ in the UAH TLT data don’t represent a series actual, physical, sudden jumps to new global temperature plateaus.

        As Roy pointed out in the past:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/

      • barry says:

        “Are you trying to infer the recent warming spike is related to CO2?”

        No. Of course not.

        Why do ‘skeptics’ keep asking this question, as if it hasn’t been answered a dozen times already?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        barry, please stop trolling.

  22. gbaikie says:

    Lately been thinking of mobile floating breakwaters.
    So made it 20 meter in diameter with total length of 150 meters which could tied to other 150 meter long mobile floating breakwaters. You could 3 or 4 them or just 2 of them could useful.
    There are balloon tank construction {thin walled tanks} made of 1 mm thick wall of very strength titanium. And it a floor in middle. So one could fill top half freshwater and bottom 1/2 with sea water.
    And make more mobile, you replace bottom half with air, to make float a lot higher in water, to able to move easier. And once moved, remove air and replace it back with seawater.
    Now with 1/2 filled with freshwater and sea water, the floating breakwater floats low in the water, about 1/2 meter above waterline.
    It floats because it’s in the ocean {ocean has seawater} and freshwater has less density than sea water: freshwater about 1000 kg per cubic meter and sea water averages around 1020 kg per cubic meter.
    And both freshwater and seawater within are pressurized a bit as compared to atm and ocean pressure- somewhere around about 5 psig or
    5 psi higher than the environmental pressure.

    You could fill all with freshwater, but it’s lot water, to waste or somehow manage- such as using a tanker ship.

  23. Eben says:

    Grand solar minimum sideways update
    Over a year of no activity increase turns the 13 average line horizontal

    https://i.postimg.cc/xTd9x4pj/02024.jpg

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      And higher than at any time last cycle. ALL of the last 14 months and 16 of the past 17 months are higher than Zharkova’s predicted maximum for the cycle.

      It’s now 9 years since adapt2030 predicted cooling would start, and 24 years since Don Easterbrook said it would start. Yet we keep warming.

      • Eben says:

        Why are you telling me ? I have nothing to do with those people
        Go and tell it to them you Twerp

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          EVERYTHING you believe about the effect of the solar cycle comes from those people, either directly or indirectly. Don Easterbrook was the one who started that BS off in the first place.

      • gbaikie says:

        Highest average in this cycle is 125.2
        And second peak in last cycle was 112.5
        If 125.2 is highest for this cycle, it’s weak cycle.
        Of course could a second peak which higher, and/or curve could bend upward soon within next couple months- which is what NOAA is guessing for this cycle.
        I am guessing 125.2 is highest it gets for this cycle and that this cycle could the weakest cycle. But even if true, it doesn’t mean we in Grand solar min. But it means the 20th century Solar Grand Max, had a pause or it could be counted as over.
        Of course Zharkova is predicting another Solar Grand Max, maybe stronger than the last one.

        But no one predicting Solar Activity good for near term NASA Mars crew exploration, though NOAA is a tiny bit encouraging.

        • gbaikie says:

          Looking at longer part {going before beginning 20th}:
          https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
          Cycle 20 was weakness cycle within 20th Century Solar Grand Max:
          With average of 156. Before it {19} peaks as average: 285. And after it, 21 was 254.7
          I wouldn’t count that only metric, but we are looking the averaged peak number- unless someone wants to predict the rest the current cycle.
          {as I am guessing. And what is anyone guessing?
          I forget exactly NOAA but it’s around 140 to 160 as highest guess}.
          Which not a particularly strong cycle.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            Last cycle peaked at 116.4, not 112.5.

            The prediction made by NOAA back in the first month of the cycle was 115 +/- 10, not 140-160. It is the red curve in Eben’s link.

            Zharkova’s prediction was 93. In the 12 predictions highlighted on the SC25 Wikipedia page, Zharkova is below the median in terms of how close she got to the current peak.

            Your predictions from 4 months ago:
            Nov, Dec, Jan all averaging about 50.
            Actual average for those three months: 114

          • gbaikie says:

            ” Antonin Qwerty says:
            February 3, 2024 at 8:45 PM

            Last cycle peaked at 116.4, not 112.5.

            The prediction made by NOAA back in the first month of the cycle was 115 +/- 10, not . It is the red curve in Ebens link.”

            That’s on curved red line: July 2025 115.3 with high of 125.3 with
            low averaged valve of 101.8.
            So they predicting the average value of blue line, which so far has
            peaked at 125.2.
            Obvious a single month has been much higher.
            Or point on July 2023:
            July averaged number is 160 and it’s smoothed monthly values: 124.3
            blue line is the smoothed monthly values.

            But NOAA gave a later estimate, that is what I was referring to with the somewhere around “140-160” actually upper value it will be in terms of blue line. I should find it, and link it {which I did at some point in my posting on this blog}.
            Try google: “NOAA recent solar cycle 25 estimate”
            Hmm, sort of it:
            https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/noaa-forecasts-quicker-stronger-peak-solar-activity
            But wasn’t exactly one I meant, that one is called “Solar Cycle Progression Updated Prediction (Experimental)”
            But was similar and maybe it’s the same.

          • gbaikie says:

            In terms this:
            Zharkovas prediction was 93. In the 12 predictions highlighted on the SC25 Wikipedia page, Zharkova is below the median in terms of how close she got to the current peak.”
            Wiki solar cycle 25. In box:
            Zharkova, V. et al 2014, 2015.[13] (Northumbria U.) October 2014 65 (80% of cycle 24)

            Also in box: NASA June 2019 70 29 (3050% lower than Cycle 24 (2025))

            I looked that before and It’s different system
            But Zharkova has said directly the 80% of cycle 24
            Actually believe she said 70%
            So far as I am concerned, I asked “how” is less. And I think how high and how long are what you call the strength of cycle.
            Wide high level are strong and a narrow and high peak is not strong.

            Or you could say both NASA and me are concerned GCR {also strength and number solar flares also something NASA would concerned about in terms mission planning.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            If you care about the breadth of the cycle, SC25 will almost certainly have more months with an above-100 SSN than SC24.

          • gbaikie says:

            “If you care about the breadth of the cycle, SC25 will almost certainly have more months with an above-100 SSN than SC24.”

            SC24 had about 1 year and SC25 might have more than a year.
            SC23 had about 3 years above 150.

      • Bindidon says:

        A bit of context around SC25

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gp5KQOo4w13Gax8z_YKi6uyZ-EHLeImp/view

        Some might well wonder about what could happen in a year: we just need to look at all three other cycles to understand that SC25 could very well start up to a new peak.

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 316.3 km/sec
      density: 9.84 protons/cm3
      Daily Sun: 03 Feb 24
      https://www.spaceweather.com/

      Sunspot number: 131
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 143 sfu
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 17.86×10^10 W Warm
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -2.4% Low

      A larger spot appeared on nearside, number: 3575 and now, is closest numbered spot which goes to farside {taking about 4 days- not very close}. Probably continue to grow even bigger, since rapidly grew. And don’t any new spots coming from farside, yet.
      So could be have sunspot number of +130 for few more days.
      I guess.
      Such rapid grow, give signs of sun becoming more active, but sun was not very active in in terms of neutron count or Thermosphere number.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 331.7 km/sec
        density: 7.06 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 04 Feb 24
        Sunspot number: 123
        “Sunspot AR3575 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares.”
        It grew bigger, but not near center of sun and quite far south- or it’s not facing Earth and going to farside in about 3 days. There another large spot going from farside, 3576 to nearside. And perhaps not all of it in nearside, yet. It’s largest or second largest spot, south but more toward equator.
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 17.81×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -2.1% Low

        Losing spots and gaining, Total is eight named spots.

  24. gbaikie says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ctz5UfR8fU
    Live- USA Airstrikes Target IRGC In Iraq and Syria

    On 1 to 10 scale of WWIII, 2.

  25. Nabil Swedan says:

    Based on these observed air temperature data, between 1979 and 2023, surface temperature increased by 0.155 C per decade on average. There does not appear to be an acceleration in the temperature rise. This surface air temperature trend is greater than that of the global mean. The global mean temperature trend is less, nearly 0.11 C per decade.There is so much published heat storage than actual, and it is a mystery that need to be addressed.

    Nabil Swedan, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1976-5516

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Fitting a quadratic trend to the data reveals an acceleration of 0.035C per decade per decade.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      nabil…some 24 years of the trend were essentially flat and the first 18 years was below the baseline, indicating a recovery from cooling.

      I think any warming trend can be attributed to a redistribution of water in the oceans as the major currents and oscillations vary.

      Think about a summer’s day. Here in the Vancouver, Canada region, it might be 20C, which is room temperature and pleasant. Then it warms to 25C and every one comments on how nice and warm it is. Then it hits 30C and people rave about catastrophic global warming.

      That’s a 10C swing in temperatures that can occur in a week. Anthropogenic warming is based on a 0.5C warming in our lifetimes and we talk of it as if it is going to end life as we know it.

      Much ado about nothing.

      • walterrh03 says:

        Gordon,

        Upon examining weather station data from various locations worldwide, it’s evident that maintaining a consistently homogeneous record over an extended period is hard to do. The recognition of the significance of inhomogeneity did not truly gain momentum until the late 1990s. With that said, the stations that most effectively meet these criteria are relatively new, with a record-keeping history of approximately 30 years. From my experience, for analytical purposes, only select stations with records commencing around 1995 or later; no earlier than that.

        Here’s a station near my area that serves as an example.

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-9Kn4f0-gtRXcsmbxEd45JNGUl_pzWw-/view?usp=share_link

  26. barry says:

    Looks like el Nino has peaked, with December being the peak month.

    ONI have updated and their Nov/Dec/Jan average is the highest so far.

    SON 1.8
    OND 1.9
    NDJ 2.0

    https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

    Monthly ONI anomalies:

    Sep 1.71
    Oct 2.02
    Dec 2.02
    Jan 1.87

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt

    BoM NINO3.4 has the peak in November, in the 3rd week of that month.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20231210072526/http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean&pacific=Sea-surface

    BoM combines NINO3.4 with other metrics to index ENSO, but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a specific metric for that multi-method (any pointers would be great). So I’m not sure what BoM would call the peak. Their January 24 update says:

    “El Nino ocean warmth past its peak as positive Indian Ocean Dipole nears its end”

    JMA, like NOAA, have November and December anomalies equal highest, though JMA uses NINO3 for its ENSO metric.

    https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2

    Beijing Climate Centre has December as peak for NINO3.4, but curiously, also for NINO1+2.

    http://cmdp.ncc-cma.net/eng/index.php?channel=92

    Finally, the Multivariate ENSO Index has Nov/Dec as the highest anomaly.

    https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/

    These last three have not updated to the January values yet.

    The average of various institutes point to December being the peak of the recent el Nino.

    Wanted to get a range of views on when the peak occurred, because of the unusual trajectory of global temps at the same time. Very curious what the next 4 months global temps will be. In an ordinary post-Nino season, they should be slightly higher than current, but that seems statistically unlikely.

  27. Nate says:

    “Nate has been lying about this for years. ”

    If Bill’s opponent posts science and arguments that disagree with his views, they must be lies!

    We have shown you real climate models again and again, like Manabe and Wetherald 1967, Hansen et al, 1981, etc.

    You even repost the one I showed you recently which had a detailed study of the mechanisms

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml.

    “Greenhouse Effect: The Relative Contributions of Emission Height and Total Absor.ption”

    Yet you declare that you havent seen any ‘blueprint for the mechanism’.

    What is apparent is that you have seen many blueprints, but you simply don’t know how to read them, and thus dismiss them.

    That is all on you.

    • Clint R says:

      Nate, this is another perfect example of you accepting cult beliefs, while rejecting reality. Look at the very first sentence of the “Abstract” (bold, my emphasis):

      “Since the 1970s, results from radiative transfer models unambiguously show that an increase in the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration leads to an increase of the greenhouse effect.”

      That ain’t science. That is cultism.

      Your models are built on your beliefs, so in your head, they “prove” the GHE. That ain’t science.

      You can’t show from First Principles that CO2 can warm Earth’s 288K surface. You’ve got NOTHING. The GHE is bogus.

      • Nate says:

        Clint, until you offer some actual science, we can safely ignore your unsupported crank assertions.

        • Clint R says:

          Here’s a “model” of your cult, child — “Ignore reality and make up crap.”

          What makes this so much fun is often your crap results in things like ice being able to boil water.

          Or passenger jets flying backward.

          Or “square orbits”.

          Or “REAL 255K surfaces” that no one can find.

          • Willard says:

            Puffman,

            Here’s a model from Sky Dragon cranks – the skies shoot cold rays down to Earth. Another one is that energy can appear out of NOTHING.

            My favorite is this one – silly sock puppets produce the same silly inputs at Roy’s since at least 2014, e.g.:

            The problem is you start with an assumption255K.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/do-gcms-model-a-flat-earth/#comment-114441

            Meep meep!

          • Nate says:

            Don’t forget the black body plate transforming into a perfect mirror!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            yes clint crusaders tend to get caught up confusing an energy balance that is never achieved with the equilibrium temperature. their list of such imbalances is selectively as limited as their database of sources of imbalance is limited.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      yeah good job nate as you backtrack to older discredited science and ignore the caveats of the more recent sources you yourself offered up as evidence.

      yeah i get how at the drop of a hat you will ignore any science that doesn’t fit your agenda nate.

      what you need to do to support future warming you support is to answer the question of why 2/3rds of the ocean is 14 to 15c colder than its surroundings. once you have done that and the answer supports your viewpoint then and only then will you will have an argument even worth listening to.

      here noaa recognizes no imbalance.
      https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere/energy

      here is described a climate institutional industrial complex study that attributes this as ‘snapshot’ positive imbalance brought on by an unknown mixture of natural and anthropogenic climate change but still attributes all atmospheric change as arising from emissions and recognizes it can’t be used as a predictor of the future.

      https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled/

      So this imbalance, uncertain itself due to inaccuracies related to ceres and argo is needed along with the warmest, not median, of the instrument record as being both real and wholly due to anthropogenic impacts to support the model spread as being a sufficient tool for policy guidance in lieu of democratic legislation. get out of here nate!

      • Willard says:

        [GILL] here noaa recognizes no imbalance.

        [NOAA] The average surface temperature of the moon, which has no atmosphere, is 0F (-18C). By contrast, the average surface temperature of the Earth is 59F (15C). This heating effect is called the greenhouse effect.

        • Clint R says:

          Moon has no atmosphere AND no oceans. Thermodynamically, it can NOT be compared to Earth.

          Find something else to throw at the wall, silly willy.

          • Willard says:

            The Moon, Puffman.

            The Moon.

          • Swenson says:

            Wonky Wee Willy,

            You wrote –

            “The Moon, Puffman.

            The Moon.”

            To which I respond “Bananas absorb and emit IR”! Which is why they are above absolute zero, and possess a temperature. They have been heated.

            You claim “This heating effect is called the greenhouse effect.”

            Really? You are away with the fairies again, grasshopper. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. You would have been better off sticking to your previous description of the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling”.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            You say –

            “To which I respond”

            And we should care because…?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            willard is so uneducated he doesn’t even understand the conversation in this thread.

          • Willard says:

            Gill loses so much he can’t even play a plausible Black Knight anymore.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Hmmm, appears that Willard has a ‘white’ knight complex. Do you have a hood and a burning cross to go with that Willard?

          • Willard says:

            Gill plays dumb over the most obvious Monty Python reference.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            nope just noting that crusaders tend to wear white.

            perhaps willard you need to come over to the darkside somewhat. crusaders tend to get caught up in a very excessive manner doing stuff best left to God.

          • Willard says:

            Gill notes that Troglodyte wears white.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Yes Willard wears white.

          • Willard says:

            Yes Gill whiteknights Troglodyte who wears a white hoodie.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter tr0ll wrote:

        what you need to do to support future warming you support is to answer the question of why 2/3rds of the ocean is 14 to 15c colder than its surroundings.

        Is Hunter serious? Has he not learned about the Thermohaline Circulation? The oceans are stratified. The colder, saltier waters of the high latitude North Atlantic and those around the Antarctic, augmented by the sea-ice cycle, are more dense than the surface waters, therefore those waters tend to sink. The mechanisms which mix these waters with those close to the surface are weak or episodic, such as the ENSO wind forcing. These processes have continued over many centuries, particularly during the period before the LGM, the result being that the deepest waters are at temperatures near freezing.

        That’s basic oceanography, described in many publications. More recent efforts, such as the Argo floats, support those concepts.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Swanson agrees with the cold brine pump keeping the ocean bottoms cold. But then he waves his arms that the amount of variation in the output is ”weak or episodic” and I presume he believes its also invariable.

          But what we do know is that whatever its pumping down there its able to keep 90% of the ocean about 14 to 15C colder than its surrounds despite the surface actually being warmer than the mean global climate temperature.

          Which seems reasonable to figure this out as you guys make a big deal over one watt of additional input to the climate system for an environmental apocalypse to occur. You waving your arms about the process being weak or episodic isn’t sufficient.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote:

            I presume he believes its also invariable.

            No, as has been studied for a couple of decades now, the THC has some variation and may be slowing, according to some research. And, we know that the release of melt water has been proposed as the likely cause of the Younger-Dryas Event. If the changes in Arctic sea-ice and Greenland melting continue, there’s the possibility that the THC will be further weakened. Model studies suggest that one result AGW could be a complete shutdown or re-organization of the flow, with serious consequences for Northern Europe.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            yes a rapid advance in melt could temporarily slow the thc as the ice is fresh water that would release fewer brines.

            but all this does is put more response delay in the system as winds will distribute the fresh water cap. but the rate of shrinkage of summer extent has been decreasing. and eei is allegedly accelerating over the same period. why is that?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter, a larger seasonal variation and more first year ice at the end of the freeze season would likely further freshen the surface water in the Arctic, compared to what it was decades ago. Much of the sinking used to occur outside the Arctic Ocean, in the Greenland, Norwegian and Iceland Seas. That’s because the water moving into those seas were sourced from the North Atlantic Drift. The Sub-Tropical gyre of the North Atlantic is said to be very salty, because winds cause it to lose fresh water across the Isthmus of Panama.

            It’s a complicated system and I don’t claim to be an expert. Again, the only method to assess the question is thru the use of models, whether you like it or not.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”Much of the sinking used to occur outside the Arctic Ocean, in the Greenland, Norwegian and Iceland Seas. Thats because the water moving into those seas were sourced from the North Atlantic Drift.”

            By definition the North Atlantic Drift sinking areas of the THC are sourced from the North Atlantic Drift. And the sinking areas are adjacent to ice edges, and in ice polynias and other areas soon to be frozen where frazil ice production occurs.

            E. Swanson says:
            ”The Sub-Tropical gyre of the North Atlantic is said to be very salty, because winds cause it to lose fresh water across the Isthmus of Panama.”

            Lots of reasons. one major one is runoff through the Mediterrean Sea and Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean Sea where salt is imported into the Atlantic by these enbayed large seas that ultimately subjects the Atlantic to more salt from evaporation. Runoff from Asia, Europe, and Africa keeps water moving out of the Med sea into the Atlantic. In the Gulf and Carib the Gulf Stream threads its way through that zone.

            Another major one is probably related to the fact the only high volume exit from the Arctic Sea is into the Atlantic. Not much brine water goes through the narrow and relatively shallow Bering Strait (recall the last glaciation land bridge between Asia and North America). That means virtually all the melt of the Arctic sea exits into the Atlantic and makes for a strong overturning current in the Atlantic

            so plenty of northward moving salty water makes its way into the North Atlantic Drift pushing aside any fresh water as it is considerably warmer than the fresh water. The salty drift fades and spreads as it cools moving north

            Its a complicated system and I dont claim to be an expert. Again, the only method to assess the question is thru the use of models, whether you like it or not.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Swanson says:
            ”Its a complicated system and I dont claim to be an expert. Again, the only method to assess the question is thru the use of models, whether you like it or not.”

            I left your last paragraph unresponded to in the above post by mistake.

            But I agree with this. Just that its important to keep in mind that models provide zero added intelligence. to believe otherwise means you probably have a computer generated girl friend with which you believe you are interacting with mentally and physically.

            I grew up with a slide rule, calculator, and spreadsheet and changed to computer modeling in the early 1980’s. . .but never mistook any of them as a girl friend.

            I have been working with complicated complicated computer models, first big economic/financial models, later models of natural systems for the past 40 years. The best modeler is the guy with the most experience, meaning he has experienced the most failure and learned to correct his approach. All models are developed through trial and error.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote:

            …virtually all the melt of the Arctic sea exits into the Atlantic and makes for a strong overturning current in the Atlantic

            so plenty of northward moving salty water makes its way into the North Atlantic Drift pushing aside any fresh water as it is considerably warmer than the fresh water. The salty drift fades and spreads as it cools moving north

            Do you have a reference to support your claim that “virtually all the melt of the Arctic sea exits into the Atlantic” actually exits the Arctic, presumably thru the Fram Strait as part of the East Greenland Current? Surely there would be re-circulation around the Arctic for some fraction of it.

            Another basic point where you missed it was the fact that adding low salinity Arctic surface melt water to the higher salinity waters outside the Arctic Ocean would actually inhibit THC sinking.

            AIUI, the North Atlantic Drift Current is the continuation of the Gulf Stream as it transits the North Atlantic. Some of those waters turn toward the south around the Sub Tropical Gyre and some turns toward the north, becoming the Norwegian Current. Most of the sinking waters add to the bottom waters of the Arctic Mediterranean, though some is thought to also occur in the Labrador and Irminger Seas. HERE’s a more detailed graphic

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Swanson obviously you know little about oceans and there geography . the arctic ocean exits into the atlantic ocean. oceans don’t have established borders. oceans butt up against land and other oceans.

            seas are marginal bodies of water that typically are considered to be part of an ocean or part of multiple oceans.

            the arctic ocean cold and saline waters move to the atlantic ocean primarily below warmer waters moving northward from the atlantic to the arctic. i can’t be certain if you are trying to obfuscate or its the case you just don’t know.

          • Willard says:

            > obviously you know little about oceans and there geography

            Added to Gill’s already immense CV.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard continues to be impressed.

          • Willard says:

            Gill continues to feel empty inside.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter the tr0ll claims that I “know little about oceans and there geography.” He apparently can’t grasp the basic fact that any THC sinking into the Arctic Mediterranean adds to the flow over the Greenland-Iceland-Scotland sills, a well known fact which was highlighted in the graphics I posted. To be sure, there are other surface currents into and out of the Arctic region, but it’s those THC sinking waters and the resulting overflow currents which are of importance to climate.

            I’ve just posted a comment about a new paper on the subject that was just published. Please reply to that post.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”Do you have a reference to support your claim that virtually all the melt of the Arctic sea exits into the Atlantic actually exits the Arctic, presumably thru the Fram Strait as part of the East Greenland Current? Surely there would be re-circulation around the Arctic for some fraction of it.”

            Swanson first off we are talking in terms of climate time scales. Certainly freshwater ice melting in the arctic is going to remain local for some period of time and even during the summer recirculate around the shrunken ice extent.

            If talking about annual accelerated refreezes sub climate timing not only will the larger extents refreeze due to the summer retreat because of the lack of sunlight in the winter it will freeze faster because freshwater refreezes at a higher temperature than saltwater.

            So obviously the chances of a THC shutdown will occur is increased due to freshwater refreezing, ice insulating the water surface, freshwater being retained in the Arctic and a slowing of overturning.

            But that is only increased when ice melt is accelerating in the summer at a greater level than freshwater is mixing with saltwater and exiting and mixing with Atlantic Ocean waters. That acceleration appears to may have ended. Since 2007 there has been a deceleration of ice melt. This has historically been a climate length period of deceleration.
            https://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

            so at the moment the chances of a THC shutdown is diminishing and as a consequence it is most likely the case that the overturning is increasing. Ice change may be the primary feedback mechanism as has been often cited. Is it natural? Well an LIA recovery could take a thousand years if one focuses on a primary ice recovery and the sorts of climate cycles seen in the 160 year temperature record not explained by CO2.

            And as you said, its occurred before so why not again. . .naturally.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate you offered this up in this thread as proof of the GHE.

        Yet the conclusion is inconclusive. Further all he is talking is theory and can’t even conclude on the theory. He obviously is looking for proof also. Yet for some reason you can’t seem to understand that and you still think its proof.

        Thread: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567

        Study: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml

        Thus you are lying that a proven blueprint for how CO2 warms the surface has been provided as what you offered while claiming it was proof isn’t proof. All it is is a theoretical argument that additions of CO2 ‘might’ warm the surface more while assuming it had warmed it some already and didn’t even explain why.

    • Nate says:

      Were we talking about an imbalance or any of that? No. Distraction.

      The issue was your claim “but we havent seen a blueprint for the mechanism”

      And I’ve been lying about that.

      My response was that you have seen the blueprints, many times.

      And I showed you specific evidence that you have seen it.

      It is not my problem that you don’t understand the science papers that describe it.

      End of story.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You haven’t yet even described the GHE – just claimed that others have done so.

        You might at least attempt to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling,

        How hard can it be?

      • Nate says:

        And Bill, don’t become like Swenson, who only seems to be able to produce a buzzing background noise, like a gnat that occasionally needs swatting.

  28. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”We have shown you real climate models again and again, like Manabe and Wetherald 1967, Hansen et al, 1981, etc.”

    ***

    In the 1980s, Hansen produced a projection for the future which he recanted some 10 years later. He blamed the error on his computer, a dumb piece of silicon that he had programmed.

    Hansen has been into political propaganda since he began his rhetoric in the ’80s. He appeared on national US TV in summer, and had the air conditioning turned off in the studio to make him sweat and appear uncomfortable. His buddy Al Gore was in the wings cheering him on. Later, Hansen was arrested at a political rally in favour of disbanding the Keystone pipeline project.

    Gore raved after the broad.cast that he’d go after anyone who contradicted his Buddy, Jim Hansen.

    You sure know how to pick them, Nate.

    You have shown a penchant for regurgitating the bs. that comes from the likes of Hansen.

    • Arkady Ivanovich says:

      Speaking of bs:

      “we have no idea what energy is therefore we cannot measure it as energy. We can only measure the effect this unknown has on mass. So, when the Hydro company sends you your electricity bill and calls it energy, refuse to pay for something that cannot be explained. Ask them where the energy is located and if they tell you it the current drawn by appliances then ask them why they don’t state that.”

      • Clint R says:

        Gordon is like many in your cult, Ark. When he starts keyboarding, his brain stops working.

        But, as he accepts the GHE nonsense, will your cult now accept him?

        “ps. even I will admit that CO2 should be able to warm the atmosphere even though the amount is completely insignificant.”

        • gbaikie says:

          Gordon said he has doubts regarding ice sheets that were covering North American during Glacial Maximum [about 20,000 years ago], do you also share his doubts?

          • Clint R says:

            That kind of stuff is only based on beliefs, gb.

            Beliefs ain’t science.

          • gbaikie says:

            Science is composed of beliefs.
            Science was created by a religious worldview.
            These are facts.

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry gb, but that’s wrong. It’s a “religion” that is composed of beliefs. A cult is composed of false beliefs.

            Science is NOT about beliefs. Science is observable, demonstrable, testable, repeatable, and verifiable. Science can NOT violate the laws of physics.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Sorry gb, but thats wrong. Its a religion that is composed of beliefs. ”
            It’s not either or, it’s both.
            And science came from somewhere, which was related/caused by a religious worldview.
            One can also say neither is, any religion or any of science “done”.

            With science a theory can be disproven.
            Just need one person.
            And a messiah will come.

          • gbaikie says:

            I googled: “End of science”
            “Our descendants will learn much more about nature, and they will invent gadgets even cooler than smart phones. But their scientific version of reality will resemble ours, for two reasons: First, ours is in many respects true; most new knowledge will merely extend and fill in our current maps of reality rather than forcing radical revisions. Second, some major remaining mysteriesWhere did the universe come from? How did life begin? How, exactly, does a chunk of meat make a mind?–might be unsolvable.

            That’s my end-of-science argument in a nutshell, and I believe it as much today as I did when I was finishing my book 20 years ago. ”
            https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-i-wrong-about-8220-the-end-of-science-8221/

            Do you believe he is correct?
            Has Science Ended?

          • Clint R says:

            One caveat — a discussion about science should make sense….

          • gbaikie says:

            Alright here is something
            {not that I agree or something}:
            — The relationship between religion and science is the subject of continued debate in philosophy and theology. To what extent are religion and science compatible? Are religious beliefs sometimes conducive to science, or do they inevitably pose obstacles to scientific inquiry? The interdisciplinary field of science and religion, also called theology and science, aims to answer these and other questions. It studies historical and contemporary interactions between these fields, and provides philosophical analyses of how they interrelate.–

            And goes on and on:
            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/

    • Nate says:

      “He blamed the error on his computer, a dumb piece of silicon that he had programmed.”

      Nope he didnt.

  29. Bindidon says:

    ” From my experience, for analytical purposes, only select stations with records commencing around 1995 or later; no earlier than that.

    Heres a station near my area that serves as an example.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-9Kn4f0-gtRXcsmbxEd45JNGUl_pzWw-/view?usp=share_link

    *
    You can get a big laugh when reading such absolutely incompetent nonsense.

    Look at this station in GHCN daily:

    Station list:

    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 1386.8 UT GRANTSVILLE 2W

    Station inventory:

    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 TMAX 1913 2023
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 TMIN 1913 2023
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 TOBS 1999 2023
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 PRCP 1906 2023
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 SNOW 1908 2023
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 SNWD 1906 2023
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 DAPR 1956 2011
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 DASF 1957 2003
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 MDPR 1956 2011
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 MDSF 1957 2010
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT01 1915 2020
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT03 1959 2022
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT04 1956 2009
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT05 1915 2022
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT06 1956 2017
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT11 1982 2023
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT16 1923 1940
    USC00423348 40.6019 -112.5075 WT18 1920 1940

    *
    This station is one of the worst ones I have ever seen in the US.

    It starts indeed in 1913 with TMIN/TMAX, but the record is totally inhomogeneous and not only with regard to temperature: from 1915 on, not even one month of data till 1999.

    A look at the source tells you everything:

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/all/USC00423348.dly

    Such stations often enough are automatically rejected due to their tremendous discontinuity.

    *
    The incompetence of people a la Hogle is amazing.

    There are about 250 temperature measuring weather stations in Utah, but he really, really manages to pick up one of the the worst examples in the set.

    And such a guy calls me a monkey, oh Noes :–)

    • walterrh03 says:

      Ok, I was wrong.

      • Bindidon says:

        Hogle

        Like most armchair quarterbacks, you are almost always wrong.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        walter…hope that was tongue in cheek. Binny always references GHCN even though NOAA hasn’t used the database since 1990 or so. Since then, they have slashed 90% of the stations and have resorted to using less than 1500 stations globally for their global land surface database.

        We know 1500 stations can’t cover the land surface since it would average out to 1 thermometer for every 100,000 sq. km. of surface area. That has never bothered NOAA, who use a computer model to interpolate and homogenize data to create temperatures for area, and even cities, not covered.

        • walterrh03 says:

          GR,

          Here’s a video I think you’d appreciate about the USHCN; it demonstrates many of the issues you are talking about. I recall reading controversy about the TOBS adjustment, given its significant impact on temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s. When you alter the data from the United States for those decades and earlier, it has a more substantial impact on the global index than it would today, considering that the US had a larger number of stations than the rest of the world.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF16lDtSVrU

          I was indeed wrong, but less so for the reasons that Binny pointed out. I was fully aware of the two months of Dec. 1913 and Jan. 1914. Of course, the station wouldn’t meet the GHCN criteria for long-term analysis; I was just trying to make a point/hypothesis that stations with better and more consistent records are relatively new, reflecting the rising awareness of poor surface station siting around that time. The station has data for all but 3 or 4 months post-1999.

          My error, instead, stems from not checking the metadata and seeing that the station has moved 8 times since then. It’s not a good station to use.

  30. PhilJ says:

    https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

    Ozone levels remain depressed.

    • Clint R says:

      Don’t let them trick you, PhilJ. Ozone wasn’t measured until the late 1970s. The belief then was ozone was being depleted by manmade chemicals. The chemicals were outlawed, but ozone levels remained the same.

      It’s almost like they don’t know what they’re doing, huh?

    • barry says:

      Must you bungle everything, Clint?

      Ozone monitoring from 1979 shows a depression in ozone in the poles, particularly the South Pole in Springtime, that grew rapidly through the 80s and 90s, before stabilizing in the 2000s.

      At the same time global CFC emissions had also rapidly increased through the 80s and 90s, before plateauing in the late 1990s and dropping off thereafter.

      The correlation is excellent.

      Since the mid-2000s the Antarctic ozone hole has slowly reduced in size.

      CFCs can stay in the atmosphere for decades. They (and other ozone depleting gases) are still catalysing with ozone, but in the last decade the amount of ozone being depleted from CFCs and the like is a bit less than is being restored in the atmosphere through natural processes.

      • Clint R says:

        Gosh barry, you can regurgitate your cult’s nonsense so well. What a surprise!

        Now, let me bring in a little reality.

        * Freon-12, one of the banned gases, is much heavier than air. Very little of it would be able to reach the ozone layer.

        * Almost everything is “ozone-depleting” because ozone is highly unstable. Consequently, it is a great oxidizer.

        * Even if no other gases are around, ozone “depletes” itself, because it is so unstable. Once sunlight is gone, ozone starts reverting to oxygen. The ozone layer reduces naturally.

        * The “ozone hole” is NOT caused by CFCs. It is caused by the uprush of air from the troposphere.

        Now, if you can stand all that reality, here’s a simple question for you: How small should the “ozone hole” be?

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “Very little of it would be able to reach the ozone layer.”
          Several lines of reasoning show this false.
          * Freon was measured in the stratosphere.
          * gases of different atomic weight do mix well. We don’t get layers with CO2 at the bottom, then Ar, O2, N2, and finally CH4
          * gases of different atomic weight do mix well. open a container with a heavy VOC and soon you will smell it above, below, and to the sides as the molecules evaporate and diffuse everywhere (not just inking to the floor).
          * Thunderstorms routinely reach the stratosphere, carrying all manner of gases with them, which would include freon.

          “Once sunlight is gone, ozone starts reverting to oxygen.”
          Correct but presumably intentionally misleading. When sunlight returns the next day, UV returns and O3 is created again. The natural cycle is for long-term stability, not long-term reduction.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, you’re such a joke I no longer waste time correcting you.

            You never found a credible reference for your “fluxes simply adding” nonsense, huh?

      • Swenson says:

        barry,

        Ozone is constantly being created by the action of UVC on oxygen in the atmosphere. Thats why no UVC reaches the surface.

        Are you really as ignorant as you make out?

      • barry says:

        What a bunch of fantastic inventions at odds with decades of established research.

        You’re a serial misinformant.

        • Clint R says:

          Hit barry with some reality, and he hisses like a trapped cat.

        • Swenson says:

          barry,

          You wrote –

          “What a bunch of fantastic inventions at odds with decades of established research.

          Youre a serial misinformant.”

          What inventions? Who’s misinforming about what?

          Are you babbling about anything in particular?

          • barry says:

            The trouble with you playing dumb, Swenson, is that you can’t tell it apart from when you say something serious.

          • Swenson says:

            barry,

            You wrote

            “What a bunch of fantastic inventions at odds with decades of established research.

            Youre a serial misinformant.”

            What inventions? Whos misinforming about what?

            Are you babbling about anything in particular?

  31. gbaikie says:

    My weather is, it’s raining, quite a bit. Forecasted rain two more days. It’s cold, not cold enough to snow. But should snow a lot on hills around me.
    And wind warning:
    –High Wind Warning
    California
    2 hours ago National Weather Service

    HIGH WIND WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 6 AM PST MONDAY * WHAT…Southeast to south winds 30 to 50 mph with damaging gusts between 70 and 80 mph expected. —
    I have not seen any of this strong wind or any wind, yet.
    http://tinyurl.com/4esprc8w

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…a southeast wind normally means it originates in the southeast. Is that right for you? That should mean it is coming from the Gulf of Mexico region.

      • gbaikie says:

        That what I would think, but it might a Canadian or brit and Americans it’s going to SE. Anyhow I didn’t get any wind {coming from any direction}. Sounded like something to worry about. But all it did was rain. Going rain tomorrow or has 65% chance to rain, wind at 14 mph. Which would be a lot more wind than I got. But has to +20 mph call it some wind worth calling windy- as far, I am concerned.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Raining in the desert. Must be climate change.

          • gbaikie says:

            The rain has stopped.
            Now it getting colder, apparently.
            Tomorrow has the low is 32 F, then 30, and then Sat gets to 26 F, but it’s suppose to warm after that.
            No near term forecast of rain.
            It seems we had enough, but likely to rain more, sometime, fairly soon.

  32. Tim S says:

    The current trend looks very much like 1998 except with a faster rise and much less variation at the top. The last 5 months seem to indicate that something very strong and consistent is causing this trend and it is holding in place. A conspiracy theorist might say that a hacker has manipulated the satellite data. Since the satellite data is backed up by surface observation, that seems highly unlikely. Probably just as unlikely as the Super Bowl being manipulated for political purposes.

    • Entropic man says:

      “The last 5 months seem to indicate that something very strong and consistent is causing this trend and it is holding in place. ”

      I’m inclined to agree. If you look at the GISTEMP seasonal cycle graph it is consistent with the idea.

      In June something new boosted temperatures by 0.2C above previous record conditions and that 0.2C boost has continued through the rest of the year.

      https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

    • walterrh03 says:

      Logic would dictate that anything that happens so abruptly is weather, not climate. It would be more appropriate to classify it as an outlier event rather than a part of the ‘long term trend’.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Actually anything that has happened in the last 2 decades is weather including changes in weather that cover most of the 2 decades.

        Thats why what you need to think of is not todays, last months, last years, last decades anomaly what you need to consider as climate is the mean temperature of the last two decades over the previous 2 decades to strictly meet the definition of climate change.

        So we say the anomaly of 1984 to 2003 over the anomaly of 1964 to 1983 and now we can figure the anomaly of 2004 to 2023. But it probably makes more sense to just pick change over dates that are convenient like 1961 to 1980, 1981 to 2000, and 2001 to 2020.

        Each one of those ends with maximum of a Jupiter Saturn conjuction so at least you filter out the largest orbital perturbation of more than 50% of the planetary perturbation. If you move that down to 10 years you will get the largest fluctuation fluctuation one can find in the temperature record in the last 70 years.

        Ocean oscillations appear to have an even longer term effect of maybe 80 years, and solar has patterns of >100 years. With the slow response and build up of EEI in the ocean now finally recognized by climate science they need to backtrack to their dismissal of other phenomena (like claiming the sun has been cooling since 1957 as an inadequate scientific argument for dismissing solar change for the gentle climate change we have been observing.

        • walterrh03 says:

          I agree with what you write, Bill. That’s what the y=mx+b circus clowns don’t understand. Many ‘false predictions’ can’t actually be proven false beyond their precious Excel spreadsheets. Their logic is that the globe’s temperature has followed y= 0.095366x + 14.32, while the PDO index has adhered to y= -0.010057x + 14.32. Therefore, they conclude the PDO has had no discernible effect on the climate. They’ll also concoct the AMO, CO2, solar irradiance, 11-year solar cycle, etc., ‘variables’ into y=0.000012507x + 14.32 – the so-called ‘normal climate.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Yep and when you get into the ice core data you will find that 2c variations in climate are very common and you also find this proxy data to be polluted with the instrument record in an apple to oranges comparison because the first job in a proxy is to estimate ice layer physical structure to a temperature value. Same deal with tree rings. Showing it with instrument record tails opens the door to abuse.

            In litigation this comes out. But government is never held to the same standards as private enterprise.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Re sat data hacking….I have questioned that in the past, not by UAH, but by NOAA, who own the sats. There is nothing to stop them hacking the data before handing it over to UAH.

      Then again, like other good comments in this thread, there is no reason to read anything sinister into the current warming spike, if you can call a few tenths of a degree C a spike. Weather has likely been varying dramatically over longer spans of time as ocean oscillations and the atmosphere vary in step.

  33. Antonin Qwerty says:

    ENSO anomalies for week ending Feb 3

    1.2 … +1.0 (up 0.3)
    ..3 … +1.9 (up 0.1)
    3.4 … +1.8 (up 0.1)
    ..4 … +1.5 (down 0.1)

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Just checking RLH … you said that changes ALWAYS move east to west, right?

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        You do realise that anyone who ends their sentence with “right”, is just tro‌lling, right?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        No it doesn’t always move east to west. Its just that the ‘prevailing’ winds at the equator are east to west moving the water in that direction.

        when the wind subsides, upwelling of deep cold water subsides and the lazy movement of water along the equator has more time to warm before moving far to the west plus sea level is higher in the west due to those winds. And when the wind reduces the water can relax back to the east.

  34. Gordon Robertson says:

    big-mouth Binny….”Hogle

    You are, like Robertson, manifestly unable to understand how anomalies are computed out of absolute data, but nonetheless discredit and denigrate anything what what I wrote”.

    ***

    According to NOAA, or anyone else with a smattering of intelligence, an anomaly is simply a departure from a calculated global average over a period like 30 years. Big-mouth Binny wants to convolute that simple meaning so he can live in a theoretical world of his own and get to sound important.

    We know the process of actually calculating anomalies has become ridiculous, but still, the above is the basic premise. Meantime BM Binny churns out all sorts of fudged charts and tales based on his own erroneous understanding.

    • walterrh03 says:

      GR,

      He didn’t, and still doesn’t, understand the main point being conveyed.

      • Bindidon says:

        You coward weren’t even able to show the ‘main point being conveyed’.

        Show us exactly what you mean, Hogle.

        Not in words by what I call robertsoning, but with data and graphs i.e. reasoning.

        If you are able to do that.

          • Bindidon says:

            Hogle

            What’s that for a nonsense, armchair quarterback Hogle?

            What the hell do May temperatures have to do with snowfall? With every post you seem a little more idîotic.

            Me, a liar? Oh Noes…

          • walterrh03 says:

            In May, temperatures up there tend to feature a clash between winter and summer seasons; they tend to hover more around the freezing point, and it is the last month of relatively consistent snowfall, though there are plenty of years with no snowfall. As such, snowfall is more sensitive to temperature variations; it reflects the delicate balance between winter cold and the onset of milder conditions.

            The average temperature index shows a substantial rise with a p-value below 0.05; however, the snowfall trend is a polar opposite to that of the average temperature index. We would at least expect some kind of change, but we don’t.

          • Bindidon says:

            Hogle

            ” As such, snowfall is more sensitive to temperature variations; it reflects the delicate balance between winter cold and the onset of milder conditions. ”

            Ooooh! I can’t recall such superficial, unscientific blah blah, moreover based on ONE single point, and which apparently has merely to do with your personal, egomaniacal narrative.

            And the very best is… that the comparison of your useless graphs perfectly confirms my opinion.

            *
            Nate came along with a wonderful expression unknown to me till now: ‘armchair quarterback’.

            The more I read about your nonsense, the more I see how good it fits your behavior.

            From now on I will stop responding to your smart comments, let alone your even smarter reactions to mine.

          • walterrh03 says:

            You lack so much self-awareness; it’s actually kind of sad.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          If you can’t explain it in words, you don’t understand it.

          NOAA explained it in words, and Binny still doesn’t understand it. He doesn’t get it when NOAA explains in words that they are currently using less than 1500 stations to determine the surface global average. That’s about one thermometer per 100,000 km^2.

      • Eben says:

        Bindidog back to running around biting peoples ankles left and right .
        At least it’s not me anymore.

        • Bindidon says:

          ” … back to running around biting peoples ankles left and right . ”

          Me, ankle biting, dachshund?

          I just tried for the umpteenth time to explain ignoramuses how anomalies as understood by Roy Spencer really work.

          YOU, dachshund, are the real ankle biter here.

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    I am wondering what misadventure overcame Clint and turned him into an alarmist dweeb.

    “Gordon is like many in your cult, Ark. When he starts keyboarding, his brain stops working.

    But, as he accepts the GHE nonsense, will your cult now accept him?”

    ***

    The above shot was aimed at my reply to Ark that energy cannot be measured directly since no one knows how to detect it directly. There are no instruments that will measure thermal energy directly, or EM, and even electrical energy.

    I don’t make this stuff up, I got it from reading Clausius and Planck, then I went looking for science to back it. Now I must add energy to Clint’s ever-increasing misunderstanding of basic science. He has stated recently that…

    1)Clint thinks heat is not energy but a measure of energy transfer. When challenged, he fails to explain how thermal energy can be transferred without being heat. If heat is only a measure of energy transfer, and thermal energy is being transferred, it is obvious that heat now becomes a measure of the transfer of thermal energy, which is commonly known as heat. Ergo, hat i a meaure of heat. Clint believes that thermal energy becomes generic energy which is measured as heat.

    2)Clint believes that entropy is a measure of disorder even though the inventor of entropy, Clausius, defined it as a transfer of heat. Clausius did not mince words, he called heat energy. The mathematical equation for entropy, devised by Clausius, is S = integral dq/T where q = heat. Nothing there about disorder.

    3)Clint believes electrical current moves positive to negative.
    After trying to insert batteries in a device backwards, and finding it won’t work, Clint finally connects them correctly and thinks the manufacturer made a mistake when he labelling the battery holder.

    4)Now we find Clint butt-kissing Ark, his new alarmist buddy, while claiming it is me who has gone over to the other side. Based on his reply to Ark, Clint now believes that energy can be defined and measured.

    I hope Clint mends soon and comes back to the skeptic camp.

    • Clint R says:

      Sorry Gordon, but I never stated any of that. You’re making stuff up again, like when you claimed you have an engineering degree.

      You’ve got all the techniques of the GHE cult here. You insult, falsely accuse, and misrepresent, with no qualms. You’re in your own cult.

      I don’t think the GHE cult will take you. You’ve got too many issues even for them….

    • Willard says:

      > [Puffman] thinks heat is not energy but a measure of energy transfer.

      Good catch, Bordo. Here is some evidence:

      Heat is NOT energy transferred between systems, that is a reference to HEAT TRANSFER.

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/climate-f-words/#comment-294952

      Go get him!

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      I’ll just briefly address one of these.
      “3)Clint believes electrical current moves positive to negative.”

      The particles (electrons in this case) move from negative to positive through the wire, but current moves from positive to negative. For example,
      * if I shoot a beam of protons (H+ ions) from left to right, the particles and the current move left to right.
      *if I shoot a beam of electrons from right to left, the particles move right to left BUT THE CURRENT STILL MOVES LEFT TO RIGHT.

      You are thinking too concretely about PARTICLES, rather than thinking abstractly about CURRENT.

      • Clint R says:

        This is why this nonsense about the GHE won’t go away. The cult doesn’t seek reality. They want confusion, disorder, mayhem, and chaos.

        Gordon misrepresents me, and Folkerts and silly willy jump in to continue the confusion. Here’s the reality:

        Gordon doesn’t understand current flow. Current flow is “chosen” as the direction of positive charge flow, that is, positive current is in the direction of positive charge flow. There has to be a choice to lessen confusion. Outside a battery, positive current flows + to -. But INSIDE a battery, positive current flows – to +. It can be confusing, so a “convention” has to be adopted so everyone knows what is happening. The convention chosen is a “positive current” flows out of a battery’s positive terminal and into the negative terminal. The convention carries over to AC circuits, even though current is essentially flowing both directions (alternating). This is taught at the very beginning of electrical engineering. It’s simple, but Gordon never got it. That’s just one of the reasons we know he’s NOT an engineer. He wouldn’t have passed the entry-level courses.

        All of Gordon’s statements misrepresent me because he’s a cultist. That’s what cultists do — They clog the blog with confusion, disorder, mayhem, and chaos.

        • Willard says:

          Puffman expresses violent agreement with Tim’s explanation of a mere convention, while trying to portray what a fellow Dragon crank does as Team Science’s modus operandi!

          Perhaps he should stick with skies shooting cold rays?

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “Current flow is “chosen” as the direction of positive charge flow”

          Well, you could say it that way. Like current flow in a river is “chosen” to be downstream. But it is really the only logical choice.

          Calling the direction of current in a river or a wire a choice is what adds to the confusion.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            so where pray tell have you tim found heat traveling toward more heat?

          • Ball4 says:

            When some of the heat in common glass of ice water is converted to EMR and travels toward the kitchen IR thermometer where the EMR is absorbed and causes the thermometer display to read 32F.

          • Swenson says:

            Ball4, yes it well known that everything above absolute zero emits IR, and this emission is sometimes measured as “temperature”.

            Maybe you don’t realise that if the IR sensor is exposed to something colder, it cools – by radiating photons to the colder object. Just the same as a mercury thermometer – put it into iced water, it radiates photons, and indicates that the thermometer has become colder than before.

            In neither case does the instrument “absorb” anything from a colder body. That would be contrary to the physical laws of the universe as currently understood.

            If you need a 19th century description, look at Prof John Tyndall’s meticulous experiments, involving an IR thermometer (a thermopile). He took great pains to “null” his galvanometer, so that it would indicate any temperature deviation, negative or positive, on the basis of the “energy balance” of his thermopile. Radiating more energy than being received indicated a drop in temperature.

            No GHE. A colder atmosphere does not warm a hotter surface. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, not become hotter!

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            so so why pray tell do you Bill suddenly think I would even try to find heat traveling toward more heat?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            why do you argue backradiation instead of just net heat flow?

            Oh I get it. . .you are just obfuscating.

          • Ball4 says:

            Because forward radiation net of back radiation physically is heating rate. Writing net heat as does Bill is writing net net heating rate.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            no its obfuscation because the effort is to create a focus on the backradiation as the only element of warming ignoring that for warming to occur the sky must get hotter first and all that co2 does is cool the sky where without ir emitting molecules it would not cool and only have sw absorbing molecules that would get hotter until they passed some of that down to the surface like a magnifying glass or mirror can warm the surface. but none of this is ever discussed and the claim is that the surface always heats the sky. indeed the surface is always trying to heat the sky and it succeeds when more sunlight reaches the surface and it overrides atmosphere warming which occurs later in the morning and the winds begin to pickup but later in the morning on cloudy days.

          • Ball4 says:

            Bill does seem to create a focus on backradiation.

            More scientific for Bill to create a focus on all-sky emission to surface. Then find the lower atm. net heating rate for climate time periods from all sources (see top post for a start).

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “why do you argue backradiation instead of just net heat flow?”

            Ah! So THAT was your point!

            Electric current is ALSO the net flow. That level of detail just was not needed for the discussion at hand.

            In fact, for pretty much any current:
            * at a macroscopic level, net flow is sufficient.
            * at a microscopic level, studying individual particles can be enlightening.

            Net electric currents move from + to – in a wire
            Individual electrons are moving both ways in a wire

            Net water current move downhill.
            Individual H2O molecules are moving uphill and downhill.

            Net IR radiation moves from hot to cold.
            Individual IR photons move hot-to-cold and cold-to-hot.

            Sometimes net IR is sufficient. Sometime thinking of individual photons is enlightening.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter posted another long paragraph rant. It reads like it was written by an AI chat bot. He claims that:

            no its obfuscation because the effort is to create a focus on the backradiation as the only element of warming ignoring that for warming to occur the sky must get hotter first…

            He doesn’t mention the outward absorp_tion by GHG’s as if it can be ignored, even though it warms the successive layers of air above the surface. Those layers then emit in both upward and downward directions, so increasing CO2 warms the lower layers, but cools the higher levels.

            The whole rant comes across as something written while his brain is “impaired”. Hunter would be well advised not to operate machinery under such influences.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:
            ”Sometimes net IR is sufficient. Sometime thinking of individual photons is enlightening.”

            enlightening? I what way? Net photons travel from hot to cold period, never the other way. Name something enlightening to extrapolating movement of photons from the known fact that maximum flow is the equivalent of a net movement of energy depending upon the temperatures the the two objects energy is moving between.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:
            ”Those layers then emit in both upward and downward directions, so increasing CO2 warms the lower layers, but cools the higher levels.”

            LMAO! You really don’t belong in this discussion. Now cold radiation is warming stuff and hot radiation is cooling stuff. ROTFLMAO!

          • E. Swanson says:

            If Hunter has finished laughing, perhaps he will recall the discussion in Pierrehumbert 2011. There’s a couple of processes going on simultaneously. The emissions from the near BB surface passes upwards thru the atmosphere. Each GHG takes a bite out of that as it transits each layer. The overall absorp_tion may be nearly 100%, except on the wings of the overall emissions lines.

            The other thing is that each layer of air can both emit and absorb depending on the layer’s temperature and pressure. With multiple layers, each emitting downward while also absorbing from those layer(s)above, the net effect is cascaded, resulting in warming down to the surface layer. Coincidentally, the upward emissions may be absorbed by the layer above or exit the Earth. Because of pressure effects, the emission lines become weaker with elevation. Finally, the net effect is a cooling of higher layers above the Tropopause as emissions are lost to deep space.

            Of course, to add to the confusion, convection within the Troposphere moves warm, moist air upwards, leading to clouds and precipitation.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:
            Theres a couple of processes going on simultaneously. The emissions from the near BB surface passes upwards thru the atmosphere. Each GHG takes a bite out of that as it transits each layer.
            ——————–

            so you are claiming each layer gets warmed a little less than the previous layer. what happened to your claim: co2…cools the higher levels?

            E. Swanson says:
            ”The other thing is that each layer of air can both emit and absorb depending on the layers temperature and pressure. ”

            you need to learn what a layer is. each layer is equally capable to emit and absorb. layers simply get thicker with less pressure. and a layer is virtual with each frequency having a different thickness. if you had layers of a set thickness with a line x meters off the ground where all frequencies are significantly absorbed some frequencies in the middle of the co2 bandwidth would have been absorbed and emitted several times.

            E. Swanson says:
            ”With multiple layers, each emitting downward while also absorbing from those layer(s)above, the net effect is cascaded, resulting in warming down to the surface layer.”

            this is what i mean about obfuscation. the effect of the bottom layers being warmer is accomplished in part by ”GHG takes a bite out of that as it transits/warms each layer” except it doesn’t warm a layer that is already as warm as the lower layer.

            i say in part because convection and conduction and conduction contributes to the warming of layers above in a similar manner as long as the higher layer are cooler.

            . . .there is no downward cascading of heat except when the surface is cooler than the atmosphere because it can cool faster than the surface via losing heat through the atmospheric window.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “enlightening? I[n] what way? ”

            Do you truly see no enlightenment from learning about the world on a microscopic level? From studying photons … and atoms and electrons? No enlightenment from understanding how net radiation and net pressure and net current result from the collective behavior of individual photons and molecules and electrons?

          • Nate says:

            “ignoring that for warming to occur the sky must get hotter first and all that co2 does is cool the sky ”

            Bill, this has all been explained, why play ignorant? The upper layers of the troposphere emits the heat to space via radiation from GHG. Without them, it would be emitted from the surface.

            Just as with the insulation of your attic. The top layer of insulation emits the heat to the cold surroundings. Without it, the heat would be emitted directly from the wood surface. The insulation increases the T gradient required to emit the same heat.

            Again, the troposphere is doing exactly what insulation does, it raises the temperature gradient required to emit the same heat flow to space.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            nate your problem is that you believe that the sky is an insulating layer when physics ever since the insulation industry treated gases as non-insulting. seim and olsen experiment offers physical evidence of that.

            you need proof that the atmosphere insulates anything. you don’t have it. i have heard you make this claim thousands of times and you just don’t care that you don’t have any evidence. you want others to believe what you believe only because your daddy/God relayed the information to you through his prophets and apostles.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:

            ”Do you truly see no enlightenment from learning about the world on a microscopic level? From studying photons?

            wow you have actually seen a cold photon in a microscope? then you surely can tell me about how you were enlightened about what you saw as i have never seen one.

          • Tim Fokerts says:

            Bill, neither of us has seen an atom. Do you hold equal distain for the atomic theory of matter?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote that:

            layers simply get thicker with less pressure. and a layer is virtual with each frequency having a different thickness.

            I think that’s not true if one sets layer thickness in pressure altitude. Pressure declines exponentially with physical altitude. Half the atmosphere’s mass is below ~500mb, or about 5km.

            Hr insists us that:

            the effect of the bottom layers being warmer is accomplished in part by GHG takes a bite out of that as it transits/warms each layer except it doesnt warm a layer that is already as warm as the lower layer.

            Having multiple layers is like combining multiple layers of a some material, each of which transmits some fraction of Sunlight. The more layers, the less makes all the way thru and each receives a smaller fraction of the total. With gasses in the atmosphere, it’s more complicated because the absorp-tion decreases for each layer due to declining pressure.

            Each layer emits in both directions and those are in specific GHG wavelengths which are easily absorbed in the layers above and below, with a larger fraction absorbed by lower layers than higher ones, again due to pressures.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Fokerts says:

            ”Bill, neither of us has seen an atom. Do you hold equal distain for the atomic theory of matter?”

            Who said I had disdain about any of these theories Tim? Atomic theory is essentially a cartoon model of the variables we understand, but that doesn’t allow us to extrapolate about stuff that hasn’t been verified by experiment. The model is useful for provoking thought but the model itself doesn’t provide any evidence of the validity of those thoughts. That evidence must be obtained
            by experiment.

            So lets not travel down the atomic/electron bunny trail here where much has been learned and remains consistent.

            I asked a simple question of what have we been enlightened via the photon model. It seems to me we don’t yet have sorted out whether its a wave or a particle. But hey I haven’t devoted by life to studying photons, I have spent several years of my life building passive solar sequestration systems and would love to extrapolate how those work to the atmosphere which would argue strenuously against the CO2 theory. . .but hey none of my designs included only a freely convecting and expanding atmosphere. So I am not running around selling what I learned from that experience as an answer to climate change. Though I can see how somebody who doesn’t have that experience could actually want to believe it does sitting in a windowless room reading about them especially if I could find that Newton once said. . .(fill in the blank).

            So I assume you are on this bunny trail because you couldn’t think of an answer to my question. . .which I suspected. . .but would love to have had you proven my suspicions wrong.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            E. Swanson says:

            ”I think thats not true if one sets layer thickness in pressure altitude. Pressure declines exponentially with physical altitude. Half the atmospheres mass is below ~500mb, or about 5km.”

            The issue Swanson is optical thickness which clearly is related to pressure. I took a shot at explaining the relationship but can accept my explanation might have been clunky.

            But I don’t see you actually addressing the issue.

            Swanson says:

            ”With gasses in the atmosphere, its more complicated because the absorp-tion decreases for each layer due to declining pressure.”

            You seem to be stuck on a layered cake model. I am talking about an optical thickness model where optical thickness is how much of a certain frequency of light is completely absorbed.

            You then claim that the layer then radiates only 50% upward, but thats not true. Thats only the case when the layer it was absorbed was exactly half the temperature of the previous layer.

            We know that there can be many layers within such a layer that reduces the temperature halfway. I could even be that the atmosphere wants to act that way but can’t. that would be an atmosphere incapable of getting warmer and thus incapable of warming the surrounds. which seems to be the case for the simple model sold by 3rd grader radiation model. . .that nobody can ever get any warming out of.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “I asked a simple question of what have we been enlightened via the photon model.”
            If you can’t bother to explore physics that has been well-established by experiments for 100 years, I am not going to be able to ‘enlighten’ you about lasers and LEDs and solar panels and the Bohr Model and Compton scattering and Planck’s Law.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter wrote:

            You seem to be stuck on a layered cake model. I am talking about an optical thickness model where optical thickness is how much of a certain frequency of light is completely absorbed.

            Yes if you want to call it that. But, each layer would be of different thickness, summing the optical depths of each layer for the emissions from the surface. For some frequencies, a layer might exhibit zero transmission, bou others would transmit.

            Again, each layer also emits as a function of it’s temperature and pressure, which is a different situation. And, of the emissions leaving each layer, half goes up and half goes down (mol). That’s like the GPE, where the total emissions are split between the two sides. Then those emissions are subject to the same optical depth of the layers thru which they meet.

            You can’t simply lump all the transmittences of those layers and get a realistic representation, IMHO.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Swanson you are entitled to whatever opinion you want to hold but until it becomes science which isn’t a matter of opinion I would suggest dialing back the proselytization spew.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:

            ”If you cant bother to explore physics that has been well-established by experiments for 100 years, I am not going to be able to enlighten you about lasers and LEDs and solar panels and the Bohr Model and Compton scattering and Plancks Law.”

            Well what are you holding back for. You should be able to recite the quantum mechanics basis of the greenhouse effect by rote now.

            we have been asking for that now for a long time and are just dying to see the effect demonstrated for us.

          • Willard says:

            Where’s Monkey Man to ask what Gill’s comments have to do with Tim’s “do you hold equal distain for the atomic theory of matter”?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Hunter tr0ll, I offered a description of what I understand of radiation HT thru the atmosphere, which is rather similar to that of Perrehumbert 2011 or Eli’s GPE. In any event, I think it’s clear that the only way to address these issues requires layered math models of the atmosphere. Remember, math is the language of science. You have presented no alternative to “layer cake science”, which I believe to be a common characteristic of both weather and climate models.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Well what are you holding back for.”

            Because I don’t have time to write an entire textbook here just for you. I have explained the basics many times. A some point, you need to learn several years worth of E&M, thermo, and QM before you are ready for something beyond a 1 paragraph summary of different topics.

          • Nate says:

            “nate your problem is that you believe that the sky is an insulating layer when physics ever since the insulation industry treated gases as non-insulting. seim and olsen experiment offers physical evidence of that.

            you need proof that the atmosphere insulates anything. you dont have it. i have heard you make this claim thousands of times and you just dont care that you dont have any evidence. you want others to believe what you believe only because your daddy/God relayed the information to you through his prophets and apostles.”

            Bill, you naively to think an insulating material needs to be purchasable at Home Depot, else it cannot insulate!

            As I explained, an insulating effect happens whenever heat transfer is reduced. (Temperature gradient)/(Heat flux) defines ‘R factor’ for insulation.

            And you know that heat transfer has three modes, including radiation.

            The GHE is a reduction of heat transfer mainly from the upper troposphere to space via radiation. Thus that is an insulating effect.

            With an increased GHE, the ratio (Temperature gradient)/(Heat flux), its ‘R factor’, increases for the atmosphere.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says: (and applies to Tim and Swanson)

            Bill, you naively to think an insulating material needs to be purchasable at Home Depot, else it cannot insulate!
            ———————–
            Funny you would say that. Insulation purchased at Home Depot is certified from an organization like NAIMA:
            ”All materials that have received the R-value Certification from NAIMA have been tested by an independent, third-party laboratory and meet the thermal performance required by the FTC.”

            So you can be comfortable in buying insulation from a company like Home Depot that insists on ensuring the products it sells to perform as advertised.

            You, Tim, and Swanson don’t meet that standard. You are not a reliable source of information as you do not insist on actual testing and even go so far as to reject the results of what testing has occurred.

            We can also see from Roy’s last 8 posts very clearly that there is an ongoing certification process that hasn’t established any results yet. So here we have you selling what Home Depot would never sell and dishonestly claiming you know that it works.

            What does that make you? A gypsy fly by night driveway repair crew salesman?

            Nate says:

            ”As I explained, an insulating effect happens whenever heat transfer is reduced. (Temperature gradient)/(Heat flux) defines R factor for insulation.”
            ——————————
            That’s not true at all. You just don’t have the chops to understand this topic.

            Heat transfer is also reduced if you heat the cool object, say for the sky, by changing the particles in the sky that intercepts shortwave radiation from the sun, like oxygen species. The sky warms and surface heat transfer is reduced without any insulation.

            Of course you have been told this many times and you just ignore it. You should be spending some time in the corner of the room with the dunce hat on.

          • Nate says:

            “Focus on back radiation’

            Well, Bill, if you were a meteorologist, like Roy Spencer, that is the only way to make sense of measurements that they make in order to model the weather and climate change.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/observational-evidence-of-the-greenhouse-effect-at-desert-rock-nevada/

            They measure up-welling IR (UWIR) from the emission below and down-welling IR (DWIR) from emissions above. It makes perfect sense to them to think of these separately because the DWIR and UWIR may have DIFFERENT spectra and come from layers with various temperatures.

            And he notes that:

            “But, of course, it is the net IR (the sum of upwelling from the warmer surface plus the downwelling from the cooler sky) which must flow from higher to lower temperature, which it does.”

            This is the way they do things in meteorology. The field that is able to successfully predict the weather.

            So although it may not work for you, it ain’t wrong.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            yes nate i know how to recognize a budget. i also know how to examine a budget.

            just a few comments:

            the interception of uv and perhaps high frequencies of light by oxygen molecules in the thermosphere can cause the thermosphere to rise to temperatures of thousands degrees kelvin due to the lack of ability of oxygen to emit lower frequency radiation i.e. the molecule can’t vibrate at low frequencies. that is monoatomic oxygen. o2 also can’t emit at ir frequecies but can absorb high frequency uv. ozone has some ability to emit at ir frequency but apparently not enough to keep it from being a warming source for the stratosphere.

            now water and co2 can collide with oxygen species and obtain heat from them in that manner and emit ir. so clearly if there is a ghe at a minimum ghgs are a necessary element of a ghe. but the jury is out on whether more co2 results in more warming.

            my analysis approach which is different than any i have seen from others is a super simple reasonableness test combined with agreement related to how much more outgoing ir that co2 can absorb via doubling combined with the negative feedbacks in the detailed in the trenberth budget and i came up with a figure very similar to roy’s analysis of cloud feedbacks. now i can assure you i did this long before roy’s paper so my results were not influenced by roy’s findings.

            so as i have said i understand why most scientists give some credibility to warming from co2 as i support it also, with strong negative feedback, but i also realize we may not see the entire picture and i can see how ghgs can cool the sky and i don’t believe in a tipping point where they go from cooling to warming but i can see a mechanism where ghgs warm the surface during the times of day the sky is warmer than the surface, which would also cause the mean global temperature to go up some. . .since that is a statistic that minimum temperature is part of.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            my two posts directly above that 1) debunks the insulation argument; and 2) proposes an alternative that doesn’t rely on an insulation argument that yet could explain surface temperature variation without changes to sun.

            i left out a third variable that doesn’t require solar activity variation that deals with changes to the earth’s orbit due to the movement of the planets. we have just passed through near triple conjunction of 3 gas giants. to access that issue one must analyze its affect on earths orbit. since the fastest orbit is possessed by jupiter that rotates in the sky wrt the sun about 30degrees per year, double and triple conjunction are goin to have the 3 gas giants all aligned in the sky at the same time either supplemented or counter acted by interior planets during the part of the year that earth is also in conjunction or opposition to the gas giants.

            jupiter and saturn, the two most influential planets conjoin once every 20 years. one can detect this in the temperature record finding that 10 year warming trends are most different from other trends. the amplitude is about 2 tenths of a degree per 10 year period and i suspect is why climate must be a twenty year minimun cycle to erase that effect. but triples have longer periods and while one would not at all suspect they approach the same amplitude as saturn and jupiter. however, there are 6 other planets than those two.

            so you could have for climate variability:
            1) variation in solar activity
            2) variation in oxygen species in particular ozone
            3) variation orbit eccentricity
            4) variation in cloud cover
            5) uhi
            6) irrigation
            7) deforestation
            8) perhaps others like variation magnetic fields

            and who knows what else all working cycles perhaps to some degree interconnected.

            3)

          • Willard says:

            While Gill keeps galloping, a blast from the past (h/t Nate):

            Engineers perform thermal analyses on buildings in order to design HVAC systems.For this purpose, the downwelling I.R. radiation is often calculated using a sky emittanceto give the sky radiosity.An often used formula is due to Brunt (1940),

            epsilonsky=0.55+1.8(PH2O/P)**0.5

            where PH2O is the partial pressure of water vapor, and the constant 0.55 also accounts for CO2 and other greenhouse gases.The sky temperature is taken to be the ground level air temperature.

            Do they do something wrong?

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/observational-evidence-of-the-greenhouse-effect-at-desert-rock-nevada/#comment-222140

            Perhaps Monkey Man could answer that one for Gill’s sake.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard we know most scientists believe that IR detectors are detecting downwelling radiation. But do they have evidence of that? Most IR detectors are detecting temperature change at the tip of the sensor, not radiation. Radiation is the ‘assumed’ mode of temperature change when a sensor is not in contact with the object.

            Not that it makes any difference in the outcome, because it doesn’t. The issue really isn’t whether is backradiation or not as that doesn’t change the outcome if there isn’t, its still net energy loss from hot to cold that describes the outcome.

            The problem with the concept of backradiation is when its considered able to warm something warmer, which does confuse a lot of people, but only people who believe in backradation. But even if backradiation exists its the hot object thats cooling in accordance with SB equations.

          • Willard says:

            [ANTHONY MILLS] Engineers perform thermal analyses on buildings in order to design HVAC systems.

            [GILL] we know scientists

          • Nate says:

            “Thats not true at all. You just dont have the chops to understand this topic.”

            As usual, auditor Bill mansplains physics to physicists (Tim and myself) and engineers (Swanson).

          • Nate says:

            “the interception of uv and perhaps high frequencies of light by oxygen molecules in the the”

            Again you drift off into tangent weeds. How does this debunk that the atmosphere insulates is anybodies guess.

            And it is true that Home Depot doesn’t sell planetary atmospheres.

            And yet scientists are still able to apply the same general heat transfer principles to them.

            You seem unwilling to allow that.

          • Nate says:

            “we know most scientists believe that IR detectors are detecting downwelling radiation. But do they have evidence of that?”

            Yes. Does the auditor have evidence to the contrary?

            “Most IR detectors are detecting temperature change at the tip of the sensor, not radiation.”

            Yes using established laws of physics one can determine the radiative flux from the temperature change.

            We’ve discussed how mercury thermometers detect volume change. And yet determine temperature from it.

            So this is common theme in measurement and not a real problem.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”Yes. Does the auditor have evidence to the contrary?”

            Its not the auditor’s job to have evidence to the contrary Nate. Its your assertion thus it is you who needs evidence or the auditor will rule that your assertion is a fiat and he will disclose that fact.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:
            ”Again you drift off into tangent weeds. How does this debunk that the atmosphere insulates is anybodies guess.”

            Indeed Nate you call drifting off into the tangent weeds to be anything that distracts from the message you are trying to sell us here without a validated model to show your theory is correct.

            Lets see how did this conversation evolve?

            First I said: you need proof how the atmosphere insulates anything. you dont have it.

            Then you said: ”Bill, you naively to think an insulating material needs to be purchasable at Home Depot, else it cannot insulate!

            As I explained, an insulating effect happens whenever heat transfer is reduced. (Temperature gradient)/(Heat flux) defines R factor for insulation. . .The GHE is a reduction of heat transfer mainly from the upper troposphere to space via radiation. Thus that is an insulating effect.”

            definition of insulation: Insulation means creating a barrier between the hot and the cold object that reduces heat transfer by either reflecting thermal radiation or decreasing thermal conduction and convection from one object to the other.

            So yeah you don’t get a lot of pushback about the atmosphere having an insulating effect but what we are arguing about is whether CO2 alone in the atmosphere is sufficient to cause that effect. To even begin to understand the answer to that question you need to know what the temperature would be without co2. Seim and Olsen provides that answer.

            But you say, gee Bill there is a greenhouse effect. To which I say well we know CO2 doesn’t reflect heat so it must operate to reduce conduction and convection as with the above definition of insulation.

            So what is left in order to create a greenhouse effect in the presence of conduction and convection? Well maybe something other than greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere, like UV being absorbed by oxygen species?

            maybe water vapor which is full spectrum absorber and emitter of radiation? Oops no we don’t and do want it to do that but we are sure about clouds, so lets just say water vapor which of course is just water on its way to become water and clouds and absorbing SW radiation.

            So we are in agreement that there is a chance CO2 could be responsible in part for the gHE, if it actually exists. . .but not by being insulating but by warming the sky so the sky can warm the surface.

            As long as the sky is colder than the surface though its not going to warm anything. But hey the surface can get really cold at night so maybe thats when CO2 can warm the surface.

            Fact is and we can see it in the temperature record, the earth is colder than the moon when the sun is shining and warmer than the moon when the sun is not. So yes there is a greenhouse effect that will really do nothing more than save lives of people dying from the cold.

            What you really fail to ponder is that the pile of bricks in the middle of a room rises to the same temperature as the inside walls which will be the same temperature as outdoors if and only if the movement of molecules from inside the house is not restrained from moving out into the environment outside of the house.

            All that does is completely confuse you.

            No the sky doesn’t insulate. But there can be more than one way for the sky to be hotter than the surface and we can see the effect of that both in the thermosphere and the stratosphere. . .and that because of that its likely the atmosphere’s standard condition is to have an imbalance with the surface in being warmer than the surface and that the only reason our feet tell us different is an asphalt parking lot conducts heat to our feet a lot faster than air conducts heat to our skin.

            Now I can acknowledge being wrong about that but I am not trying to sell it for money so all I need is some proof to show how I am wrong.

          • Willard says:

            Sometimes Gill tries to ask for a “validated model” that would somehow “show” that a theory is correct. An ask that he’d know makes no sense were as big in epistemology as he claims he is. Some other times he prefers what he calls the Bill Gates’ approach:

            he said he made his programmers recompile the program every night so they could start out the next day eating the garbage they had coded up the day before.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/u-s-a-temperature-trends-1979-2023-models-vs-observations/#comment-1616430

            In that story, Gill is obviously the one who decides if the model compiles or not. Or is it the theory?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Obviously Willard you don’t understand how programs are written. A software developer writes code in a language. He then compiles the program with a compiler designed to compile the language he wrote into machine language. Its not a matter of ”who decides if the model compiles or not”. Either compiler produces an error because you have an error in your code, or it compiles the program and the program may not work as expected, or it may work fine.

            In case one you have to correct the error to finish compiling. In case two the next day your new code is going to have work on top of yesterdays work which it probably won’t if your work from the day before is crap. If it compiles and works as expected then you can move forward. Its like backing up your work on a timely basis so if something goes wrong you don’t have to do as much work to get back to you would have to if you only did infrequent backups.

          • Willard says:

            Obviously Gill reveals his age when he suggests that programmers compile programs with a compiler. He’s actually writing on a program that is only interpreted.

            He also reveals that he has no idea how compiling works or how it’s related to models, theories, or even formal specification. This may explain why he asks that “blankets warm” must somehow replace the equations Sky Dragon cranks cannot process.

            GCMs compile without needing Gill to vouch for them, and they are still amongst the most robust pieces of software known to mankind.

          • Nate says:

            “Its not the auditors job to have evidence to the contrary Nate.”

            Sorry, yes it is, when you are denying established physics and standard meteorology measurements.

          • Nate says:

            “No the sky doesnt insulate.”

            Good example of the standard Bill playbook.

            Make up stuff. Don’t back it up with any logic or evidence.

            Demand others disprove it. Change the subject.

            Sorry Bill, no one is buying your crap today.

          • Nate says:

            “definition of insulation: Insulation means creating a barrier between the hot and the cold object that reduces heat transfer by either reflecting thermal radiation or decreasing thermal conduction and convection from one object to the other.”

            Ok, source for this definition?

            “reflecting thermal radiation or decreasing thermal conduction and convection from one object to the other.”

            For some reason ANY method of “decreasing thermal conduction and convection” counts as insulation.

            But only for radiation, the method is specified and must be “reflecting thermal radiation”.

            Bill, we have shown you several times a description of MLI, where even black-body sheets are shown to radiatively insulate.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation

            So your definition is simply made-up bullshit!

          • Nate says:

            A real definition:

            thermal resistance (R) measures the opposition to the heat current in a material or system. It is measured in units of kelvins per watt (K/W) and indicates how much temperature difference (in kelvins) is required to transfer a unit of heat current (in watts) through the material or object. It is essential to optimize the building insulation, evaluate the efficiency of electronic devices, and enhance the performance of heat sinks in various applications.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductance_and_resistance

            “Applications of Thermal Resistance

            12. Environmental science: Thermal resistance is considered in climate studies to understand heat transfer in Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.”

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim f…”The particles (electrons in this case) move from negative to positive through the wire, but current moves from positive to negative”.

        ***

        You claim I am getting too close to the particle level and missing the overall current flow. But the examples you offer have nothing to do with current flow in circuit. To understand that current flow you must go to the particle level. That’s why we take semester length courses in semiconductor theory, for example, so we can visualize current flow through a semiconductor.

        Current flow through a copper conductor is different than the flow through a doped silicon channel. In copper, each copper atom has its own complement of electrons (29) with only sole electron in the outer valence band free to move. A new theory has emerged recently, which I think is nonsense, called the metallic bond theory. It is a variation on covalent and ionic bonding and makes little sense, reducing a copper mass into a conglomeration of copper atoms swimming in a sea of electrons.

        Sheer nonsense. The covalent and ionic bonding theories are obfuscated enough without adding an even more obfuscated theory. Let’s leave it at the stage where the sole electron is free to move atom to atom but does not swim freely through a copper mass. For that reason, the direction of current flow is limited to the polarities at each end of a copper wired circuit and not to the copper conductors themselves.

        It’s plain, that if you connect the positive terminal of a power source to one end of the circuit and a negative terminal to the other end, the electrons will flow from the negative terminal to the positive terminal. This is not open to speculation and thought experiments it is a fact. However, it’s never that simply since electron charge apparently have the ability to separate themselves from their electron and move freely at a much faster speed.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Electric current (through a surface) is I = dQ/dt

          That is the definition of electric current. Whether the moving charges are electrons in a wire or protons in a proton beam or ions in an ionic solution or holes in a semiconductor — none of that matters. I = dQ/dt.

          +1 coulomb of charge flowing to the left through a surface or -1 coulomb of charge flowing to the right are BOTH a 1 amp current to the left.

          So, yes, you are missing the point when you focus on current IN A WIRE. Wires are a very common EXAMPLE of current, but they do not DEFINE current.

          So, yes, you are missing the point when you focus on current IN A WIRE. The ‘electron current’ moves one direction down the wire, but the ‘electric current’ moves the other direction.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”You even repost the one I showed you recently which had a detailed study of the mechanisms

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml “.

    ***

    It’s amusing to watch alarmist climate modelers program a computer to reflect heir beliefs re anthropogenic warming then become astounded when the models ‘predict’ something that reflects their beliefs.

    Duh!!!

    When James Hansen offered predictions based on his models, it was James making the predictions, but when his model failed, it was the model that failed.

    In Zen circles, the Cosmic Joke is a reference to God giving us a brain that does not work well at the conscious level but failing to insert that fact into our consciousness. It is left as an exercise for the more curious to figure out.

    Even when the curious figures it out through a process called enlightenment, that comes with a sudden bolts of insight, there is no guarantee that the insight will be applied to enhance full functionality. After all, the newly enlightened mind must exist among a host of the unenlightended.

    There are scientists in the past and in the present who are obviously not enlightened. They are driven by ego, so much so, they are quite willing to lie about science and abandoned fellow scientists who disagree with them.

    • Willard says:

      The Cosmic Joke is just the fact that we’re looking for something we already have, Bordo. At least that’s Thich Nhat Hanh’s explanation of Osho’s famous saying. Life is kinda funny. Just like Climateball.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        yep willard fancies himself as a climateball ace.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        wee willy…the fact that you need to look up a definition for the Comic Joke screams loudly that you still don’t get it. When the light goes on, no explanation is required.

        The light going on is not an ego-driven concept, it’s a blessing one can come by, usually in a state of grief or despair. It seems we have to be reduced to a state of humility to grasp its true meaning, that the passenger, me or I, is not running the show but a mere passenger in a seriously complex organism.

        The explanation you supplied is saying essentially the same thing as I described but it does not explain why it’s a joke. The joke is that God gave us a mind we think works fine but it is impaired and left up to us to figure it out. Some of us will make the effort but most wont.

        Ironically, according to the disciple Thomas, Jesus once told him the same thing, that what ever we need is already within, and in modern vernacular, we either use it or lose it. Most of us seem to have preferred to lose it.

        The real message is that we spend far too much time running our lives based on our conditioning, what we have been told by others, while ignoring an innate natural intelligence with which we are born. If the real natural intelligence in our systems, that keep our hearts beating regularly, our blood pH at a precise level, etc., and relied on what we have been taught by others, we’d be long dead.

        • Willard says:

          C’mon, Bordo.

          The Plum Village is in France:

          https://plumvillage.org/fr

          There’s no light to speak of. If someone tries to sell you some light, kill them!

          And that includes Jiddu, toward whom you’re trying to pivot now.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Light is electromagnetic energy but we use it as a word as in enlightenment. When someone is puzzled and an answer appears we say the light went on. I suppose that suggest we move from the dark, where you reside, into the light.

            When you knock Jiddu as you do, you are indulging in a serious misunderstanding of what he was about. He placed absolutely no value on beliefs, theories, or philosophy, his world was a world of fact based on observation. He was one to advise people to avoid gurus. However, better people than you or me, like physicist David Bohm, had stimulating dialogs with Jiddu.

            K. used to claim there are three types of minds: those who are serious and strive to understand, those who are interested in understanding but lack the resolve to get there, and those who have absolutely no interest in understanding or change. It’s plain that you have not the slightest interest in intelligence and understanding and that’s why you are an alarmist.

            The basic message of Jiddu Krishnamurti was stunningly simple. He reasoned that somewhere along the line, humans have learned to rely on a superficial base of knowledge passed on by peers to children while subverting a natural intelligence to which we have access. That’s the basis of the Cosmic Joke but it comes from Buddhism, in which they try to cloak the obviously in a shroud of mystery.

            Physicist David Bohm agreed with him and they had in-depth discussions on that subject. In fact, many luminaries agreed with him, yet wee willy disses him. Then again, it’s that kind of subversive thinking that marks wee willy and his alarmist hordes.

          • Willard says:

            > Light is electromagnetic energy

            “Light” as in “enlightenment,” Bordo.

            Read harder, write lesser.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Doxer, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Stalker, please stop trolling.

  37. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Gordon Robertson, I’m not having this conversation in two different threads; it’s just not that interesting.

    You have the most severe case of energy blindness I’ve ever seen in someone professing to have an engineering degree.

    Since you brought up hydropower…

    Hydropower is essentially solar energy that has been transformed by natural processes into potential energy of water.

    Roughly half of the solar energy incident on the ocean surface is lost through latent heat flux to evaporation, producing tremendous quantities of water vapor. Winds and buoyant forces, driven by solar energy, carry the water vapor high into Earth’s atmosphere and above mountains, where some of the water condenses and falls back down as rain and snow, retaining some of the original solar energy in its gravitational potential energy.

    While the total energy resource available in hydropower is substantially less than the total available wind or solar resources, hydropower is highly concentrated spatially and can be very cost-effective to exploit.

    Starting at high altitude, the natural gravitationally induced flow of precipitated water down the local topographical gradient feeds streams and rivers that carry water from large geographical regions through narrow channels. Obstructing such a channel by a dam with surface area measured in hundreds or thousands of square meters makes it possible to extract energy from water that has fallen over regions measured in hundreds of thousands of square kilometers.

    In a typical hydropower setup a dam is built to hold water in a reservoir. An enclosed channel then carries water from the bottom of the reservoir through a turbine and releases it to a river or some other outflow channel. The turbine in turn drives a generator that produces electromagnetic energy.

    Now, will you be answering my question here?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I am beginning to wondering how lacking in comprehension you might be. I had presumed you are just obtuse, now I am beginning to wonder if you are impaired.

      You have not once addressed my point that energy cannot be defined or measured because we have no idea what it is. Yet, you run off to Google looking for definitions of energy that are used in the vernacular and have no scientific basis.

      I am talking science, not philosophy and not opinion. What is energy??? Show me what it is, not what effect it has or what some dweeb thinks it is.

      Your uncited quote states…”Hydropower is essentially solar energy that has been transformed by natural processes into potential energy of water”.

      That is one of the dumbest definitions I have ever read. Hydropower is in no way related to solar energy, it is strictly a product of gravity in the sense they deliver it, not solar energy. The only role played by solar energy is ensuring the water does not freeze. Frozen lakes and rivers don’t produce much energy for hydropower.

      As I tried to convey to you re prime movers, gravity does not have to be a source, a diesel generator can drive an electrical generator. It is simply a lot easier and a lot cheaper to use water sources driven by gravity. Many who have been displaced to make way for a hydro dam may disagree.

      After a convoluted explanation, which is confused, your source finally gets to the point…”The turbine in turn drives a generator that produces electromagnetic energy”.

      Another lie. A generator produces electrical current not EM. The EM is a byproduct of electrical current running through a conductor, a motor, or a transformer.

      The difference between a generator and a motor is the direction of current in either. A generator is a source, it creates a current flow. A motor is a load, it absorbs electrical current. Many a student has failed an exam by getting the two reversed. Both devices have EM as part of their mechanism but EM is not the product in either case.

      Once again, will you stop this masochistic attempt to prop up a losing argument and come to grips with my question? What is energy and how does one measure it? I am not talking about the incorrect use of the word energy, which is nothing more than a generic idea. I want to know what energy is.

      Energy is ***DEFINED*** loosely as the capacity to do work. What does that mean in terms of thermal energy, electrical energy, or mechanical energy? What is the phenomenon called energy that is the driving force?

      You need to grasp the essence of that question to understand what I am getting at. With mechanical energy, we define work as a force acting on a mass over a distance. Is the force energy? If so, what is the source of the force? The force source is what I call energy.

      With hydro power, something causes water to fall from a higher altitude to a lower altitude. We call the prime mover gravitational force, but what causes it? We don’t know. We cannot measure it we can only calculate the work done by the amount falling water per unit time. In other words, we have no idea what causes the water to fall other than a loose idea we call gravity.

      I am more conversant with electrical theory. I was taught in the early stages that charged particles exist, some negatively charged, some positively charged, and that like charges repel and unlike charges attract. No one ever explained why that is the case and no one to this date can answer that question. Some things remain as phenomena with no explanation.

      I still have no idea what differentiates a positive charge from a negative charge other than the effect they have on other charges. The charge on a proton is claimed to be positive while the charge on an electron is negative. That’s double-speak for a relative condition that no one can explain.

      I was also taught that electrons are tiny masses that carry negative charges. Even though an electron is about 1/1800th the mass of a proton, it has an equal and opposite charge. Something in my wants to call bs., go back into the lab and find a better answer. Rather than do that, scientists have invented a cockamamey science called quantum theory which makes absolutely no sense to an intelligent mind. It was invented because we lack the ability to observe at the atomic level.

      If you can amass bazillions of electrons with their electrical charges in a unit ee call a battery, so the electrons all accumulate on one plate , which emerges externally as a cathode, we find that when a circuit with a resistive load is connected between that terminal and another called the anode, that electrons will flow from the cathode, or negative terminal, through the load to the anode.

      But what causes the electrons to flow? We have defined the capacity of the electrons to do work as energy but that ignores the potential energy that drives the electrons, which is vital. Without it, the electrons cannot flow. I am talking about the repulsion electron charges have for each other and ultimately sets up a potential difference between the poles of a battery.

      Still, that PD is not the driving force, we reserve the word electromotive force for the driver. But what is it? Is it the accumulation of charges at one pole of the battery that repel each other? If so, what is the electromotive force in the armature of a generator that causes the same effect?

      In essence, something is driving electrons around a circuit, but it’s not that simple. Electrons only move at a modest few centimetres per second whereas the charges on the electrons somehow move at the speed of light around a circuit. Otherwise, when we flipped the switch for lights in a room, it might take a few seconds for the room to light up. Even if that switch is a mile away from the light, it comes on instantaneously.

      Are you beginning to grasp what I am talking about? Our normal use of the word energy is far too trite and generalized. We apply the word energy, as just that, a word. We cannot define it accurately when required.

      Getting back to your Kw-hr meter, it is measuring both a potential difference and a current. We call that energy because power is defined as voltage x current. In this case, power has no time factor and when we add one, we call it energy. So, energy becomes the power consumed over a certain time period. That is a different inference of energy as opposed to the driving energy. Why???

      The horsepower of mechanical energy has a time factor. So why does that power have a time factor and electrical power does not?

      It’s about precision. You either demand precision or you end up kidding yourself with multiple definitions of the same unit, depending on how it is applied. I am demanding a precise usage for energy but I am kidding myself if I think anyone is listening to me. Obviously, you prefer to live in a muddled world where any old definition is acceptable. That’s a difference between you and me, I am not willing to accept lukewarm science.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        “I am talking science, not philosophy and not opinion. “

        And I’m talking engineering so it’s no wonder you’re so lost.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        1241 words! That has to be a record, even for you.

      • Clint R says:

        Gordon believes endless rambling makes him appear smart.

        He’s unable to see reality.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        You can always ell the wannabees from the serious student when the wannabees are more concerned with the number of words written and who are unable to respond using science. Sad to see that Clint now identifies with the wannabees.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo, the self proclaimed electrical engineer wrote:

        So why does that power have a time factor and electrical power does not?

        Lets see, as I recall it, electrical power is defined as volts times amps. Don’t forget, the Ampere was originally defined as: “One ampere is equal to 1 coulomb (C) moving past a point in 1 second.” So, “electrical power” does have a time component. This is the second time I’ve tried to correct your confusion on the matter.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        “I am more conversant with electrical theory.”

        Since you can’t answer my simple question here Mr. I am an engineer, maybe you can answer the following simple question instead then:

        Suppose you need to generate an RMS voltage of 120 V at 60 Hz using a permanent magnet for a rotor, in a roughly constant magnetic field of 1000 gauss. What area should the current loop span?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Your question cannot be answered because it makes no sense. You have prescribed a permanent magnet rotor then specified a magnetic field of 1000 gauss. Why would a permanent magnetic be rotating in a magnetic field?

          What you are describing is a magnetic field turning within a stator made of copper wire windings. And why are you talking about current loops? Do you mean a stator, as in the number of windings?

          I called a buddy of mine a while back and he is an EE with a successful business geared to motors in the mining industry. I was ruminating over a point in theory and ran it past him. He replied, “how the hell do you expect me to remember that stuff”?

          If you think I am going to engage with you in a manner that requires me dragging out textbooks to do exacting calculations, you can take your ego-trip elsewhere. You are being a sore loser who is trying to entrap me much along the lines of wee willy. At least he’s just a stalker who I regard as being harmless. You are on some kind of mission, trying to make up from several butt-kickings I have given you on theory.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Related…

        Q: Suppose you need to generate an RMS voltage of 120 V at 60 Hz using a permanent magnet for a rotor, in a roughly constant magnetic field of 1000 gauss. What area should the current loop span?

        A: A wire wrapped 100 times around an armature that is about 12 cm in radius would meet these specs.

        This would be a fairly compact and simple device, but you still must supply enough mechanical power to turn the rotor. If for example demand requirement is RMS 10 A, you would have to supply nearly 2 hp.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Gordon asks: “What is energy??? Show me what it is, not what effect it has …”

      The same can be said for mass. Or electric charge. Or force. Physics is a ‘just so story” where we observe effects and come up with stories to explain them.
      * that rock is hard to move because of mass.
      * those socks stick together because of electric charge.
      * the leaves move because the wind applies a force to them.
      * my car moves because of the energy in the gasoline.
      * the spectrum of H has distinct lines because of quantized orbitals.

      It turns out we are remarkably capable of predicting things with the ‘just so stories’ of physics.

      Energy is just one of many abstract concepts we find useful to understand how the universe behaves.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “A generator produces electrical current not EM. ”

        Actually …

        Energy does not flow down wires in the current. Energy does not flow from + to -, nor from – to +.

        Energy is transferred via EM fields in the space round the wires, not by the electrons themselves. Perhaps you remember the Poynting vector from your studies. Or perhaps you could enjoy this video.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          tim…you are confusing an electric field with current flow.

          The closest I can come to your definition is when an alternating current has a very high frequency. As frequency increases, the current is confined to smaller and smaller areas near the surface of the conductor, a condition called skin effect. Still, the current does travel in that outer layer.

          After a certain frequency, copper conductors give way to wave guides, which are essentially metal tubes that contain an electromagnetic field. At even higher frequencies, waveguides give way to fibre optics cable which is essentially made of glass. It conducts EM as light but not electrical current.

          There is no practical applications for current flow through a conductor at such high frequencies

          The guy in the video is certifiable. He describes a conductor like copper as a lattice of positive ions surrounded by a sea of electrons. This is the theory en vogue although no one bothers to examine it at the atomic level.

          A copper atom has a nucleus of 29 protons surrounded by 29 electrons, distributed over several electron orbitals. That leaves one electron in the outermost valence shell. The question is, what binds the atoms together? He makes it sound like you have a positive nucleus “with the electrons included”.

          This is a fallacy, that metallic atoms, like copper, represent positive ions. Sheer nonsense. A positive ion is an atom missing one of its valence shell electrons and it cannot exist in a lattice. As long as copper has it’s one valence electron in place, it has its full complement, therefore it cannot be an ion. The only time it could be considered an ion is if that one electron vacated for some reason, leaving a relative positive charge. Such a condition would be temporary.

          But is that really a positive charge? I say no, for the simple reason that it exists in a field of electrons, therefore it is relatively positive to the rest, but not a true positive charge. The only true positive charge is hidden behind 28 electrons that surround the nucleus, as protons in the nucleus.

          The authors claim that free electrons bounce off that +ve charge is sheer lunacy. An electron would be attracted to that positive charge, not repelled by it. It’s true that a relatively enormous space exists between the electrons and the +ve nucleus, but the suggestion that free electrons can roam freely through this space is nonsense. Remember, negative charges repel, and if free electrons were roaming around as the author suggested, it would create havoc in the lattice as free electrons repelled orbiting electrons.

          There was a time when there were only two basic forms of bonds: ionic and covalent. Now we have been presented a different kind of bond called a metallic bond. That’s what the author is raving about, where metal atoms are depicted as positive ions with a sea of free electrons floating among them.

          We have to back up and ask how copper atoms are bonded together in a copper conductor. Copper is like sodium in that it has only one electron in the valence band, an orbit where the electron(s) are free to move to another atom. Sodium forms an ionic bond with chlorine to form table salt, NaCl. Chlorine has 7 electrons in its valence band, and needs one electron to form a full complement of 8 electrons. Sodium needs 7 electrons, therefore the two elements form a symbiotic relationship where they somehow make up each others deficit in an ionic bond. The word ionic is a reference to the presumed ions formed by sodium and chlorine in their native states and when brought together, bond via electrostatic charges.

          Copper atoms don’t have a complementary element, only other copper atoms. So, how does their one spare electron form a bond? Rather than admit that no one really knows, because no one can see or measure at the atomic level, dweebs throw out a silly hypothesis about electrons swimming in a sea of positive ions.

          It makes no sense that a copper nucleus surrounded by 29 electrons in various orbits should bond together. Negative charges repel. But they do bond somehow. My personal feeling is that bonding theory is immensely lacking in practicality. In other words, no one really know.

          This theory makes no sense. There are simply no spaces between copper atoms for free electrons to move around at random. If you consider the electron orbitals as forming spheres, then it could be argued that spaces must exist between the spheres. But why should electrons try to fit between those spaces that are full of repelling charges?

          The author claims the electrons are prodded along by an electrical field that extends between battery terminals around the circuit. Then he sticks his foot it in by claiming the electric field would be strongest across a load resistor. Duh!!! This is where his theory falls apart.

          The conductors are very low resistance paths compared to the load. Obviously the voltage drop is very low across the conductor portion, then almost all of it is across the load. If you put another resistor in series that has an equal value, the voltage drops are equally divided between the resistive loads.

          Meantime, the current through both resistors is undiminished. That alone suggests the electric field remains constant around the circuit. In other words, the same number of electrons leaving the negative terminal must arrive at the positive terminal.

          The theory offered by the author is full of holes. All of us who have studied electrical theory in-depth are fully aware of the electric and magnetic fields surrounding conductors but there are far better explanations than the sci-fi offered by the author.

          Consider sodium, classified as an alkali metal. Like copper it has only one electron in it outermost orbit yet it will form a solid as well. However, when combined with chlorine, the metallic bond conveniently disappears and the bond is termed ionic. Unlike copper, sodium does not conduct an electric current in the solid state but becomes a conductor in the molten state. Copper with the same complement of valence electrons conducts equally well in the solid and molten state.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “you are confusing an electric field with current flow. …
          The guy in the video is certifiable. ”

          Sorry, but I am not the one who is confused and offering rambling explanations that don’t hold up.

          I know about wave guides and skin effect. That is NOT the issue I was addressing.

          Try answering the simplest of question about circuits. A battery is connected to a resistor using two wires. Energy goes from the battery to the resistor.

          Does that energy travel …
          a) out the – terminal and down that wire
          b) out the + terminal and down that wire
          c) half out each terminal and half down each wire
          d) other.

          Physics is a very successful just-so-story. Physics gives an accurate, consistent answer to this question. You ignore physics at your peril.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…I agree with you, in essence, although there is a hint of sarcasm in your reply. We have managed to explain phenomena using theories that are often suspect.

        I get your message, however.

        1)”* that rock is hard to move because of mass”.

        Not true on a planet without gravity.

        2)* those socks stick together because of electric charge.

        -essentially true and we can demonstrate that using electrostatics theory. Of course, some unwashed socks can almost stand on their own and that is not due to static.

        Until you have been jolted by a 40,000 volts of static electricity, you can’t appreciate the effect.

        3)* the leaves move because the wind applies a force to them.

        True. In the same manner, we hear because sound pressure from air molecules acts as a variable force on our hearing mechanism.

        4)* my car moves because of the energy in the gasoline.

        True.

        5)* the spectrum of H has distinct lines because of quantized orbitals.

        Questionable but the theory is the best we have.

        “It turns out we are remarkably capable of predicting things with the just so stories of physics”.

        Agreed. In essence, we are still in the dark re the phenomena that underlies physics.

  38. Gordon Robertson says:

    ent…”How many thermometers should you have?

    Show your working”.

    ***

    It depends what you want as an outcome. To get a true global average we’d could compare it to the true temperature in a room, but what does that means?

    Hopefully we are on the same page here. A global average should be an accurate measure of the air temperature of a defined layer of air overlying the surface to a certain depth.

    Let’s look at a room temperature. We have a room with measurements 10′ x 12′ x 8′ high. That’s a volume of 960 cu feet. We have defined an adequate room temperature as 20C. Does it mean thermometers placed every cubic foot in the room will measure 20C. No. We really don’t know what it means.

    Dictionary dot come defines it as…”a comfortable ambient temperature, generally taken as about 70F”.

    Merriam-Webster…”…a temperature of from 59 to 77F (15 to 25C) that is suitable for human occupancy and at which laboratory experiments are usually performed”.

    Two major dictionaries can’t even agree on what it means yet here we are screwing the planet over a hypothetical warming of 1C over 170 years, based on a global average temperature no one can define.

    With regard to a room of the given dimensions, I am sure we can agree that a temperature in the range of 20C will suffice. However, many of us in colder climes have likely experienced a room in which it feels warmer and cozier in certain parts of the room free of drafts. Certainly, in my bedroom, it is a lot cozier away from the outside walls in winter, or outside doorways, than it is in a more central part of the room. And that’s with insulated walls.

    Same in summer, there are parts of a home that feel cooler than others, sometimes much cooler. It’s far easier to claim an average temperature in a room than it is on an entire planet. Most rooms don’t vary by up to 20C in summer and winter whereas that is normal even at sea level on a planet. In India, where temperatures run easily above 40C in summer, Indians go off to the hills where it is much cooler.

    So, how do we define an average temperature first of all? As it stands, for example in California, they have 4 reporting stations, all near the warmer coast, to cover the entire state. Binny is in deep denial about that fact, raving constantly about the GHCN record with its 100,000+ stations, that NOAA abandoned circa 1990. NOAA has openly admitted they now use less than 1500 stations to determine the planetary surface average. That means they use climate models to interpolate and homogenize a handful of temperature to ***SYNTHESIZE*** a global average using temperatures that have no existence to fill out the record.

    So, how does one go about determining how many thermometers are adequate when one cannot even define what they are trying to measure? What is meant by a global average temperature? If it is intended to mean the average temperature of a thin layer of the atmosphere adjacent to the Earth’s surface, less than 1500 thermometers to cover the entire land surface is a serious joke. As I said, that is one thermometer per 100,000 km^2 an does no account for changes in altitude or location.

    But why are we messing with thermometers when we have satellite AMSU scanners to give us a better global average? The scanners reach 90% of the land and ocean surface. The argument offered by alarmists is that the scanners only cover the atmosphere at 4 km, a bold faced lie, and that the sats have egregious errors, another bold-faced lie.

    Admittedly, there are other issues with the sats re coverage. As folks in many parts of Canada claim, if you don’t like the weather, wait an hour and it will change. I think that may be an issue with the sats as well. Exactly what is being measured?

    My solution? Drop this bs. about global averages for the simple reason that a global average is meaningless. It becomes even more meaningless when so-called scientific outfits like NOAA and GISS use the mythical global average to enable governments to impose on our democratic rights by lying to us about imaginary catastrophic climate futures.

  39. Gordon Robertson says:

    clint…”Gordon doesnt understand current flow. Current flow is chosen as the direction of positive charge flow, that is, positive current is in the direction of positive charge flow. There has to be a choice to lessen confusion. Outside a battery, positive current flows + to -. But INSIDE a battery, positive current flows to +”.

    ***

    I appreciate you explanation, as you see it. However, you are missing the difference between a defined hypothesis and the actual real world of electron flow. There is no such thing as a positive charge flow in a copper wire. The original definition of conventional flow was based on a mythical positive test charge. No one has ever defined what that means although early scientists claimed it has a mass.

    Since conventional flow was defined in the 1920s, I presume there was confusion about electron current wherein the electron was a very new theoretical particle, being discovered 20 years earlier in 1898. Even by 1910, Rutherford, who was in on the early electron theory by J.J. Thompson. could not explain the electron as related to an atom. It was not till 1913 that Bohr put forward a hypothesis about electrons and atomic nucleii that has persisted.

    Bohr’s theory did not receive an automatic rubber stamp. Like any other new theory it was resisted by many scientists and I am guessing that certain scientists prevailed with an alternate theory based on a mythical positive test charge. For some reason that theory has persisted which is more a testament to the power of paradigms than scientific fact.

    Along the way, some factions broke off and began forwarding the correct theory that current flows negative to positive. This is not a choice between convention and actual, it is scientific fact.

    You put forward the action inside a battery, where the terms anode and cathode are reversed from the external world. In other words, the anode inside a battery connects externally to the cathode of the battery terminal, That means current actually flows externally from the negative cathode to the positive anode.

    What goes on inside the battery is irrelevant since we never reference voltage drops in a circuit to what is going on inside a battery. Besides, most generators are not chemical batteries but armatures rotating inside a magnetic field. Therefore, internal current flow has no bearing on the external current.

    A generator is based on the simple principle that a copper conductor moving perpendicular to a magnetic field will have an electron current induced in it. We can predict the direction of current flow based on the orientation of the N-S poles in the magnetic field, and the direction of the conductor through the field. The internally generated electron flow is simply about free electrons in the conductor being forced to flow in a direction dependent on the conductor motion relative to a defined magnetic field direction.

    That rules out the argument of the current flow within a battery which is really a chemical process involving ions and based on the composition of the electrolyte and the electrodes. The electrons that accumulate around one pole of the battery is strictly a result of ionic action and not a current flow per se. In other words, there is no electron flow through the electrolyte, electrons are deposited, on the internal anode when ions have a chemical reaction with the material in that pole. At that time, the electron gets deposited on the pole.

    As far as we are concerned in the electrical and electronics field that action is irrelevant to the external current flow through the circuit.

    We are concerned with circuit voltage drops based on Kircheoff’s Law and current flow through nodes as per Thevenin’s theorem. One law sums voltages while the other sums currents at a node. In that case, the direction of current flow is irrelevant as long as we are consistent with the signs of voltage drops and current flows. That is theory, whereas I am talking about the real world in which electrons move.

    It is not possible for electrons to move positive to negative. I have used the old vacuum tube to demonstrate that. A vacuum tube is based on thermionic emission where electrons are literally boiled off a tungsten filament by running a current through the tungsten that causes it to glow red. An electron cloud is formed around the tungsten filament and in a basic diode, with no cathode cylinder, but with the raw filament as the cathode, the electrons in the cloud are drawn to a cylinder of metal around the cathode called the plate. It is nominally at a few hundred volts positive and the electrons flow through a vacuum to the positive anode.

    The point is, there are not mysterious positive charges flowing in the opposite direction.

    That is the reality, electrons flow from a negative cathode to positive anode. There is no such thing as a positive charge in this system, that idea coming from a theory that is wrong. In the 1930s, Shockley did work on primitive semiconductors and put forward a theory about ‘holes’ which as essentially empty spaces left in a silicon atom valence band when an electron jumps to another empty space in another atom’s valence band. As electrons flow in one directly the empty spaces move in the other direction.

    Some ijits thinks these holes have mass and can constitute a ‘hole’ current. However, Shockley made it clear in his book on the subject that he intended the concept of holes as simply a means of visualizing current flow in positively doped silicon. He never meant the idea of a hole to be taken as a real physical entity. For some reason, my field of electrical engineering is rife ith such ijiotic concepts.

    You seem to value reality in physics yet here you are defending an unproved concept upheld by the EE cult.

    • Clint R says:

      Gordon, have you considered seeking professional help?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Clint is reduced to a one-line ad hom, a sure sign that he has conceded the debate. Lacks the scientific understanding to respond to a detailed reply on the proper direction of current flow…negative to positive.

        Clint believes that the direction of current flow can be determined by opinion and I have tried to point out that electrons don’t give a hoot about opinion. In the real, physical world, electrons can only flow negative to positive. The fictitious positive charge held in high esteem by Clint cannot exist in a copper conductor.

        Same with entropy. He believes that entropy can be arbitrarily defined any way it suits one’s opinion. However, Clausius defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal heat quantities. Arrogant ijits who come along later and decide to re-define it as a measure of disorder are Clint’s authority figures.

        Clint does not stop there, however, going so far as to redefine heat as a measure of energy flow but he refuses to name the energy in transit, which can only be heat. Therefore, according to Clint heat is a measure of the transfer of heat.

        And he suggests I seek therapy.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “electrons can only flow negative to positive.”
          Yes, the particle flow is from neg to pos.
          But electric flow is the flow of CHARGE. I = dq/dt
          As the negative electrons are moving from neg to pos, the charge, q, is moving from pos to neg.

          It is as simple concept.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…there is no reason why negative charges should flow positive to negative.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Maybe this will help. I have a tank with some (positive) mass of water in it. I come back later and there is less mass. There was a net ‘mass current’ AWAY FROM the tank during that interval.

            I have a metal ball with some positive charge on it. I come back later and there is less charge. There was a net electrical current AWAY FROM the metal ball.

            The fact that the current was probably physically due to negative electrons moving TOWARD the ball is immaterial. The ball has LESS charge and the current was AWAY.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…read my lips….negative charges will not flow positive to negative.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Yes, Gordon. I know and have acknowledged that negatively charged electrons flow from negative to positive in metal wires. If we were talking about particle flow, then particles are flowing from negative to positive.

            But if we want to talk about electric current, I = dq/dt, that electric current is flowing from positive to negative.

            Test your understanding of currents with this image of ionic conduction involving K+ and Cl-. https://philschatz.com/chemistry-book/resources/CNX_Chem_11_02_electrolyt.jpg

            How would you describe the current in the ionic solution?
            * left to right?
            * right to left?
            * zero because half the charged particles are moving each way?
            * other?

        • Clint R says:

          Gordon, I don’t need to write a book to debunk all your nonsense. You believe endless keyboarding makes up for your lack of understanding of science. But the reason you need professional is your need to constantly claim to be an engineer. Even Norman, as messed up as he is, doesn’t do that.

          Get professional treatment. It’s probably free in Canada.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “We are concerned with circuit voltage drops based on Kircheoffs Law and current flow through nodes as per Thevenins theorem. One law sums voltages while the other sums currents at a node.”

      You don’t mean Thevenin. You mean Kirchhoff’s Current Law.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        You’re right. Don’t know why I said Thevenin because I hated both Thevenin and Norton equivalents. Same thing with transistor equivalent circuits.

  40. Eben says:

    Climate science – it’s exactly like this

    https://i.imgur.com/L3tRjiv.jpeg

  41. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”Gordo, the self proclaimed electrical engineer wrote:

    So why does that power have a time factor and electrical power does not?

    Lets see, as I recall it, electrical power is defined as volts times amps. Dont forget, the Ampere was originally defined as: One ampere is equal to 1 coulomb (C) moving past a point in 1 second. So, electrical power does have a time component. This is the second time Ive tried to correct your confusion on the matter”.

    ***

    Yes, Swannie, but the time factor we introduce to allegedly measure energy is not the same time factor upon which current is defined. When you define current as so many coulombs of charge per second, you define a quantity of current. Then that quantity, in amps, must be multiplied times the applied voltage and another time factor over which the amps are used.

    Let’s compare that to a mechanical application. The HP is defined upon the number of pounds a horse could raise by a certain height in a certain time. The weight element also has a time factor since it involves gravitational acceleration measured in feet per second per second.

    Since one horsepower equals 746 watts, that means the watt is based on the ‘other’ time factor used to calculate the rate of work done by the horse. The electrical watt should have that same ‘other’ time factor built in, but it does not.

    In other words, when the HP/watt was defined, someone used a clock to measure the time factor involved. Yet when the same watt is applied to electrical applications when we use a clock we change the reference from power to energy cosumption.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      All power has time associated with it 3 times
      kg⋅m2⋅s−3

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Not electrical power. It has no time factor, it is simply the product of the voltage and current. When you rate a resistor for power, you measure it as E.I or I^2.R. As I pointed out, time is added by a Kw-h meter and utilities call that energy consumption.

        Swannie is arguing that current is defined with a time factor as the number of charges passing a point in a circuit in 1 second. That is not a measure of power, however, since the power referenced is the I^2.R heat (Joule heating) quantity induced in a resistance.

        That value is a constant and has no time factor.

        If I have a 100 ohm resistor in a circuit with 10 volt across it, the resistor has a current, I = E/R = 10/100 = 0.1 amps. We calculate the power rating it needs by multiplying the voltage across it by the current through it. In this case, P = EI = 10 volts x 0.1 amps = 1 watt.

        If I connect a watt-meter with its voltage leads across the resistor and its current leads in series, it will measure 1 watt. That’s what the Kw-hr meter does outside the house but it is measuring the power consumed by all resistive loads in the home. It’s still a constant and to get the total consumption over a time period, the total must be recording by the motor in the meter that drives the dials.

        If you look into the older meters you’ll see a wheel turning. It’s driven by the current running through the meter and serves as a driver for the meter’s dials. What the dials read is called energy consumption by the power utilities and it is energy consumption. However, it still doesn’t tell us what energy is or what is being measured as energy. Voltage is not that energy nor is current, both being products of the initial energy that drives the generator.

        We tend to use the word energy flippantly. We refer to spiritual energy which is undefined or the energy in crystals which allegedly has healing power. Or we might refer to ourselves as being low on energy at a certain time. I fear that the same flippancy applies to science at times. We fling the word energy around in a very generic manner.

        For example, kinetic energy is a rather meaningless term when it comes to identifying a type of energy. All it infers is that some kind of energy is in motion but does not specify what energy is in motion. Therefore, energy gets flippantly applied to both electromagnetic energy and thermal energy in the same thought. That’s how alarmists try to get their notions across that justify contradicting the 2nd law.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          ALL power has units of [mass]*[distance^2]/[time^3] … called a watt in the metric system.

          For example, electrical work is W = qV [in joules]
          Power is the rate at which work is done.
          P = dW/dt = d(qV)/dt = (dq/dt)*V = IV [in watts]

          Electrical power is still power. It is still watts. It still involves time.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo still doesn’t get it:

      When you define current as so many coulombs of charge per second, you define a quantity of current. Then that quantity, in amps, must be multiplied times the applied voltage and another time factor over which the amps are used.

      Gordo, current is defined as: coulombs per second.
      Horsepower is also defined a similar way, the amount of “work” (as in, force times distance against gravity) per unit time. To calculate the energy consumption of a prime mover, one MULTIPLIES the power by the time the power is used, as in horsepower-hour. To calculate electric energy consumed, one doesn’t ADD another time factor, one MULTIPLIES by the time the current and voltage is applied by the time it’s consumed, giving in watt-hours.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swannie…both you and Tim are missing the point. If a horse lifts a load, using a pulley system, and all that is measured is the work, we are interested only in the force applied over a distance. That’s work and it is not measured in HP. To get horsepower, we need to measure the work done over a time period (minute or second) (work rate) and we have to specify the weight involved.

        Tim is getting himself tied up in definitions and math without considering the actual practice in the electrical field. The watt, in the electrical field, is defined as the product of the applied voltage across a load and the current through the load.

        You have tried to argue that current, defined as the number of coulombs of charge passing a point in 1 second, has a time factor. I acknowledged that and pointed out that the time involved was not the same time used to measure wattage over a different period of time.

        A Kw-hr meter (watt-meter) does not care about time, it simply measures the voltage across a load and the current through it and displays the wattage on a meter face. That’s tells you nothing bout the total power consumed. To get that, we need to attach the watt-meter to a clock device with dials that tell us how much power was used over a time period.

        Both of you are confusing power with power consumption, a term utilities call energy consumption. If I specify a current of 1 amp through a load it means so many coulombs of charge are passing a certain point every second. It tells us nothing about the total amount of current that passed that point in a month.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Tim F is correct. Gordo, the self-proclaimed engineer, can’t even understand the basics facts of his own profession. Power is the rate at which energy is being consumed. A watt meter measures power, a watt-hour meter integrates the power used over a time period, to indicate energy consumed.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “A Kw-hr meter (watt-meter) …”
        These are two DIFFERENT meters!

        A kW-hr meter measures ENERGY.
        A watt-meter measures POWER.

        “Thats tells you nothing bout the total power consumed. ”
        Wrong words! You are talking about total ENERGY consumed with you attach a clock and multiple power x time.

        “Both of you are confusing power with power consumption”
        Its pretty clear you are the one confusing “energy” with “power”.

  42. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim f…”Try answering the simplest of question about circuits. A battery is connected to a resistor using two wires. Energy goes from the battery to the resistor.

    Does that energy travel
    a) out the terminal and down that wire
    b) out the + terminal and down that wire
    c) half out each terminal and half down each wire
    d) other”.

    ***

    Tim…the words energy is being used her in the vernacular. In other words, we tend to use words incorrectly with no harm done overall. However, in science, that is not acceptable. The correct answer is that electrons flow out the -ve terminal and down the wire, but only if the wire is terminated at the battery positive terminal. If the circuit is not complete, no current will flow. That puts the boots to the other theory that an electric field right down the wire causes electrons to flow.

    Energy is not flowing, it acts as a field to propel electrons through conductors from the battery. Although the guy in your video claims the electric field is acting on electrons throughout the circuit, I think it’s the other way around. Electrons carry an electric field with them and produce a magnetic field when they move. The electric field he is referencing is caused by electrons and their charges.

    If you try to measure the energy you claim is moving down the wire, how do you do it? I think it is electrical current running down the wire and it involves the flow of electrons and their charges. Some people refer to electric current as energy but I don’t. I refer to the motivating force that drives the electrons as energy and I have no idea what it is.

    It’s called electromotive force (EMF) in technical terms and it has an equivalent called magnetomotive force (MMF) as applied to magnetic circuits. I have not studied this stuff for years and there is a lot of rust involved. EMF is defined as potential energy and it is regarded as the prime motivator for electrons in a circuit. No one knows what it is although we could get into the ball park by describing it as the electrostatic repulsion of electrons by a larger mass of electrons.

    A chemical battery stores free electrons at the cathode, or negative terminal. When a circuit is connected across the battery terminals, the repulsive force of the accumulated electrons at the cathode, force other electrons around the circuit.

    A simple loop of wire rotating between magnetic N-S poles causes a variable current of electrons and their charges to move in the conductor. As the loop breaks the magnetic lines of force at a right angle, a maximum number of electrons is caused to run down the wire. With angles in between a right angle and moving parallel to the field, less electrons flow. Over a full cycle, a sine wave of electrical current is produced.

    One might claim the prime mover here is the magnetic field but we have no idea how that works at the atomic level. We don’t know why a magnetic field induced a current in a moving conductor or why electrons moving in a wire produce a magnetic field. So how can we talk about a motivating energy when we have no idea how it works?

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      You are dancing all around the issue with your paragraphs and paragraphs of extraneous materials.

      Conservation of energy is one of the cornerstones of science. Energy is never created or destroyed. It can change forms; it can transfer from one place to another.

      There was energy in the battery. Some of that energy got to the resistor. How did it get there?

      For example, a crankshaft transmits energy from a car engine to the tires.

      The naive thought is that the electrons carry the energy down one or both wires from the battery to the resistor. But that is wrong.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Extraneous material? Nothing extraneous included, I edites it carefully. The problem is in your comprehension of what I have written.

        You have watched a video by a guy who was challenged on his claims in an early video and has come up with even more preposterous claims in this recent video. The guy is out to lunch.

        In my first paragraph I tried to explain that no current will flow in an open-circuit. If you connect a battery via a switch and ammeter across a capacitor, when the switch is closed, the meter will indicate a sudden spike of current then nothing more. That’s because electrons/charges will flow immediately after the switch is closed until the charge level ***OF ELECTRONS*** builds up on one capacitor plate and repels other electrons till the build up of charge stops current flow altogether.

        That kills his argument that current flow is due to an electrical field. With the switch open, an ammeter will indicate no current flow at all as the conductor is connected to the battery terminals.

        With both terminals connected, there should be an electrical field along the conductors but it obviously does not cause any current to flow.

        Tim…this is basic electrical theory and what this guy is presenting is a bastardized version based on sheer hypothesis.

        I am trying to emphasize in the next paragraphs that energy is not flowing, that it is a potential that drives electrons and their charges. Describing energy as a non-descript ‘capacity’ to do work is as dumb as describing heat as a measure of energy.

        Of course, it’s obvious I am talking to a closed mind here.

        • Willard says:

          > I edites it carefully

          Veeery carfully.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “Nothing extraneous included …”

          The discussion — as quoted by YOU! — is about how energy gets from a battery to a resistor. Your discussion veers off to currents and EMFs and MMF and rotating loops. Now you add capacitors. All extraneous to the discussion at hand.

          “The guy is out to lunch.”
          … and yet the experiment proved him right.

          “this is basic electrical theory …”
          Basic electr5ic theory says that electric fields cause forces on charges. F = qE. No electric field, no force. So to get the electrons started anywhere in the circuit requires an electric field at that part of the wire.

          “Thats because electrons/charges will flow immediately after the switch is closed …”
          Well, actually that motion propagates at the speed of light down the wire; the speed at which the E field can travel. But again, the E field is the cause.

          “it is a potential that drives electrons ”
          … and what creates that potential? Electric potential is found from the electric fields! Integrate E along the path to find the the potential difference. Again it comes back to the E field!

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Little Willy, please stop trolling.

        • Willard says:

          Graham D. Warner keeps playing the Hall Monitor.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Little Doxer, please stop trolling.

        • Willard says:

          (Will Graham hover over the link? Will he not?)

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Little Stalker, please stop trolling.

        • Willard says:

          Perhaps Graham D. Warner ought to stick to making covers.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          #2

          Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  43. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Last but not least: Related

    Q:
    1/ Consider a house that has a floor space of 2800 ft² and an average height of 10 ft at 5000 ft elevation where the standard atmospheric pressure is 12.2 psia.

    2/ Initially the house is at a uniform temperature of 50° F.

    3/ Now the electric heater is turned on, and the heater runs until the air temperature in the house rises to an average value of 70° F.

    4/ Determine the amount of energy transferred to the air assuming:

    (a) the house is airtight and thus no air escapes during the heating process, and

    (b) some air escapes through the cracks as the heated air in the house expands at constant pressure.

    5/ Also determine the cost of this heat for each case if the cost of electricity in that area is $0.18/kWh.

    A:
    (a) The amount of energy transferred to the air assuming the house is airtight is 6,184 BTU at a cost of $ 0.33.

    (b) The amount of energy transferred to the air assuming some air escapes through the cracks as the heated air in the house expands is 8,680 BTU at a cost of $ 0.46.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      You are still using the word energy incorrectly. You cannot tell us what it is.

      Would you put away your slide rule for a minute and try to understand what I am saying? I get it that some people call it energy, I am saking what it is they are calling energy.

      I have done all the calculations you offer and at a far more advanced level. You are doing simple resistance-based calculations. Try doing them for applications where inductive and capacitive loads are encountered where power factor becomes an issue and there are multiple such devices in a plant.

      In any calculations I have ever done, not once was the word energy used. We talked only about real power and reactive power. In fact, rather than using the word energy consumption, we talked about power consumption. Whereas that does not enlighten us any better, it at least associates power and time better. Throwing the word energy in there in a generic sense is of no help at all.

      That’s why I have raised the issue as to why power has a time component wrt to the mechanical energy measure, the horsepower (and watt), but has none in the electrical field. The time component is applied only when we want to measure the amount of power required over a time period.

      In science, energy is loosely defined as the capacity to do work. The translates to the ability to do work, which is not helpful at all. If I describe thermal energy as the ability to do work. what does that tell me about energy or about heat? Nothing!!!

      However, if I consider the association of heat with atoms, I can see that heat causes atoms to move faster in a gas, and to vibrate harder in a mass. In that capacity, adding heat can produce a higher amount of work but it still does no explain what thermal energy is.

      What is it that causes the atoms to move faster or to vibrate more vigourously? Naming that property ‘energy’ does not help us understand what it is anymore than called the reading of Kw-hr meter ‘energy’.

  44. walterrh03 says:

    Steyn lost.

  45. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 451.4 km/sec
    density: 0.35 protons/cm3
    Daily Sun: 08 Feb 24
    https://www.spaceweather.com/
    Sunspot number: 164
    “Sunspot AR3576 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares.”

    3576 is a big spot, and another one is coming behind it {though more south of it} from farside.
    The Radio Sun
    10.7 cm flux: 188 sfu
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 18.39×10^10 W Warm
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: -3.5% Low

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 405.1 km/sec
      density: 6.47 protons/cm3
      Daily Sun: 09 Feb 24
      Sunspot number: 149
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 185 sfu
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 18.39×1010 W Warm
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -3.3% Low
      They number that spot coming from farside {south the big spot, 3576}3581. I don’t see any others coming from farside. 3581 is moderate size spot. There are total numbered spot.
      The big one, 3576, which could give X-flares, is roughly facing us, and might cause us some excitement over next few days.

      • gbaikie says:

        total of numbered of spots is 9.
        And I would guess we will get less 9 in next day or so.

        And forgot this:
        “MAJOR X-CLASS SOLAR FLARE: Today at 1314 UT, the sun produced one of the most powerful solar flares in years, an X3.4-class explosion from just behind the sun’s southwestern limb. NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) recorded the extreme ultraviolet flash:

        The source of the flare appears to be departing sunspot AR3575. Because the blast site was eclipsed by the edge of the sun, the flare was probably even stronger than its X3.4 classification suggests. This was a big explosion.”

        It seems sun has fairly active lately in terms creating large explosions, but they haven’t been directed at Earth, yet.
        I would guess astronauts are spending time in their solar flare shelters.

        • gbaikie says:

          I decided poke around to see wat saying regarding crew, I didn’t find anything specific, but I thought this interesting:
          https://www.nasa.gov/solar-cycle-progression-and-forecast/
          Updated February 6, 2024
          Sunspot Number

          They got 5 percent of sunspot number crashing, soon and another 5 per cent of taking off, soon. 50 percent of sideways and up a bit
          for couple years.
          So the two low chance extreme is blue line going to about 170, and 100 within couple months.
          Anyhow, it “seems” they got all the bases covered, but I think there chance it go lower than the 5 per cent in 3 months.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 372.1 km/sec
        density: 4.22 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 10 Feb 24
        Sunspot number: 105
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 183 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 18.39×1010 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -3.3% Low
        “25% CHANCE OF X-FLARES TODAY: Yesterday, the sun unleashed a powerful X3.4-class solar flare. NOAA forecasters say there is a 25% chance it could happen again today. The most likely source is big sunspot AR3576, which has an unstable delta-class magnetic field and is directly facing Earth.”

        • gbaikie says:

          Solar wind
          speed: 603.8 km/sec
          density: 12.60 protons/cm3
          Daily Sun: 11 Feb 24
          Sunspot number: 146
          “Sunspot AR3576 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares.”
          The Radio Sun
          10.7 cm flux: 194 sfu
          Thermosphere Climate Index
          today: 18.92×1010 W Warm
          Oulu Neutron Counts
          Percentages of the Space Age average:
          today: -3.3% Low

          Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
          05 February – 02 March 2024

          Solar activity is expected to be at low to moderate levels on 05-16
          Feb due primarily to the flare history and potential of Region 3776
          and the return of old Region 3559. Low levels are expected on 17-23
          Feb. An increased chance for moderate levels are possible on 24-29
          Feb and 01-02 Mar as old Regions 3359 and 3776 rotate back onto the
          visible disk.
          https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
          The story remains the large sunspot, AR3576 which has passed the mid-point, and less of story in a couple days when it approaches the farside.

          It seems likely, to me, the blue line will continue to curve down though there is a fairly good chance next month, the blue line will not continue down.
          But my guess is blue line continue to go down in next few months.

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 402.2 km/sec
            density: 5.13 protons/cm3
            Daily Sun: 13 Feb 24
            Sunspot number: 153
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 180 sfu
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 19.09×10^10 W Warm
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: -5.4% Low

            There spot not named yet coming from farside and spot number with no spots leaving to farside.
            The sun seemed like it could get more active, but now, doesn’t seem to going anywhere.

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 443.9 km/sec
            density: 11.30 protons/cm3
            Daily Sun: 14 Feb 24
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 195 sfu
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 19.18×10^10 W Warm
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: -5.7% Low

            Big spot coming farside northern hemisphere- more north than any current spot on nearside

          • gbaikie says:

            oh:
            Sunspot number: 122
            And:
            “Sunspot AR3576 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares.”
            It’s heading to farside but will take couple days before it’s gone.

          • gbaikie says:

            Solar wind
            speed: 386.0 km/sec
            density: 0.98 protons/cm3
            Daily Sun: 15 Feb 24
            Sunspot number: 123
            The Radio Sun
            10.7 cm flux: 184 sfu
            Thermosphere Climate Index
            today: 19.17×10^10 W Warm
            Oulu Neutron Counts
            Percentages of the Space Age average:
            today: -6.4% Low

            The spot coming from farside side {3586} is smaller than it looked to me, it’s a moderate size spot. There couple small spot not numbered, and there are 7 numbered spots, And I don’t any more coming from farside.
            It seems the blue line will continue to curve down.

  46. gbaikie says:

    MethaneSAT Set to Transform Global Methane Emission Tracking with Advanced Technology
    https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/MethaneSAT_Set_to_Transform_Global_Methane_Emission_Tracking_with_Advanced_Technology_999.html
    “Ball Aerospace has marked a significant milestone in environmental monitoring by delivering the MethaneSAT satellite to Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County, California, setting the stage for its launch next month. This pivotal mission, developed in collaboration with MethaneSAT, LLC-a subsidiary of the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)-aims to provide unparalleled insights into the scale and sources of global methane emissions, a critical factor in the fight against climate warming.”

  47. Bill Hunter says:

    official probabilistic ENSO forecast is out for the month.

    el nino ending by AMJ >80%
    la nina by JJA 55% el nino 3%
    la nina by SON 77% el nino 3%

  48. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    “Now this science that I love has fallen under attack
    A mighty sucker punch came flyin’ in from somewhere in the back
    Soon as we could see clearly
    Through our big black eye
    Mann, we lit up your world
    Like the fourth of July

    Hey, Michael Mann put your name at the top of his list
    And the Statue of Liberty started shakin’ her fist
    And the eagle will fly, man it’s gonna be hell
    When you hear mother freedom start ringin’ her bell
    And it feels like the whole wide world is raining down on you
    Brought to you courtesy of the red white and blue

    Justice will be served and the battle will rage
    This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage
    And you’ll be sorry that you messed with
    The hockey stick display
    ‘Cause we’ll put a boot in your ass
    It’s the Michael Mann way”

    https://youtu.be/5QlvgVaHDPk

  49. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim f…”For example, electrical work is W = qV [in joules]
    Power is the rate at which work is done.
    P = dW/dt = d(qV)/dt = (dq/dt)*V = IV [in watts]

    Electrical power is still power. It is still watts. It still involves time”.

    ***

    Tim…I get your math, but you fail to grasp that power is not about math, it’s based initially on the amount of weight a horse could lift over a distance in a time period.

    Today, the watt has been compared mathematically to other applications and that is what I am questioning.

    For example, above, you used the term dq/dt*V. What if ‘q’ (coulombs) is constant as in a direct current? The derivative of any constant is zero. What you are describing using dq/dt is an instantaneous change in charge related to the current flowing into or out of an inductor or capacitor. In a direct current circuit, with a simple resistive load, q will always be constant and dq/dt = 0.

    With a capacitor, the initial inrush of current is very high. As electrons accumulate on the capacitor plate, their increasing charge repels incoming electrons and the in-rushing current decays exponentially as those charges build up. If you use a series resistor to limit the current, you can control the time it takes for the capacitor to reach a certain percentage of charge. The combination RC is called a time constant.

    That’s what happen when one relies solely on math for a proof while ignoring the physical reality. I appreciate the effort you put into your replies, unlike Clint, who lacks the ability to respond as you do, and who rants in frustration rather than trying to analyze a problem.

    Please don’t regard me as coming across as talking down to you. That’s not what I am about. I do it for humour at times with Klowns like Klint but I take you far more seriously than I do his juvenile efforts to antagonize. We’re are all hopefully in this together as students of science, and in that light, I am as much a student as you.

    Let’s get something straight, the watt is a measure of mechanical energy only. When we measure heat is watts we are essentially lying. The basic unit of heat is the calorie, defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 cc of water by 1C. That is not related to the watt directly in any way.

    The reason the watt is used as a measure of thermal energy is an ***EQUIVALENCE*** discovered by Joule between the mechanical agitation of water and an increase in the water temperature. There is no equality between the two since both units of energy have different units of measure, and different heating mechanisms.

    An equal sign between joules and calories suggests that the mechanical energy added via agitation is the same energy created in the water as thermal energy. That is nonsense. The mechanical energy added simply agitates the water molecules, breaking weak hydrogen bonds that hold the molecules together and in the process releases heat from the hydrogen bonds. Ergo, the heat produced does not come from the mechanical energy of the agitator, it comes from the water molecules themselves.

    The process works in water and is based on the heat capacity of water. Show me any other non-water-based liquids, with different heat capacities, where it applies. 1 calorie = 4.184 joules applies only to water. Mind you, that’s a bit of a no-brainer since the calorie is defined based on the properties of water.

    Again, we are dealing with an anachronism dating back to 1925 and it is seriously out of date. The calorie was redefined in 1925 in joules by ijits who lacked the foresight to see the gross generality in their claim.

    The error is amplified grossly when EM is measured in watts. EM is not related as an energy to either heat or work, yet people are quite willing to give it a power rating it does not have. It does have a capacity to produce power ***IF*** absorbed by a material of lower temperature than the source temperature of the EM, and converted to heat, but as EM has has no mass, no momentum, and no heat, and cannot possibly be stated in watts.

    We have gotten lazy in science and in some cases stoopidly lazy. Rather than keep researching to find some way of detecting atomic motion directly we have accepted quantum theory, an obfuscated science that cannot be visualized. So we are happy to live in the dark, hoping our theories are correct.

    Then there are the educated ijits who come across as seriously stoopid when they talk about Big Bangs and a theory of relativity which is based on a non-existent ‘time’. It escapes most of them that the definition of time had to be arbitrarily re-defined to make their cockamamey equations work.

    • Clint R says:

      Gordon spouts: “What if ‘q’ (coulombs) is constant as in a direct current? The derivative of any constant is zero.”

      Not only are you NOT an engineer, you don’t even understand high school calculus.

      A car going 60 mph is NOT motionless — ds/dt = 60, not zero. It’s the distance covered in a unit of time. With direct current, it’s the Coulombs moving past a point in a unit of time.

      Get professional help. You may already be a danger to yourself.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Clint gets more st00pid in his feeble attemp.t to discredit me.
        You are comparing apples to oranges. dq/dt is not comparable to ds/dt for the simple reason that one is a measure of the change of charge amount per unit time and ds/dt is an instantaneous change in a linear measure per unit time. They have nothing in common.

        If we were talking about acceleration, dv/dt, then it would be zero when V is constant. When working with differentials, you have to be aware what context they are related to.

        ds/dt says that the distance, s, is changing instantaneously with the time, t. It tell us nothing about the total distance traveled, to get that we’d need to integrate between integration limits, t1 and t2. Speed on the other hand has no differentials and is a simple scalar quantity that presents an overall average sped by dividing the distance covered by the time taken.

        dq/dt is another matter altogether. It addresses the total number of charges that are changing by adding or subtracting them. With a constant current, there is no change in the number of total charges, therefor dq/dt is zero.

        However, if we applied this to a charging capacitor, the charge quantity on the capacitor plate would be changing per unit time, therefore dq/dt would apply.

        If we were analyzing a circuit, with an inductor in series with a resistor across a voltage source … we could write the equation as ..

        e(t) = Ldi/dt +iR

        In di/dt we can represent ‘i’ as the instantaneous number of charges passing a point in a second. That value will be changing if e is alternating due to the effect of an alternating current running through an inductor. Just as with a capacitor, the number of charges at a given point at a given time is variable.

        If the generator, e, was direct current, there would be a brief changing initial current flow through L, therefore di/dt would change very briefly. Therefore, L.di/dt would have a significant reactance, in ohms. However, after the initial effect, di/dt would be zero, and the reactance of L.di/dt would be zero. Of course every inductor has a certain amount of resistance as well and there would be a miniscule voltage drop across it.

        The difference between an inductor and a capacitor in a D.C circuit is that during steady state conditions the inductor passes current and the capacitor blocks it.

        • Clint R says:

          Sorry Gordon, but you can’t understand even the basics.

          When you spout nonsense like, “What if ‘q’ (coulombs) is constant as in a direct current? The derivative of any constant is zero.”, you clearly indicate you don’t have a clue.

          There can be a CONSTANT flow of charge past a point, but that does NOT mean the current is zero. You can’t face the reality that you don’t make any sense.

          Want another example of your rambling ignorance?

          “Let’s get something straight, the watt is a measure of mechanical energy only.”

          No Gordon, a Watt is a measure of POWER. Power is NOT energy. You don’t even understand the basics. A Watt is a measure of mechanical power, and also a measure of electrical power, as in P = IV.

          Get professional help before you hurt yourself.

  50. gbaikie says:

    New Study Uncovers Asymmetry in Solar Gamma-Ray Emissions During Solar Maximum
    by Erica Marchand
    Lisbon, Portugal (SPX) Feb 08, 2024
    “In a groundbreaking study published in *The Astrophysical Journal*, researchers have unveiled unexpected findings regarding the Sun’s gamma-ray emissions, particularly during periods of heightened solar activity known as the solar maximum. This research, spearheaded by Bruno Arsioli from the Institute of Astrophysics and Space Sciences (IA) and the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon (Ciencias ULisboa), in collaboration with Elena Orlando from the University of Trieste, INFN, and Stanford University, provides new insights into the high-energy processes occurring in our star’s atmosphere.

    Gamma rays, the highest energy form of electromagnetic radiation, are produced by various processes in the Sun, including in its halo and during solar flares. These rays carry a billion times more energy than ultraviolet light and are a key to understanding violent events on the Sun’s surface. The study’s findings challenge the previously held belief that gamma rays emitted from the Sun would show a uniform distribution across the solar disk.”
    https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/New_Study_Uncovers_Asymmetry_in_Solar_Gamma_Ray_Emissions_During_Solar_Maximum_999.html

  51. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”Power is the rate at which energy is being consumed. A watt meter measures power, a watt-hour meter integrates the power used over a time period, to indicate energy consumed”.

    ***

    I have asked several times, Swannie, what is this energy being consumed? Describe it, tell me what it is and how it can be measured.

    You and Tim F are talking around the question using words defined by authority figures.

    Consider thermal energy. What is it that causes atoms in gases to move faster, and atoms in solids to vibrate harder when heat is added? If I apply a torch to a piece of iron what is causing the iron atoms to vibrate harder?

    I am sure you’ll offer a trite explanation, like it’s due to extra energy, but I am not interested in that kindergarten bs. I want to know how thermal energy in the flame interacts with matter to change its temperature. When heat is added to a gas, why do gas molecules increase their velocity? What is the connection between heat and velocity?

    In other words, what is this energy we call thermal energy? And how do we measure it directly? If you can’t tell me that then you definitely cannot tells me how solar EM can be measured in watts.

  52. Gordon Robertson says:

    clint…aka Klinton Klown…continues along his masochistic pursuit of wanting his butt kicked.

    “Gordon, I dont need to write a book to debunk all your nonsense”.

    No, Klinton Klown, all you need are a few words to attemp.t what your deluded mind desires but you can’t even do that. Instead, you post ad hom attacks and insults because you know you don’t have the science to back your words.

    I have observed over my life that those who suggest others need professional help are the ones in need of it the most.

    Recently, you completely fumbled an attemp.t to belittle my understanding of differentials and I had to kick your butt once again. Do you enjoy being made a fohl of so much that you need to keep at it? If so, I’ll be happy to continue kicking you sorry butt.

    • Clint R says:

      Gordon, when you meet with your therapist, don’t forget to mention your anal fetish.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Sorry Gordon, but you are the one who fumbled the differentials and the topic of current.

      “What if q (coulombs) is constant as in a direct current? The derivative of any constant is zero. ”

      But q is NOT constant, I is constant. If a battery is providing a constant I = 0.1 A, then q = 0.1 C after 1 second, 0.2 C after 2 s, 0.3 C after 3 seconds. The RATE that charge is delivered stays constant, but the AMOUNT that has been delivered increases.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        Do you still hold that “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface” as a description of the GHE?

        Is that why you are so keen on everything else but the GHE?

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Sure, that is presumable a “slightly better” description of the GHE than whatever other explanation was given before.

          • gbaikie says:

            The problem is the ocean warms the land.
            Or Land cools and ocean warms.

            Land heats up quicker {and cools down quicker}.
            The land is lacking in terms of a greenhouse effect.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “The problem is …”

            The problem usually is that everyone wants their own tangents.

            We started with a simple discussion about conventional current vs electron current (which is already a big tangent from a monthly temperature update). Both approaches are interesting and useful. But not everyone understand both or understands they are not contradictory.

            That fairly reasonably drifted to energy in circuits. Pretty soon it is capacitors and MMF. and fumbled calculus. and GHE. And ocean warming vs land warming.

          • gbaikie says:

            I just stick to facts. Land average is about 10 C and land is less than 3rd of Earth surface, so the warmer ocean surface and it’s air temperature air controls global air surface temperature.
            And the ocean surface absorbs most of sunlight reaching Earth surface.

            In terms of theories, I think we should have ocean human settlements. Or would predict this going happen probably before human settlements on Mars.

          • Willard says:

            Enumerating facts is one thing. Stating relevant ones is another.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim f…”That fairly reasonably drifted to energy in circuits. Pretty soon it is capacitors and MMF. and fumbled calculus. and GHE. And ocean warming vs land warming”.

            ***

            It’s all related and on-topic. There is nothing that we know of in the universe that does not involved electrons and if you cannot grasp the application of electrons in electrical theory, you cannot begin to understand their application in climate theory.

            You and Clint have demonstrated an abject ignorance of electrical theory and I can only reason that your ignorance of other theories in physics is equally poor.

            The very concept of warming traces back to electron theory. When a mass is heated, all of its electrons in constituent atoms move to higher energy levels, and as it cools, all of them drop back to lower energy levels. Those energy levels en masse represent relative heat levels.

            Quantum theory is electron theory, it is all based on electron orbitals in atoms. Unfortunately, the word quantum was introduced to represent a highly theoretic concept by Planck that was applied by Bohr, that electrons must reside in discrete (quantum) energy orbitals. To this day, no one knows if that is true.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard only has room in his head for one cause of climate change at a time. So he is deeply disturbed by any prospects of having to grok more as he is already a little ant man waving his arms wildly from the bottom of a lobster pot with lobster on the menu.

          • Willard says:

            Gill believes that “The problem is” introduces a factual claim. He also believes that “I think we should have” should be included in all statements of fact.

            And of course he believes that nobody notices his bait-and-switches.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Land heats up quicker {and cools down quicker}.”
            I think everyone agrees that is true.

            “The land is lacking in terms of a greenhouse effect.”
            When the GHE relates to the *atmosphere*, not the *land*. So yes, the land completely lacks a greenhouse effect.

            So these are both true, but I can’t tell what your point its.

          • gbaikie says:

            “So these are both true, but I cant tell what your point its.”

            In regards to this:
            “Sure, that is presumable a slightly better description of the GHE than whatever other explanation was given before.”
            ??
            as response to:
            Swenson says:
            February 9, 2024 at 10:16 PM
            I guess roughly agreeing with you. Or as I have repeated often, global warming is not but Earth getting hotter {as propaganda suggests] but is about a more uniform global temperature. Or global cooling is about more extreme temperatures.
            Or since hottest temperature ever to be recorded was over century ago, this doesn’t suggest there hasn’t been global warming, to doesn’t prove it, but it supports it.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim f…”But q is NOT constant, I is constant. If a battery is providing a constant I = 0.1 A, then q = 0.1 C after 1 second, 0.2 C after 2 s, 0.3 C after 3 seconds”.

        ***

        You should stay away from subjects you clearly don’t understand and that includes the concept of tangents and limits in calculus. If I (current) is constant then the number of charges per second is constant. dq/dt applies only if the number of charges per second is changing and I described the conditions in an inductor and capacitor in which that is true.

        If a current of 0.1 amps is constant it means the number of coulombs per unit time is constant as well. In other words, dq/dt for a direct current is zero. In case you missed it, the ‘d’ in dq/dt means the ‘instantaneous change’ in charge per unit time.

        With a capacitor, as the capacitor charges with a direct current, the number of charges per second changes, as in dq/dt, and approaches zero as the capacitor becomes fully charged. Same when it discharges, the number of charges per second leaving the capacitor is maximum per unit time and decreases toward zero, based on the time constant of the capacitor and its associated resistance.

        • Clint R says:

          Well Gordon, you were able to finally grasp that a constant rate is not zero. Clearly Folkerts and I helped you. You were able to respond to the teaching from adults.

          How are you doing with understanding a “Watt”. Do you now know it is a unit of power, NOT energy?

          You’ve got a lot to learn. Education is one baby step at a time….

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            At no time did I claim that a constant rate means zero. I claimed that the ***CHANGE*** in a constant rate is zero, as depicted by dq/dt = 0.

            Both you and Tim need refresher courses in basic calculus, provided that is, if you had any training in the first place, which is more likely.

            Hope life works out with your new alarmist friends, Mr. Traitor.

            Klinton Klown, the Benedict Arnold of science skeptics.

          • Clint R says:

            Here Gordon, I’ll let you argue with yourself: “What if ‘q’ (coulombs) is constant as in a direct current? The derivative of any constant is zero.”

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “I claimed that the ***CHANGE*** in a constant rate is zero, as depicted by dq/dt = 0.”

            Charge, q, is an AMOUNT. Not a rate.
            Current, i, is a RATE, depicted by dq/dt.

            A “change in a rate” is di/dt, or d(dq/dt) / dt, or d^2q/dt^2.

            What dq/dt = 0 tells us is that the current is zero!

  53. Eben says:

    La Nina development update

    https://youtu.be/aoavLu246nM

  54. Gordon Robertson says:

    replying to a post by Tim F earlier when he offered Feynman as an authority figure on energy. Sorry, had posting problems and lost my place.

    Reference…

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html

    tim…I used to have a deep respect for Feynman, and still respect his abilities, but the more I read him the more I gain the awareness that he was an egotist who would often make claims that he could not substantiate. In one of them he essentially claimed the audience was too stoopid to understand the point he was making and that they’d have to take his word for it.

    Having said that, he does support my argument when he claimed at the end of section 4.1…

    “It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is”.

    Why not stop there…class dismissed. But that won’t work at the university level, many profs seem to have a need to drone on about irrelevant material. I am being facetious, I realize the importance of understanding more about energy, however, we need to get it that we have no idea what energy is.

    So, there you have it from your own authority figure. Then he sticks his foot in his mouth by claiming kinetic energy is a ‘form’ of energy. No it’s not, KE is a descriptor of any energy in motion, and Feynman should have known better than to make such a claim.

    He states a law, the law of conservation of energy…

    “There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this lawit is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same”.

    ***

    Do you think he could be more obscure? This so-called law is nothing but a load of abstractions. I agree that it is likely true in general, but there are situations as Swenson and I have described in which energy like EM seems to simply disappear through natural dissipation. There has to be a point at which EM generated by the Sun, becomes so diluted it can no longer be described as energy.

    EM from the Sun is detected in part by its ability to be converted to heat. Is there a point out there in space where no heating is achieved when EM encounters it? If so, the energy has disappeared wrt to heat and the law no longer applies to EM. Same with heat. When the mass creating the heat disperses to the point where it cannot be measured, the law fails. I think that happens right in our own atmosphere, particularly in the stratosphere.

    EM is also detected as light. We can see stars with the naked eye at great distances. Are there stars far enough away where the portion of their EM field detected by the human eye is no longer possible. Of course, we can use telescopes to detect light from bodies at even greater distances. Are there stars so distant that even a telescope cannot detect them?

    All the same, much of our abilities to observe are based on human site. We can use instruments like telescopes to enhance our powers of observation in the macro world but we still cannot see to the atomic level.

  55. Gordon Robertson says:

    clint has relegated himself to klown status.

    “When you spout nonsense like, What if q (coulombs) is constant as in a direct current? The derivative of any constant is zero., you clearly indicate you dont have a clue.

    There can be a CONSTANT flow of charge past a point, but that does NOT mean the current is zero. You cant face the reality that you dont make any sense”.

    ***

    I said nothing about current being zero for a constant charge flow. Current ***IS*** that charge flow, how can it be zero?

    The problem is your abysmal ignorance of basic calculus and basic electrical theory. I was discussing with Tim the meaning of dq/dt, a mathematical description of the instantaneous flow of charges past a point in a circuit. Stated literally, dq/dt means an instantaneous change in charge per unit time. If the charge flow is constant then dq/dt is not changing and must be zero.

    It should be plain to anyone with even a simple understanding of calculus, that direct current when graphed is a straight line function. The derivative of any straight line is zero because…..ta da….nothing is changing. Duh!!!

    dq/dt describes a change in the amount of charge. Steady-state charge quantity does no change in a direct current circuit except for transient changes when a switch is opened or closed in a circuit with reactive elements.

    My advice to you is to avoid debating science that you know nothing about, but I doubt that you have the intelligence to understand that.

    —-
    Want another example of your rambling ignorance?

    Lets get something straight, the watt is a measure of mechanical energy only.

    No Gordon, a Watt is a measure of POWER. Power is NOT energy. You dont even understand the basics. A Watt is a measure of mechanical power, and also a measure of electrical power, as in P = IV.?

    ***

    And where do you think the concept of power was developed? Do you think power was commonly used to describe EM or heat? Power was initially applied to the work done by a horse, specifically the amount of weight it could lift over a foot in a minute. At that time, heat was in the early stages of study and EM was essentially an unknown quantity. Therefore, power was initially defined based on mechanical energy.

    The initial measure of power was the horsepower, for obvious reasons, then the mathematicians and politicians got into the act. The Europeans did not like the foot-pound measure and devised their on measures, all based on the HP. From that came the joule and the watt, with the watt being a sub-division of the HP. The association of 746 watts per horsepower was not pulled out of a hat.


    “Get professional help before you hurt yourself”.

    ***

    In his closing statement, Klinton Klown reveals his true character. A true neurotic, perhaps suffering from psychotic episodes, who derides both skeptics and alarmists who disagree with him, suggests I need professional help. This typical of his ability to see reality.

    • Willard says:

      > where do you think the concept of power was developed?

      Let’s ask the magazine:

      The history of power generation is long and convoluted, marked by myriad technological milestones, conceptual and technical, from hundreds of contributors. Many accounts begin powers story at the demonstration of electric conduction by Englishman Stephen Gray, which led to the 1740 invention of glass friction generators in Leyden, Germany. That development is said to have inspired Benjamin Franklins famous experiments, as well as the invention of the battery by Italys Alessandro Volta in 1800, Humphry Davys first effective arc lamp in 1808, and in 1820, Hans Christian Oersteds demonstration of the relationship between electricity and magnetism. In 1820, in arguably the most pivotal contribution to modern power systems, Michael Faraday and Joseph Henry invented a primitive electric motor, and in 1831, documented that an electric current can be produced in a wire moving near a magnetdemonstrating the principle of the generator.

      https://www.powermag.com/history-of-power-the-evolution-of-the-electric-generation-industry/

    • Clint R says:

      Gordon, all that ignorant rambling makes Norman look coherent.

      And, that’s hard to do….

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “Stated literally, dq/dt means an instantaneous change in charge per unit time. ”

      No! dq is an infinitesimal amount of charge. dt is an infinitesimal amount of time (not a unit of time i.e. not one second).

      More specifically, these are limits.
      You could measure Delta(q) = 0.1 coulomb in Delta(t) = 1 second and get a current of 0.1 A
      You could measure Delta(q) = 0.01 coulomb in Delta(t) = 0.1 second and get a current of 0.1 A
      You could measure Delta(q) = 0.001 coulomb in Delta(t) = 0.01 second and get a current of 0.1 A.

      In the limit as t goes to 0, q also goes to zero, but the current remains 0.1 A

      Stated literally, dq/dt means an instantaneous change in charge per INSTANTEOUS amount of time.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      ” The derivative of any straight line is zero …”

      No. Just no!

      The derivative of a straight line is a constant, known as the slope. Only a horizontal line has a derivative equal to zero!

  56. There is not any Global Average +33 oC GHE on Earth’s surface.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  57. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Multi-layer insulation (MLI) is thermal insulation composed of multiple layers of thin sheets and is often used on spacecraft and cryogenics. Also referred to as superinsulation, MLI is one of the main items of the spacecraft thermal design, primarily intended to reduce heat loss by thermal radiation. In its basic form, it does not appreciably insulate against other thermal losses such as heat conduction or convection. It is therefore commonly used on satellites and other applications in vacuum where conduction and convection are much less significant and radiation dominates. MLI gives many satellites and other space probes the appearance of being covered with gold foil which is the effect of the amber-coloured Kapton layer deposited over the silver Aluminized mylar.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      …and, like all radiative insulation, it functions via reflectivity, not absorp.tion/emission. Of course, people like to claim it would work with blackbodies, but they can’t prove that. It makes no sense for a blackbody to have radiatively insulating properties, since then everything could insulate radiatively simply by virtue of existing. It makes far more sense for objects with no reflectivity to be completely unable to radiatively insulate and for the ability to insulate to increase with the amount of reflectivity the object has, up to a perfect reflector being a perfect insulator. Otherwise you’re left with the silly GPE model in which large numbers of additional blackbody green plates essentially end up somehow approaching the insulating capacity of a perfect reflector!

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “like all radiative insulation, it functions via reflectivity, not absorp.tion/emission.”

        When you are designing radiative insulation, you design it it be reflective to make the insulating value high. (similar to designing fiberglass insulation with air pockets to make the insulating value high). But blackbody surfaces still work (similar to solid glass still working).

        “people like to claim it would work with blackbodies, but they cant prove that.”

        Yeah, we can. It is not our fault if you can’t understand. Dig out a textbook and learn.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          tim, you can line your ceiling with tinfoil reflecting 95% of ir being emitted at the ceiling by the objects in the room and it won’t make your room warmer because convection and conduction will replace the heat transfer to your ceiling. the foil only works if there are no gases in the room and that is going to be a lot more difficult to deal with than being a little cold. fill you room with water and the only benefit you will get is the water will have a lot more heat in it than the gasses so if the cold is just overnight you might be a little warmer.

          • Nate says:

            “the foil only works if there are no gases in the room and that is going to be a lot more difficult to deal with than being a little cold. ”

            Bill cluelessly thinks radiation is turned off in air!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Well this is easy to debunk. Take the temperature of the ceiling. Coat it with self sticking foil and take the temperature again.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            OTOH you can claim some insulation value if you take some self sticking foil and put it on your floor. That will make you perhaps a little cooler on hot days in your basement.

          • Nate says:

            “Take the temperature of the ceiling. Coat it with self sticking foil and take the temperature again.”

            OK go ahead. Lets see if you can demonstrate that radiation stops in air.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            I am not talking about radiation. I am talking about the temperature of the room. Nobody gives a shiit about radiation.

          • Nate says:

            Bill, there are situations where one mode of heat transfer dominates over the others.

            But that doesnt mean it will be true in a different situation.

            So you need to focus on the real situations of interest. The GPE. And the atmosphere.

            When meteorologists study heat transfer in the atmosphere, they find that radiation is playing an important role.

            And you havent shown otherwise.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Bill, there are situations where one mode of heat transfer dominates over the others.

            But that doesnt mean it will be true in a different situation.

            So you need to focus on the real situations of interest. The GPE. And the atmosphere.
            ————————–

            Yeah but there is no evidence of a difference in a different situation. You need at least something concrete to start extrapolating in your imagination about how it is different.

          • Nate says:

            “Yeah but there is no evidence of a difference in a different situation.”

            So you are doubling down on ridiculousness?

            You really don’t think different situations yield different results? Or are you just being knee-jerk contrary?

            In the upper atmosphere, radiation is important. From the TOA to space, radiation is all there is!

            Again, are you seriously going to deny that meteorology has found that radiation matters significantly in the atmosphere?

            As Roy showed here:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/observational-evidence-of-the-greenhouse-effect-at-desert-rock-nevada/

            “Downwelling IR from the sky continuously maintains surface temperatures well above what they would be without greenhouse gases (while at the same time cooling the upper atmosphere well below what it would be without those gases). Surface temperature is a function of energy gain (from the sun) and energy loss (which is reduced by greenhouse gases).

            Its not magic..its just physics.”

            This last sentence is really the main point.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”Downwelling IR from the sky continuously maintains surface temperatures well above what they would be without greenhouse gases (while at the same time cooling the upper atmosphere well below what it would be without those gases). Surface temperature is a function of energy gain (from the sun) and energy loss (which is reduced by greenhouse gases).”

            Well no doubt CO2 causes some warming, especially in the arctic where surface temperatures get very cold and you have warm airs arriving from the tropics and temperate regions of the planet. The only question is if this system is saturated or not. Many scientists think it is very near to that like Happer and Lindzen have it as 1C OR LESS!

            https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20132171-302668.pdf

          • Nate says:

            “The only question is if this system is saturated or not.”

            False. This is a zombie myth that never dies.

            The paper we showed you, and explained to you several times, clearly demonstrated that is not the case. That the rise of the highest radiating level in the troposphere dominates the increase of the GHE. But of course you could not understand the paper.

          • Nate says:

            And the document you posted is clearly a political manifesto by activists intended to influence policy.

            It should not be confused with a science paper.

            Climate science has no way to tell us that “THERE IS NO CLIMATE RELATED RISK CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS AND CO2”.

            This is obviously simply a political opinion, not science..

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”The only question is if this system is saturated or not.”

            False. This is a zombie myth that never dies.

            The paper we showed you, and explained to you several times, clearly demonstrated that is not the case. That the rise of the highest radiating level in the troposphere dominates the increase of the GHE. But of course you could not understand the paper.
            ————————-
            The paper you offered up entertains the idea and does not reject it Nate. You are only demonstrating your ignorance here. And you argue against it with an entirely different M&W theory that may or may not be valid and you don’t even recognize that its a different theory than the Arrhenius’ theory which is subject to the saturation issue.

            So the saturation condition is virtually certain. It doesn’t however apply to the M&W theory just the Arrhenius theory.
            Yet we have folks still believing both are operational and capable of more warming. You are one of the ignorant ones that fits in that category as appears to be universally the case with the warmists in this fora.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            ”And the document you posted is clearly a political manifesto by activists intended to influence policy.

            It should not be confused with a science paper.

            Climate science has no way to tell us that THERE IS NO CLIMATE RELATED RISK CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS AND CO2.

            This is obviously simply a political opinion, not science..”

            —————————–
            The fact is Nate there is no ”identified” climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2” There always can be unidentified risk as unidentified risk is unseen and therefore non-scientific risk.

            So there is no climate risk that has been identified by science. If you want to get into lala land theory, sure then there might be some risk.

          • Nate says:

            “So the saturation condition is virtually certain.”

            More declaratory nonsense. You don’t even know what you are even talking about.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate continues to flout his ignorance.

          • Nate says:

            “The fact is Nate there is no identified climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 ”

            False.

            Plenty of risks have been identified, the most obvious one being the irreversible melting of polar ice sheets, consequent sea-level rise and inundation of coastal cities.

            Many others, desertification, stronger more damaging hurricanes, extreme damaging rain events, ocean acidification, ocean reef death and consequent fishery destruction, the shutdown of the Gulf Stream.

            These are not 100% certain.

            But the political manifesto simply asserts that there is NO risk.

            How ridiculous.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Plenty of risks have been identified, the most obvious one being the irreversible melting of polar ice sheets, consequent sea-level rise and inundation of coastal cities.
            ————————
            What irreversible melting has occurred by CO2?
            What cities have been inundated by CO2?
            What desertification is caused by CO2?
            What stronger more damaging hurricanes have been caused by CO2?
            What extreme damaging rain event was caused by CO2?
            What ocean acidification, ocean reef death and consequent fishery destruction, was caused by CO2?

            What shutdown of the Gulf Stream was caused by CO2.

            These are not 100% certain.
            But the political manifesto simply asserts that there is NO risk.
            How ridiculous.

            Risk isn’t established by innuendo.

            One can quantify risk such as the risk of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, rising sea level based upon historic occurrences and identify specific areas at risk. But no such risk have been established for CO2. Its like saying there is the risk of a butterfly in Brazil flapping its wings and causing a tornado in Texas.

          • Nate says:

            “One can quantify risk such as the risk of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, rising sea level based upon historic occurrences and identify specific areas at risk.”

            Yes indeed.

            “But no such risk have been established for CO2. ”

            Just deep denial.

            The paleo record shows that the Gulf stream has shut down in the recent past, that the W. Antarctic ice sheet has melted in the past, that sea level has risen in the past.

            There is CURRENT evidence that that sea level rise is accelerating, that hurricanes are more rapidly intensifying, that the ocean is acidifying.

            So to suggest that there is NO risk of these things in a world that continues to warm, aint science.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            The paleo record shows that the Gulf stream has shut down in the recent past, that the W. Antarctic ice sheet has melted in the past, that sea level has risen in the past.
            ——————-
            And one should expect they should in the future but we know those past events occurred without an increase in CO2 so you have no causation argument for CO2.

            And our risk window is only a few decades long as if the evidence does arrive we can stop using fossil fuels. All that we are doing now by trying to prepare for that is being done at the expense of addressing real known current risk.

            And even that is not being done properly because its being done by mandate and by doing it by mandate it harms the people that need the most help. . .as it always has in the past.

          • Nate says:

            “And one should expect they should in the future but we know those past events occurred without an increase in CO2 so you have no causation argument for CO2.”

            Really? Playing dum again?

            Obviously it is the warming that causes some of these things.

            And at times in the past it has been warm, with causes including CO2 increases (PETM) or other things, such as the Holocene Optimum 8000 years ago, when northern Hemisphere sunlight was greater.

          • Nate says:

            “In the long term, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is likely to disappear due to the warming which has already occurred.[11] Paleoclimate evidence suggests that this has already happened during the Eemian period, when the global temperatures were similar to the early 21st century”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Sure Nate and if we see the current melt rate dramatically accelerate to say 6mm per year we would still have thousands of years to adapt.

          • Nate says:

            So you assume the acceleration stops when we reach 6 mm/year?

            Why?

            The rate over the last decade was ~ 4.5 mm/y.

            It was 3.5 mm/year in 2000, with acceleration of 8.3mm/y/century since then. So if it continued the rate would reach, ~ 12 mm/year by the end of the century.

            There is a RISK of significant sea level rise over the next century or two.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            based on which temperature record?

          • Nate says:

            GMSL data, not temperature data…so WTF are you talking about?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            sea level data is adjusted by the estimated temperature increase in the oceans when tide gauges show too little rise. that was thoroughly discussed when they convinced Josh Willis to retract his report that the oceans were cooling.

            You have continental uplifting tidal gauges, expanding oceans from warming, and ice melt. So sea level rise is estimated to make everything fit. they probably don’t have anybody assigned to find sinking tidal gauges like in the New Orleans area. It’s a Travesty if sea levels aren’t rising fast enough.

          • Nate says:

            “sea level data is adjusted by the estimated temperature increase”

            No it isn’t. Why keep posting moles that are so easily whacked?

            It is simply measured, and adjusted for GIA, as discussed at the link.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          “Yeah, we can. It is not our fault if you can’t understand. Dig out a textbook and learn.“

          Textbooks aren’t proof, Tim. Not that I’ve ever seen a textbook example that supports the GPE, in any case. Most just have fixed temperature objects, and calculate the heat flow between them. Fixed temperature objects are not the GPE.

        • Willard says:

          Astute readers will notice how our two Sky Dragon bozos try to deflect on the GPE instead of making their own stance on insulation more explicit.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Astute readers will know that bringing up MLI always means you’re talking, ultimately, about the GPE…

          …and my stance on insulation couldn’t be more explicit. Radiative insulation functions via reflectivity, and not absorp.tion/emission.

        • Willard says:

          Astute readers will note that Graham D. Warner keeps dancing around Tim’s point:

          “When you are designing radiative insulation, you design it it be reflective to make the insulating value high.”

          They will also note that he’s having his logic upside-down: the GPE is about the MLI, not the other way around!

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Tim doesn’t have a point. He simply asserted, without evidence, that blackbody surfaces still radiatively insulate. You gobbled it up, uncritically, because that’s what you do. You never think to question anything Tim says, you automatically assume he’s correct.

          • Nate says:

            “Tim doesnt have a point. He simply asserted, without evidence, that blackbody surfaces still radiatively insulate. ”

            BS. He showed you direct evidence. Black body MLI is thoroughly explained in terms of the laws of physics, and an equation is derived, in his source.

            He was correct that if you don’t understand the explanations, or the physics, that is your own damn fault.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate there is no such thing as a blackbody MLI nor anything else is a blackbody. He is applying equations to systems that don’t even exist on the surface of the earth.

            All you and your ilk are doing is extrapolating effects to situations where you have failed to demonstrate as being science. You treat equations like they were a hammer and everything you can imagine is a nail.

            You proved it when you extrapolated to imaginary blackbody MLI.

            As I have said there always is some resistance to the travel of energy through anything precisely because nothing is a blackbody and nothing is perfectly conductive with a coefficient of infinity. Blackbody Radiation at about room temperature only theoretically has a coefficient of about 5.5w/m2 K. (a 293k object would pass about 5.5w/m2 to a full view object at 294k)
            a blackbody perfect conductor would be in comparison
            infinitew/m2 k in other words indefinable as to any resistance.

            Climate science hasn’t proven a surface effect from absorbing a few extra watts at 15km as the surface effect would be a feedback. . .and with a blackbody assumption at 15km that energy would be instantly passed on to space.

            You can only begin to realize this when you figure out that depressurization is simply a temporary affect as any radiation it receives either warms it passes it right on to space.

            Its crazy to think of CO2 cooling and heating the upper atmosphere simultaneously. All this photon BS is about the pea under . . .uh. . .which shell? Its all razzle dazzle. Carny folks know how to run it.

          • Ball4 says:

            Bill, there is no such thing as a blackbody but blackbody radiation exists with which to calibrate sensors to measure thy atm. DWIR & UWIR in the field.

            It’s not at all crazy to think of CO2 cooling the upper, and heating the lower, troposphere simultaneously since Prof. Tyndall has shown the effect experimentally in the lab and others have measured it in the field.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            B4 just makes up something new to keep his spewing session alive. IR meters use a reference thermopile that at the same temperature as the sensor before opening the lense. Its not blackbody radiation either.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate there is no such thing as a blackbody MLI nor anything else is a blackbody. He is applying equations to systems that dont even exist on the surface of the earth.”

            “All you and your ilk are doing is extrapolating effects to situations where you have failed to demonstrate as being science.”

            Bill you are extremely ignorant.

            You think high emissivity objects don’t exist on Earth?

            You obviously lack the ability and imagination, to understand that what a black body does will be negligibly different from what a high emissivity object will do.

            And in fact the equations derived for multi-layer insulation prove this. You can make assign the emissivity, e = 1, like a black body. Or e = 0.95, like real objects on Earth, and see that there will be a negligible difference in the radiative insulation of MLI for these materials.

            Sorry Bill, your ignorant assertion that only reflective materials can radiatively insulate is proven FALSE.

            You fail to understand how physics has always used ideal cases to gain insight into the real world, since Galileo neglected air resistance to successfully understand projectile motion.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Real objects on earth have a mean emissivity of .70 as far as space is concerned. If the earth emits 240w/m2 it will need to be 378.5K to do so until proven otherwise. Thats one variable frequently misstated.

          • Ball4 says:

            The global real earthen ocean LW emissivity is measured from airplane radiometers looking down ~0.95 to 0.98 depending on windy waviness.

            The global real earthen land LW emissivity is similarly measured at ~0.97.

            The avg.d LW emissivity of the global atm. looking up is ~0.80 (~0.95 humid tropics to 0.67 arid arctic regions).

            What other “real objects” exist on earth could Bill possibly be writing about with 0.7 emissivity “as far as space is concerned”? How was this 0.7 measured or was it misstated?

          • Nate says:

            “Real objects on earth have a mean emissivity of .70 as far as space is concerned.”

            Was I talking about the mean?

            No.

            So strawman.

        • Willard says:

          Astute readers can see when Graham D. Warner has no argument against the mundane idea that low emittance surfaces don’t reflect all the radiation it receives.

          And it is a matter of natural law that all materials in existence give off, or emit, energy by thermal radiation as a result of their temperature.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Either prove that blackbody surfaces can radiatively insulate or concede that I’m correct. Nothing else matters (whatever point it is you’re trying to make, once again I have no idea what that is).

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “It makes far more sense ..”
          Maybe to you. Not to me.

          “Not that Ive ever seen a textbook example that supports the GPE”
          Any text covering radiative heat transfer at any level beyond the most basic covers all the needed topics. If you know the pieces, you know the answer.

          “Most just have fixed temperature objects, and calculate the heat flow between them.”
          That is like saying “this textbook shows examples for ohm’s law for constant voltage sources. But how do we know it works for constant current sources?” If you know the theory, you can easily do constant voltage OR constant current; constant temperature OR constant power. They are two sides of the same coin.

          “Textbooks arent proof, Tim. ”
          True, but there have also been several people recreate the ‘GPE’ and they found it works.
          Theory predicts the GPE. Experiments confirm the GPE. That is exactly how science works.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          "Any text covering radiative heat transfer at any level beyond the most basic covers all the needed topics. If you know the pieces, you know the answer."

          Sure, Tim, I know the pieces as I have proven to you many times. It doesn’t add up to the GPE except in your head.

          "Experiments confirm the GPE"

          No Tim, there is only Swanson’s experiment. That’s it. That’s all you’ve got. Which basically amounts to the word of a GHE-defending fanatic on a blog. Nobody’s going to replicate his experiment, ever.

          On the flip side you have Hughes’s experiments, and Seim & Olsen, saying there’s no GPE.

          • Ball4 says:

            Hughes, Siem & Olsen do not “say” there’s no GPE since both of their experiments comply with the 1LOT and 2LOT as does the GPE.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Hughes himself has said there is no GPE, as his experiments show.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “I know the pieces as I have proven to you many times. ”

            A blackbody sphere with area 1 m^2 is in deep space, with a 300 W heater in the middle. What is the surface temperature? [270K]

            A thin, high thermal conductivity, blackbody shell is placed around the sphere. Let’s say it has a surface area 1.1 W/m^2. What is the surface temperature of the shell? what is the surface temperature of the sphere? [263K, 317K]

            This is textbook heat transfer. It should be a piece of cake if you ‘know the pieces’.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, it’s not "textbook heat transfer" that putting a thin, high thermal conductivity, blackbody shell around a heat source makes the heat source warmer.

            The heat source sphere remains 270 K, the 1.1 m^2 shell would warm to 263 K, radiating 300 W to space.

          • Ball4 says:

            3:21 pm: Hughes himself may have said there is no GPE wrongly since he can “say” anything, but Hughes experiments comply with 1LOT and 2LOT as does the GPE.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …and his experiments showed no sign of any GPE.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “I know the pieces as I have proven to you many times. ”

            You just proved your DON’T know the pieces.

            A 1 m^2 surface at 270 K radiating to 263 K surroundings will only lose 27 W. The sphere is LOSING 27 W and GAINING 300 W. You seem to be misplacing 273 J of energy every second!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:

            ”A blackbody sphere with area 1 m^2 is in deep space, with a 300 W heater in the middle. What is the surface temperature? [270K]

            A thin, high thermal conductivity, blackbody shell is placed around the sphere. ”

            Next Tim mistook that setup as the environment in his trailer so he paid 20 G’s to a contractor to line his ceiling with polished sheets of titanium and fell victim to the trailer trash insulation scam.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Snark is not physics, Bill. What are the temperatures? If you don’t know, stay out of the conversation. If you think you know, explain your answer.

            Or we could discuss why your tinfoil ceiling is a bad analogy for proven radiative shielding.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            in the 1970’s crews and retailers during the oil embargo and resultant inflation were selling the idea that if you reflect the heat off your ceiling you will save a ton of money on your heating costs.

            the problem is if you reflect the ir back it just went up to the ceiling by convection, warmed the tinfoil which conducted the heat to the ceiling and you gained nothing.

            it was such a wide spread fraud that the government stepped in and established standards. still though people fall for it. reflective barriers can aid the efficiency of a well designed system but you have to employ a sealed air space to restrict convection and conduction to achieve an insulation value. tinfoil insulation earned the moniker of trailer trash insulation because in those days a lot of people lived in tailers with 2″ walls and it got really cold without a big heater and tons of bs was running around about what insulation is.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Wrong, Tim. The shell is at 263 K but it is 1.1 m^2 in area, so it is radiating 300 W from each side. It radiates 300 W outwards, to space, and 300 W inwards, towards the sphere. The 300 W radiated inwards cannot warm the sphere, so is returned from the sphere to the shell. The sphere also radiates (loses) 300 W to the shell each second, of energy from the internal heater. All the energy is thus accounted for.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “300 W to the shell each second”

            should be

            300 J to the shell each second

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “so is returned from the sphere to the shell. ”
            So you say, but that is NOT in any physics text. Is it reflected from the sphere? It is absorbed but re-emitted? Something else? There is no physics to explain “returned”.

            “All the energy is thus accounted for.”
            No, it is not. For the shell, you are adding 300 W of radiation from the sphere. You are adding 300 W of ‘returned’ radiation. You are radiating away 300 W to space. That is a net +300 + 300 – 300 = +300 J of energy every second into the shell.

            Try this one. Make 4 identical spheres like the one above. Put them in three evacuated rooms
            ROOM A) walls at 3 K
            ROOM B) walls at 263 K
            ROOM C) walls at 270 K
            ROOM D) walls at 300 K

            What temperature will the sphere be in each case?
            The answers are 270K, 317K, 321K, and 340 K.

            The warmer the room, the warmer the heated sphere within the room. You are claiming that at least A & B are the same. I have no idea what you would claim for C & D because your calculations are simply wrong.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "No, it is not. For the shell, you are adding 300 W of radiation from the sphere. You are adding 300 W of ‘returned’ radiation. You are radiating away 300 W to space. That is a net +300 + 300 – 300 = +300 J of energy every second into the shell."

            Wrong, Tim. For the shell, there is 300 W of radiation from the sphere, plus 300 W of returned radiation. That’s 600 W received. Then the shell is emitting 300 W from each side, 300 W from the outside, to space, and 300 W from the inside, to the sphere. That’s 600 W emitted.

            Every joule of energy is accounted for.

          • Ball4 says:

            5:15pm: … and Hughes experiments showed no sign of any GPE so they disproved the 1LOT and 2LOT?

            Not so DREMT, you just didn’t understand physics of Hughes experiments followed 1LOT and 2LOT as does the GPE.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            As 1LoT and 2LoT insist, his experiments showed no GPE.

          • Nate says:

            “The heat source sphere remains 270 K, the 1.1 m^2 shell would warm to 263 K, radiating 300 W to space.”

            C’mon guys. Earlier you admitted that the surroundings temperature matters for a thermopile. If the surroundings are warmer the thermopile surface is warmer.

            But here, for some reason the temperature of the surroundings just don’t matter!

            No logic to that.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader Grammie wrote:

            No Tim, there is only Swansons experiment. Thats it. Thats all youve got.

            Nobodys going to replicate his experiment, ever.

            Maybe that’s because it’s hard to work within a vacuum environment. NASA does that all the time when they test their satellites in thermal vacuum chambers, but they probably don’t feel the need to demonstrate the GPE for the engineering world, where “back radiation” from colder bodies to warmer ones is accepted science.

            Not that you or the rest of your lazy ass cult would make the effort to search the issue in NASA’s technical reports or read anything published by the ASME.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “…where “back radiation” from colder bodies to warmer ones is accepted science.“

            Sure, it is accepted science. It just doesn’t result in warming of the warmer body.

          • Willard says:

            “Is it reflected from the sphere? It is absorbed but re-emitted? Something else? There is no physics to explain “returned”.”

            Astute readers might notice that Graham D. Warner evades the question.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader Grammie, texts on Radiation Heat Transfer often include an example using two parallel infinite plates where the temperatures of the plates are known. The object is to calculate the energy transfer from one to the other when the surface emissivities are both 1. The energy leaving the hotter plate is assumed to be absorbed by the cooler one and that emitted from the cooler one is assumed to be absorbed by the hotter one. The resulting energy transfer is the difference between the two values, aka, the net energy transfer.

            The calculations become more difficult for real materials with emissivities less than 1, since both emission and reflections must be included in the calculations. Nowhere in these examples can I find any case where only the reflected portion of the IR energy is absorbed by the warmer body and the emitted portion is not. But, you already know that. Tr0ll on, little guy!!

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Then the shell is emitting 300 W from each side, 300 W from the outside, to space, and 300 W from the inside, to the sphere.”

            You have just passed the buck. You now say “shell is emitting … 300 W from the inside, to the sphere.” So now the sphere is receiving 300W from the shell AND 300W from the heater, but only emitting 300W.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim, what are you struggling with?

            The 300 W from the shell to the sphere that you mention cannot warm the sphere, and thus is returned to the shell.

            So the sphere is receiving 300 W from the heater, and emitting 300 W. No problem with the energy balance for the sphere.

            The shell receives 300 W from the sphere, plus 300 W returned, and emits 600 W. No problem with the energy balance for the shell.

            Do you need me to draw you a picture?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Do you need me to draw you a picture?”

            I suspect that might help you a lot, if you are honest about your picture. You might start by deciding what you mean by “returned”. Does the 300W from shell to the sphere get ‘returned’ by
            a) getting absorbed by the sphere and then re-emitted by the sphere.
            b) reflecting off the sphere.

            We know “b” is wrong, since black bodies don’t reflect. That leaves “a”. But now we have the shell absorbing 300 W from the heater AND 300 W from the shell (actually just 273 W, but we won’t quibble about that issue atm and call it ‘around 600 W’). So we need around 600 W leaving the sphere. Which means it must be around 317 K.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim, it’s 300 W from the shell, not 273 W. The shell’s surface area is 1.1 m^2, and it is at a temperature of 263 K.

            What I mean by "returned" is that the energy going from shell to sphere cannot cause the sphere to increase in temperature (due to 2LoT). So, ultimately, it goes back to the shell.

            Either acknowledge that there’s no energy balance problem, or the discussion’s over.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “What I mean by “returned” is …”
            neither reflected back nor absorbed and re-emitted back. But there is no other option. In other words, ‘returned’ is simply wishful thinking with no physical explanation, based on a misunderstanding of 2LoT.

            “Tim, its 300 W from the shell, not 273 W. ”
            Actually … the shell at 263K does emit 273 W/m^2 from 1.1 m^2, which is indeed a total of 300 W. The subtle point you are missing is that not all 300 W actually goes to the sphere because the shell is noticeably above the sphere.

            The sphere receives just 273 of those watts, with the rest going off to other parts of the inside of the shell. The sphere receives 273 W/m^2 over its 1.0 m^2 surface, or 273 W total.

            Thus the number needed to calculate the temp of the sphere is 300 W from the heater + 273W from the shell = 573 W = 573 W/m^2.

            The second error is fairly subtle, so it a common mistake and understandable. The first error is fundamental as exposes a deep misunderstanding of physics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim, the view factors between the sphere and shell are equal to 1. Thus all 300 W from the shell is received by the sphere. Not 273 W. That 300 W is then returned to the shell.

            You didn’t acknowledge that there is no energy balance issue though, so the discussion is over. Shame.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Thus all 300 W from the shell is received by the sphere. ”

            No. If you can see one part of the inside of the shell from another part of the inside of the shell, then thermal radiation from the first part can go directly to the 2nd part. The larger the shell, the smaller the fraction that gets back to the sphere.

            For example, if the shell was 10x the radius and 100x the surface area, the shell would still radiate a total of 300 W outward to space = 3 W/m^2. The shell would also radiate 300 W inward = 3 W/m^2. The sphere would receive 3 W/m^2 = 3 W. Not 300 W = 300 W/m^2.

            99% of the radiation inward from the shell would miss the sphere!

            “You didnt acknowledge that there is no energy balance issue”
            Because there IS an energy balance issue. You want to ‘return’ 300 W (really 273 as explained before). But that 300 W is not reflected by the sphere and not absorbed by the sphere. This ‘return’ is central to your argument, but this ‘return’ cannot be explained.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim denies that view factors are equal to 1 between the sphere and the shell, and still refuses to acknowledge that there is no energy balance problem. The discussion is over, but no doubt he will continue, anyway.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Actually, the view factor discussion is interesting (far more interesting than the GPE discussion, which is just the same old, same old – you guys believe that the passive shell can warm the heat source sphere with its emitted radiation, I don’t).

            Generally, concentric spheres, or a sphere within a shell, is often given as a textbook example of view factors being equal to one (same with infinite parallel plates). I can see the logic in what you’re saying though. The view factor from the sphere to the shell might be one, but the view factor from the shell to the sphere would be less than one, because not all of the radiation from the shell will hit the sphere.

            So, how does the radiative heat transfer equation take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction?

            Interesting that Willis Eschenbach’s Steel Greenhouse example never made any note of this. He didn’t even treat the surface areas of the sphere and shell as being different, let alone take view factors into account!

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Tim denies that view factors are equal to 1 between the sphere and the shell”
            The view factor from the sphere to the shell is indeed 1
            The view factor from the shell to the sphere is NOT 1.
            Exactly as I claimed.

            Yet another thing DREMT only half understands.

            Learn more here:
            http://imartinez.etsiae.upm.es/~isidoro/tc3/Radiation%20View%20factors.pdf

          • Nate says:

            “What I mean by “returned” is that the energy going from shell to sphere cannot cause the sphere to increase in temperature (due to 2LoT). So, ultimately, it goes back to the shell.”

            He has no physically plausible answer for what “returned” means. So he ignores this fundamental problem.

            The shell is not heating the sphere, but it is it making it warmer by radiatively insulating it.

            Just as my cooler coat keeps my heated body warmer.

            So once again, 2LOT is being abused here.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim, I’m not claiming to be a PhD physicist, unlike you. So it’s odd that you didn’t answer my question:

            So, how does the radiative heat transfer equation take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction?

            Interesting that Willis Eschenbach’s Steel Greenhouse example never made any note of this. He didn’t even treat the surface areas of the sphere and shell as being different, let alone take view factors into account!

          • Willard says:

            Exactly, Nate.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Exactly, DREMT.

          • Nate says:

            Willis made the shell only slightly larger than the sphere, so the VF are ~ 1.

            This is a red herring.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Looks like Tim will be evading that question.

          • Nate says:

            “He has no physically plausible answer for what returned means. So he ignores this fundamental problem.”

            And there is simply no need to create a new non-existent means of returning radiation since there is no actual heating of a warm body by a cold body going on there.

            Obviously my coat keeps me warmer, because it is insulating me from the cold.

            Just as the shell is insulating the sphere from the cold of space.

            Its just not difficult to understand, if one is open-minded.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …like Tim will be evading that question.

          • Nate says:

            “You might start by deciding what you mean by returned.”

            DREMT is evading the question because he has no sensible answer.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …Tim will be evading that question.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            DREMT, it is nice to see you acknowledging I was right and you were wrong all along about view factors and 273 WE/m^2.

            And nice to see you are eager for me to explain more things that you don’t understand. So what specific question are you wanting to know more about now?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “So, how does the radiative heat transfer equation take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction?”

            There are whole books written on the topic of radiative heat transfer. Perhaps start by reading the link I provided. When you understand the symbols used and can evaluate the surface integrals to reproduce the results, then you, too, will know how the equations work.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim evades answering again. I don’t think there is any provision in the radiative heat transfer equation to take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction. Prove me wrong, with a worked example. You can use the sphere and shell example you came up with. I’m just interested…this has nothing to do with the GPE discussion (which is over).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No worked example from Tim, and I will assume I’m correct that there is no provision in the radiative heat transfer equation to take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction. That would be a pretty serious shortcoming in that equation.

          • Willard says:

            Has Graham D. Warner provided any evidence he clicked on Tim’s link, Nate? For good measures, here is the link again:

            http://imartinez.etsiae.upm.es/~isidoro/tc3/Radiation%20View%20factors.pdf

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The radiative heat transfer equation, which is what I’m asking about, does not appear to be in the linked document at all.

            I await a worked example from Tim, or will assume I’m correct.

          • Nate says:

            “or will assume Im correct.”

            Because the facts are irrelevant.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Anyone else is welcome to weigh in, with a simple, straightforward and direct "yes" or "no" answer (although in Nate’s case I won’t be reading or responding to it).

            Is there a provision in the radiative heat transfer equation to take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction?

            If "yes", please provide a worked example.

          • Willard says:

            > it is nice to see you acknowledging I was right and you were wrong all along about view factors and 273 WE/m^2.

            Wow. That might be a first!

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Tim evades answering again. … Prove me wrong, with a worked example. ”

            I gave you a whole set of worked examples in the link! That is the answer that proves you wrong. They even have the specific example of a sphere within a larger shell, with the same results I gave you.

            The evasion here is you evading the work to understand the physics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Focus, Tim. The link you have provided does not appear to feature the radiative heat transfer equation at all. That is what I am asking you about.

            Why is getting a straight answer out of you people so difficult? Are you pro-science educators, or are you simply here to defend the GHE, at any cost, using any means necessary?

          • Willard says:

            > They even have the specific example of a sphere within a larger shell, with the same results I gave you.

            W…………oah.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            What Tim has provided is the means of calculating view factors in various situations, including the sphere within a shell example. However, that is not what I am asking for. I have made clear what I am asking for, several times.

          • Willard says:

            Does Graham D. Warner’s response contain any calculation?

            If not, he might have difficulties doing the homework Tim gave him!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim has given me no “homework”. In fact, I have set him some…which he refuses to do.

          • Willard says:

            > Perhaps start by reading the link I provided.

            Exactly, Tim.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            All I need from Tim is a direct "yes" or "no" answer to the following question:

            Is there a provision in the radiative heat transfer equation to take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction?

            If "yes", please provide a worked example.

            [And no, the answer is not in the link he provided]

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            <i"Is there a provision in the radiative heat transfer equation to take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction?"
            YES.

            “[And no, the answer is not in the link he provided]”
            There are two kinds of people: those who can extrapolate from partial information,

            Here is your ‘worked example’.

            1) Read the FIRST SENTENCE from the link. “The view factor F12 is the fraction of energy exiting an isothermal, opaque, and diffuse surface 1 (by emission or reflection), that directly impinges on surface 2 ”

            2) Use the knowledge you have already demonstrated. You know that the “energy exiting an isothermal, opaque, and diffuse surface” of the sphere is 300 J each second. And the “energy exiting an isothermal, opaque, and diffuse surface” of the shell is also 300 J each second.

            3) Look up the view factors listed in the link for concentric spheres.

            4a) View factor from inner sphere to outer sphere (the shell) is 1. So 300 J * 1 = 300 J exits from the inner sphere and impinges on the shell each second.
            4b) The view factor from the outer shell to the inner sphere is r^2 = 1/1.1 = 0.90909 for our case. So 300 J * 0.90909 = 272.72 J exits from the shell and impinges on the sphere each second.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You are still not getting it, Tim. I understood all that, already. Here is what I was asking, though:

            https://tanyaeeclcourse.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/cen58933_ch12.pdf

            Look at equation (12-19). That is what I am referring to by the radiative heat transfer equation. It has a provision for view factors, but only in one direction. So, I ask again:

            Is there a provision in the radiative heat transfer equation to take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction?

            If "yes", please provide a worked example.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “It has a provision for view factors, but only in one direction. “

            Go to equation 12-18
            Q1→2 = A1 Eb1 F1→2 – A2 Eb2 F2→1

            There are the view factors in both directions.

            You might go back and understand the reciprocity relation A1 F1→2 = A2 F2→1. In our case,
            A1 F1→2 = 1m^2 * 1 = 1
            A2 F2→1 = 1.1m^2 + 0.90909 = 1
            Because these are equal, we can simplify the equation so it LOOKS like F2→1 is not there, but it is. (Just like it LOOKS like the area of surface 2 doesn’t matter, but it does).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, Tim. I saw equation (12-18). However, that’s not the equation I’m familiar with as the "radiative heat transfer equation". That would be (12-19). I appreciate that you’re at least starting to try to help, after having wrongly chastised me for not reading your link when your link did not answer the question I was asking, but we’re still getting nowhere fast.

            As far as I can see, still, there is only a provision for view factors in one direction. How would you use (12-19) (or something like it) to tell you the amount of heat being transferred when the sphere is at 270 K and the shell is at 263 K. Because as far as I’m concerned, heat flow should be zero between the sphere and the shell in that scenario…because the shell is bigger than the sphere, and so despite the difference in temperature, the energy should balance out so that heat flow is nil.

            With the parallel plates in the GPE it’s easy to establish that heat flow is zero when the plates are at the same temperature. However, I don’t think that heat flow should be zero if the sphere and shell are at the same temperature, due to the difference in size, and the view factors. However, if that’s wrong, just let me know.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “thats not the equation Im familiar with”
            Then it is time to get familiar! You have been seeing the simplified version that is good enough for most cases that beginners need or understand. If you want to take things to the next level, you just gotta work harder.

            “I dont think that heat flow should be zero if the sphere and shell are at the same temperature, due to the difference in size, and the view factors. However, if thats wrong, just let me know.”
            That’s wrong. I let you know. And the paper let you know. And the 2LoT let you know.

          • Nate says:

            FYI people may note that just before eqn 12-19 they state:

            “Applying the reciprocity relation”

            And Tim also stated:

            “You might go back and understand the reciprocity relation A1 F1→2 = A2 F2→1.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Remarkably unhelpful, Tim.

            So, basically, you are saying heat flow is only ever at zero when objects are the same temperature, regardless of size, emissivity, or view factors. Makes absolutely no sense, but OK.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “‘So, basically, you are saying heat flow is only ever at zero when objects are the same temperature”

            Yes. That is pretty much the definition of “same temperature” and/or “thermal equilibrium”.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “regardless of size, emissivity, or view factors. ”

            Yep! Put 100 unheated objects in a uniform 20 C room. All 100 will settle in at 20 C, regardless of size, shape, emissivity, color, mass, chemical composition or any other property you name. All will have zero heat flow to/from the room (and to/from the 99 other objects).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            True, objects generally come to the same temperature. Green and blue plates, for instance…

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “True, objects generally come to the same temperature. Green and blue plates, for instance”

            No! Its like you are intentionally misunderstanding!

            If an object is SURROUNDED by the same temperature (the “20 C room” above) then the object WITHIN that space will become the same temperature as the surroundings (pencils, papers, coffee mugs, chairs, etc).

            If an object has two different temperatures around it (for example, the green plate with a hot blue plat on one side and cold space on the other), the object will settle somewhere BETWEEN the two temperatures. Heat flows from Blue Plate to Green Plate, and from Green Plate to space. The Blue Plate is hottest, space the coldest, and the Green Plate in between.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’m not going over the GPE again, Tim. That’s settled, and not in your favour.

          • Ball4 says:

            Yes, GPE was settled years ago by Eli in favor of the 1LOT and 2LOT.

            DREMT misapplies the 2LOT in DREMT’s solution so there is no hope for DREMT to be correct.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            DREMT, given how hard I have had to work to get you to understand the basics of radiative heat transfer and form factors (and now even the meaning of “same temperature”), you will have to forgive us for not taking your word on anything relate to the GPE.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, Tim, it was actually me who had to work extremely hard, over the last couple of days, to get you to understand the question I was asking you. You still haven’t really answered it, by the way. Except to say that the radiative heat transfer equation is not really fit for purpose, and that it’s a "beginners equation" (even though it is the equation that everybody else on your team refers to in these discussions as if it is of major significance, and act like it is used constantly by professionals). Maybe that’s why Clint R refers to it as "bogus".

            In any case, I wouldn’t want you to take my word for it…the balance of the experimental evidence, as it currently stands, is in favour of there being no GPE.

          • Ball4 says:

            … when the 2LOT is misapplied by DREMT.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            How can experimental results possibly be affected by my application of 2LoT!? Ball4 makes less and less sense every day.

          • Ball4 says:

            There is no “balance” of experimental evidence contradicting the 2LOT, DREMT, so your application of 2LOT remains misapplied.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4 just endlessly twists and distorts everything, as is his purpose here. He’ll respond, but he won’t be getting the last word, so he’s just wasting his time.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            No DREMT. You insisted multiple times that 300 W got back to the sphere, not the correct 273 W. My multiple replies were just because it was tough to pinpoint your mistaken thinking and/or get you to accept correct physics.

            “Except to say that the radiative heat transfer equation is not really fit for purpose”
            Science is all about equations that are ‘good enough’ for the job at hand. For example, there is no need to resort to quantum mechanics or relativity to understand the motion of baseballs.

            What you want to call ‘THE radiative heat transfer equation’ is always presented as applying to an object of area A at one temperature with surroundings at another temperature. For that purpose, it is perfect fit. For that purpose, the size of the surroundings doesn’t matter.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, Tim, that is an incorrect summary of events. The correct sequence of events is available for anybody to read by simply scrolling up and looking through the discussion. The issue with the 273 vs. 300 W was resolved some time ago. I had moved on from that, and was, for the last couple of days, trying to get you to understand the question I was asking. It took considerable effort on my part to get you to see what I was actually getting at. Even though the question was perfectly clear the first time I asked it.

            And, you still have not really answered it.

          • Willard says:

            Tim,

            I see that Graham D. Warner is still commenting, and his comments are getting longer and longer after you called him out on the Greenplate Effect.

            So I suspect he is trying to wash his hands over it.

            If that’s correct, then you could remind him that he has justified invading my own thread by pretending that Multi-Layer Insulation was related to the Greenplate Effect.

            So he would then be trying to have it both ways.

            I’m sure this won’t surprise you or anyone else if that happens.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim would no doubt agree with me that MLI is related to the GPE. Little Willy is a proven stalker and doxer, and is lucky that he is able to comment at this blog at all.

          • Willard says:

            Oh, and Tim, just in case (I see him protesting again), Graham D. Warner’s exact words were:

            Astute readers will know that bringing up MLI always means you’re talking, ultimately, about the GPE…

            which is kinda backwards, for the GPE is a thought experiment that only has Climateba currency, whereas Multi-Layer Isolation is currently being in use in high tech!

            This excuse might not cohere with his claim that some of your comments were unrelated to the GPE, but then we know that Graham isn’t the most coherent Sky Dragon crank.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            DREMT, you wanted to know “Is there a provision in the radiative heat transfer equation to take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction?”

            I answered multiple times. Yes, that is exactly what the view factor does — the view factor is the provision for taking into account ANY geometry.

            You said you understood that … but you still kept asking for further clarification and specific examples, as if a general equation was not good enough.

            Plus you thought heat can move between two objects at the same temperature.
            Plus you STILL haven’t given any equation or physical principle about how photons get “returned” without getting reflected or absorbed & re-emitted.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, Tim. For crying out loud. The simple, direct, and honest answer to my question is “no”. There is no provision in the radiative heat transfer equation (12-19) to take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction. It only has a provision for view factors in one direction! Hence why you redirected me to equation (12-18), and said that (12-19) was just a beginner equation!

            Clint R has already given you all the answers you seek on how photons are returned from the blue plate to the green plate, so your constantly asking is not honest.

          • Ball4 says:

            Clint R? That’s a laugh, Clint R can’t even explain a GHE correctly let alone the GPE.

            Photons from the blue plate are new ones having just been created when emitted from the BP increasing universe entropy in the process thus the photons are not the same ones “returned” to the green plate.

          • Nate says:

            “You still havent really answered it”

            Yes he did. For anyone with basic math skills who is motivated to understand and learn.

            If the radiative heat transfer equation is valid, which it is, then the T of the surroundings of the sphere MATTERS.

            It matters because the NET emitted flux from the sphere will be REDUCED when the shell, which is much warmer than space, is present, because the NET flux is proportional to (Tsphere^4 -Tshell^4).

            And the only way for the sphere to reach energy balance with the shell present, is for Tsphere to rise.

          • Nate says:

            “There is no provision in the radiative heat transfer equation (12-19) to take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction. ”

            False. This has been clearly explained by Tim, by me, and by the document itself.

            It is extremely simple math. But I guess it needs to be spoon fed to DREMT.

            The term A1*F12 is equal to A2*F21, by reciprocity, as they noted right above equation 12-19.

            Thus in the equation 12-19, only the first term is needed, because the two terms are EQUAL.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4, as everybody on your little team is more than well aware, Clint R has explained that photons arriving at the blue plate, from the green plate, are reflected due to "wavelength mismatch". I’m not sure why we have to go through this silly ritual every time where various members of your team suddenly pretend to be completely unaware that this has been explained multiple times over many years, in great detail. You disagree, sure…but don’t pretend it hasn’t been explained. You will say, "the blue plate is a blackbody, so cannot reflect the photons". Clint R will say, "a blackbody cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT". You will say, "there’s no 2LoT violation because it’s just an example of radiative insulation", Clint R will explain that’s not the case…and on and on it goes.

            Ultimately, I don’t pretend to know what happens to individual photons, and I think it’s a waste of time arguing about it. So, since I’m aware that the energy from the GP cannot possibly result in the BP warming (and that, in the end, no matter what way you try to dress it up, is what you’re saying is happening), I simply state that the energy from GP to BP is returned to the GP. I don’t really care how it happens. All I know is…it must…since that energy cannot warm the BP.

          • Nate says:

            “Clint R has explained that photons arriving at the blue plate, from the green plate, are reflected due to “wavelength mismatch”

            And you know that he is correct how? Hint: he just made it up.

            You claim that since you are not a PhD physicist, that you were seeking answers from Tim, who is, on radiative heat transfer.

            But then you deny that answers were given (they were), and bizarrely insist that you know better about radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics than the physicists!

            And you defer instead to the faux authority of non-physicist Clint.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "You might go back and understand the reciprocity relation A1 F1→2 = A2 F2→1.
            In our case, A1 F1→2 = 1m^2 * 1 = 1 A2 F2→1 = 1.1m^2 + 0.90909 = 1
            Because these are equal, we can simplify the equation so it LOOKS like F2→1 is not there, but it is. (Just like it LOOKS like the area of surface 2 doesn’t matter, but it does)."

            Tim, there is no provision for view factor F2→1 in the radiative heat transfer equation. Hence the correct answer to my question was "no". You could add that, thanks to the reciprocity relation, there is no need for the RHTE to include F2→1 in the case of the sphere and shell, if you want…but the answer was still "no".

          • Nate says:

            “There is no provision in the radiative heat transfer equation (12-19) to take into account a situation where the view factor is equal to one in one direction, but less than one in the other direction.”

            False, the equation is correct as given, for just that situation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …but the answer was still "no".

          • Willard says:

            What did Graham D. Warner say, Nate?

            Did he give a straight answer to Tim’s remark that the reciprocity relation applied?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yep…and the correct answer to my question was still “no”.

          • Nate says:

            As ever he is blaming others for his confusions.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …and the correct answer to my question was still "no".

          • Willard says:

            Is Graham D. Warner still trying to last word a subthread by pretending he does not respond to you but by repeating over and over again his comment after yours, Nate?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Another last word attempt from Little Willy.

          • Nate says:

            Yep as usual, he will get the coveted last word award.

            Though overall his efforts are a bust.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate is still in their punching for the last word, but DREMT isn’t going to let him have until he offers actual scientific proof his position is correct; which of course is his responsibility as he is the one obligated to defend the science he claims to be correct.

            Its important to defend your freedom to fight to your last breath against BS offered as a legitimate reason to take your freedom away from you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "…when the sphere is at 270 K and the shell is at 263 K. Because as far as I’m concerned, heat flow should be zero between the sphere and the shell in that scenario…because the shell is bigger than the sphere, and so despite the difference in temperature, the energy should balance out so that heat flow is nil."

            The only reason I think the above is that with the sphere at 270 K and the shell at 263 K, the shell is now emitting out to space the 300 W that the sphere is emitting. It would be like the outside of the shell had simply become the new outer radiating surface for the sphere, and its internal 300 W heater.

            Whereas, if the sphere was at 270 K and the shell was also at 270 K, even though I understand that the sphere would now be receiving 300 W from the shell, the outside (and inside) of the shell would have to be emitting more than 300 W. It would be emitting 300 W/m^2, but with a surface area of 1.1 m^2, so 330 W each side. Where would the extra 30 W, each side of the shell, have come from?

            So, that was all that was going on there. It’s specific to this particular problem with the heat source sphere and passive shell. It’s not like I didn’t understand that unheated objects in a 20 C room will come to 20 C. It’s not like I hadn’t come to understand that the view factor from the shell to the sphere is less than one (0.90909).

            And, none of this affects my understanding of the Green Plate Effect, because the view factors between the plates are one in both directions, in any case. It’s all been a diversion from the GPE, for the most part.

          • Willard says:

            > which is kinda backwards, for the GPE is a thought experiment that only has Climateba currency, whereas Multi-Layer Isolation is currently being in use in high tech!

            Climateball currency, that is.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Looks like Tim has “left the building”, anyway.

          • Willard says:

            > isnt going to let him have until

            And so Gill projects his own sammich request technique onto Graham D. Warner. And as if any Sky Dragon crank left a thread saying “oh, I see, my bad.”

            LMAO!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy is quite determined to get the last word.

          • Nate says:

            “DREMT isnt going to let him have until he offers actual scientific proof”

            First, he doesnt want any proof from me.

            Second, he has seen the proof by Tim.

            Third the proof was shown by Eli over 6 years ago for GPE and not long after by Willis E. for the Steel Greenhouse, using basic, well established physics.

            And again by folks here from time to time over the years.

            And then an experiment was done by Swanson.

            It takes real effort to continue to deny and evade learning the very basic physics involved for that long!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …Willy is quite determined to get the last word.

        • Willard says:

          If Graham D. Warner can’t grasp the basics after all these years, that’s on him.

        • Bill Hunter says:

          Tim Folkerts says:

          ”But blackbody surfaces still work (similar to solid glass still working).”

          single glazed windows generally pass 5.2w/m2 k . That is very near blackbody which represents insignificant resistance to heat loss.

          https://www.cuin.glass/blog/u-value-single-vs-double-vs-triple-glazing-vs-c-u-in/

          That would represent a u value of approximately 1 (.95-.98)

          https://indowwindows.com/resources/blog/r-value-vs-u-value

          As I have pointed out numerous times there is only a slight resistance to heat passing through a window or a metal plate. Yet you guys continue to spew your nonsense without coming up with a shred of evidence.

          There are literally hundreds of sources that say you are wrong.

          • Willard says:

            Gill ignores that absolutely still air has an R-value of 3.6 per inch of air – as good as most insulation materials.

            LMAO!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            willard is really struggling with this topic.

            i was talking about Tim’s claim ”But blackbody surfaces still work (similar to solid glass still working).” why are you talking about air gaps?

          • Willard says:

            Gill still refuses to accept that 300 + 300 300 = 300.

            ROLCOPTER

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …and 300 + 300 – 300 – 300 = 0.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tim was wrong, I was right. There is no energy balancing problem with my solution to his problem. You clearly cannot follow the discussion.

          • Willard says:

            Graham D. Warner is surely doing a touchdown dance as we speak.

            Those who read him might confirm.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You clearly cannot follow the discussion.

          • Willard says:

            Graham D. Warner should be drawing, instead he is wasting time writing comments that are not read.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Looks like nobody including obviously Willard knows what Willard was talking about an air gap having a R value of 3.6.

            Why especially Willard? An air gap by itself has no R value. In a well designed wall system that include reflective foil, interior drywall, exterior plywood, covered with siding you might achieve an R value of 3.6 . . .no doubt Willard read something like that an imagines the sky to be an optimally constructed wall with an air gap while he lives in his basement.

          • Willard says:

            Looks like Gill really believes that the atmosphere is a wall of air. This might explain why he provides quite an atmosphere to Roy’s.

            Air can indeed be more efficient than what I suggested earlier:

            Sealed Airs vacuum insulation panels have unmatched performance
            with an Rvalue of 40 to ensure the shipper remains in the right temperature range over a transit period of up to 120 hours.

            https://www.sealedair.com/content/dam/protective-materials/tempguard/kevothermal/kevothermal-vip-brochure-na.pdf

            Perhaps he could write to that company and explain to them that they are breaking thermo.

            LOL!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Willard says:

            ”Sealed Airs vacuum insulation panels have unmatched performance
            with an Rvalue of 40”

            Perhaps Little Willy you will add to the list below in your huddle with Tim over how many polished and black aluminum panels are flying around in the sky affecting our climate with how many ”vacuum insultation panels” are flying around.

          • Willard says:

            It’s about time Gill realizes that his R-values are a complete red herring. LOL!

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “single glazed windows generally pass 5.2w/m2 k . That is very near blackbody ”
            I am not sure how this is “near a blackbody”. Are you saying that a number like 5.2 W/m^2 K applies to blackbodies? [N.b. “W” and “K” should be capitalized.]

            “only a slight resistance to heat passing through a window or a metal plate. ”
            Glass is ~ 200x better insulation than metal. Lumping these together as similar seem odd indeed.

            You might also pay attention to this in your link:
            “Uncoated Double Glazing 2.7 W/m2K
            Coated Double Glazing 1.2 W/m2K”

            Adding a coating to change IR emissivity halves the energy loss! Apparently the IR properties DO make a big difference in insulation.

            Finally, I will point out the the circumstances of the earth vs a house are quite different. Using house insulation as a stand-in for global insulation is dubious at best. A tin ceiling being inefficient as house insulation does not tell us much at all about GHGs being effective for the earth.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Tim Folkerts says:

            ”Finally, I will point out the the circumstances of the earth vs a house are quite different. Using house insulation as a stand-in for global insulation is dubious at best. A tin ceiling being inefficient as house insulation does not tell us much at all about GHGs being effective for the earth.”

            i agree completely tim. i have been trying really hard to get you guys to actually explain what you are using in detail. but all you do is stonewall and criticize every analogy. what are you using to rationalize the ghe?

          • Willard says:

            Gill agrees that he’s throwing useless squirrels around. And and then asks for more receipts. As if squirrels-for-science was in any way fair. LOL!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            willard is basically saying just pay taxes and just ignore government waste. sorry willard i am asking nothing from you cause i already know you won’t service the request

          • Willard says:

            Gill thinks that only the Chewbacca Defense can save Sky Dragon cranks.

            ROFL!

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Caveat Emptor!

          • Willard says:

            Res ipsa loquitur.

          • Nate says:

            “i agree completely tim. i have been trying really hard to get you guys to actually explain what you are using in detail. but all you do is stonewall and criticize every analogy. what are you using to rationalize the ghe?”

            Glad you agree that different situations produce different answers.

            Not our job to spoon feed to you the scientific papers that describe the GHE. We have tried explaining things many times, and provided papers and articles and discussed them with you many times.

            What we have learned is that there is no profit in it, since, you don’t really grasp the details, and don’t appear to want to learn.

            Your goal in the end is to reject the evidence.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate continues to lie. Here is the discussion and the paper he claimed as proof.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567
            With this paper that doesn’t purport to prove anything.
            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml

          • Nate says:

            The discussion you posted perfectly illustrates this:

            “We have tried explaining things many times, and provided papers and articles and discussed them with you many times.”

            Similarly I have discussed MW 1967 with you several times, and Hansen et al 1981 several times.

            MW 1967 developed the multi-layer atmosphere model, with radiation and convection, and used it to more accurately predict AGW.

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml

            Hansen used a quite similar but more sophisticated model (yet more simply explained) and used it to model the previous T history, and make specific predictions for future warming that proved accurate.

            https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

            The paper you mentioned above, shows why the increasing radiating level (Hansen described it at a basic level), is the dominant contributor to AGW.

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml

            And Modtran data concurs.

            The point is we have discussed these papers, that contain real GHE models (blueprints) in them, with you in detail.

            Are they easy to understand for a non-expert like yourself?

            No.

            But if you dont really comprehend them, then you have no business judging their merits.

            Science is not wrong simply because you don’t understand it.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            MW 1967 developed the multi-layer atmosphere model

            Hansen used a quite similar but more sophisticated model

            And Modtran data concurs.

            The point is we have discussed these papers, that contain real GHE models (blueprints) in them, with you in detail.

            But if you dont really comprehend them, then you have no business judging their merits.

            Science is not wrong simply because you dont understand it.
            ———————-

            Well what you fail to understand is models don’t prove anything. You can make a model nearly do anything you want simply by fudging multiple variables even when each of those variables are constrained within a reasonable range.

            Thats why accountants have to provide disclaimers when ever they review prospective results of operations. Proof comes from when all variables were correct in a model and the model in retrospect matched what had happened and that had occurred a statistically determined number of times without error.

            The last 6 out of 9 posts by Roy has been showing how the models are failing to do that and yet you sit there waving your arm claiming the models prove the mainstream greenhouse theory. What would it take for you to accept that you are wrong?

          • Willard says:

            > Well what you fail to understand is

            Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!

          • Nate says:

            “Well what you fail to understand is models dont prove anything.”

            Firstly they clearly prove that your repeated claims that we havent shown you the ‘blueprints’ of GHE theory, are FALSE.

            And they prove that the real issue is that you don’t know how to read the ‘blueprints’ that have been shown to you.

            Yet continually demand that people spoon feed them to you, else you feel empowered to reject the science.

            Sorry to tell you that the science aint wrong simply because you don’t have the ability to understand it.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            I have asking for years a link to few of those alleged blueprints. Saying they exist in black boxes is one thing, saying that information is publicly available is another.

            We are all interested in why the models have such strong variations. AFAIK, there are no specific physics as to how the energy absorbed at new and higher TOA places in the atmosphere gets back to the surface.

            An analysis of the better performing models vs their parameterizations and observations of those parameterizations would reveal for example if the physics is there or they just start with CO2 caused surface warming after abso-rp-tion at a mean 16km up in the atmosphere or whether the thing the models purport to prove is assumed in the model.

            Thats relatively easy to test if you have the code and initiation parameters.

            The second test would be to determine if all known parameters that affect the climate are in the model such as details of the Milankovich cycles currently implicated for major climate changes. What good would be a model without them? Did somebody just wave their arms and assume they don’t apply?

            People want to know what the assumptions are in the models so they can see and determine whether there is a reality to their outputs.

            So please deluge me with the underlying code for the models and the opening parameterizations for each model matched to a beginning date so we can determine if the changes in each field is matching observations.

            I am sure everybody in here is interested in knowing if your statement here is true: ”Firstly they clearly prove that your repeated claims that we havent shown you the blueprints of GHE theory, are FALSE.”

            the last time you claimed that here:
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567

            obviously you were lying then as one only needs to read what you provided to clearly see you were lying. I can only presume you continue to lie.

          • Nate says:

            “I have asking for years a link to few of those alleged blueprints. Saying they exist in black boxes is one thing, saying that information is publicly available is another.”

            You have gotten all the links. Quit ur bitchin!

          • Nate says:

            “AFAIK, there are no specific physics as to how the energy absorbed at new and higher TOA places in the atmosphere gets back to the surface.”

            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’.

            And thus the entire lapse rate curve warms. Reread the paper.

            This is the result that the physics and math explicitly produces.

            This has been explain several times. And I have given you helpful analogies, eg. the T gradient in your attic.

            If you still don’t get it that is your problem, not mine, not science’s.

          • Nate says:

            “obviously you were lying then”

            Quote the specific lie. And explain why it is a lie.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nate says:

            AFAIK, there are no specific physics as to how the energy absorbed at new and higher TOA places in the atmosphere gets back to the surface.

            The whole point of the layer model MW 1967, is that thermal energy is shared upward and downward between the layers.

            —————————–
            A model doesn’t prove anything Nate. They are built on theories proven and not proven. A model can help you zero in on proof as can a handheld calculator by quickly crunching numbers. But like all software, garbage in garbage out.

            And of course you are wrong in generally saying ”thermal energy is shared upward and downward. A layer only shares energy in the direction that heat can travel. For a typical layer in the atmosphere it can lose energy upwards because upwards is generally cooler. But it loses zero energy downwards because downwards is generally warmer.

            Insulation works on the same principle but with insulation you don’t have buoyant molecules transferring heat mechanically instead of electromagnetically.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Its a lie because you keep insisting you have provided the proof when you haven’t even come close.

          • Nate says:

            “Models don’t prove anything”

            Irrelevant to your false claims that I have been lying about showing you the ‘blueprints’.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2024-0-86-deg-c/#comment-1623161

          • Nate says:

            “keep insisting you have provided the proof”

            Shameless misrepresentation.

            I have only been insisting that you have been given the blueprints, which are the GHE theories, and had them explained to you several times.

          • Nate says:

            “And of course you are wrong in generally saying thermal energy is shared upward and downward. A layer only shares energy in the direction that heat can travel.”

            Still mansplaining physics to a physicist?

            The layers radiate upward and downward. Thought you understood this basic physics. Apparently you still don’t.

            You could have just looked at the equations in MW 1967. Obviously you didnt, or didnt understand them.

            And convection reduces, if the layer above has warmed relative to the layer below.

          • Nate says:

            https://phys.org/news/2021-10-influential-climate-science-paper.html

            Layman’s explanation of why MW 1967 was so important.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Except there is a lie in Nate’s source where it claims if it were a solar or orbit change influence the entire atmosphere should have heated up.

            The problem is that variation in ozone strongly affects the stratosphere and increases in water vapor and clouds will do the same. It seems safe to presume an increase in cloudiness as the climate warms. But Nate’s masters have trained him to not think for himself. He is a bad bad boy if he thinks such thoughts. Another would be my gawd what happens if convection and/or cloudiness increases as a result of more CO2? Suddenly it might not even warm one degree even if CO2 has some weird ability to warm something warmer than itself.

          • Nate says:

            “Except there is a lie in Nates source where it claims if it were a solar or orbit change influence the entire atmosphere should have heated up.”

            Nonsense.

            And my supposed LIE seems to have vaporized, again.

          • Nate says:

            Do you ever feel like you need to take a break from all this grievance?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            Nonsense?

            Are you claiming that if the solar constant increased by either a hotter sun or variation in the earth’s orbit due to planet alignment that more water wouldn’t evaporate carrying orders of magnitude more heat and that stratospheric cooling wouldn’t result from all the clouds that would generate?

            You calling it nonsense is the biggest piece of nonsense I have seen anybody post around here.

          • Nate says:

            “Are you claiming that..”

            Your wild speculations don’t prove the source is lying.

          • Nate says:

            The source you appear to be bashing is MW 1967, considered the most influential Climate Science paper of the last few decades.

            In it, they model the effect of added CO2 with a physic-based model. And their simulation clearly predicts that troposphere will warm, and the stratosphere will cool a greater amount.

            It is specifically the CO2 that produces the strong stratospheric cooling, they found.

            And indeed, another mechanism for warming, increasing solar insolation, did not produce the stratospheric cooling in their simulations.

            Both the tropospheric warming and the stratospheric cooling from increasing CO2, that they have predicted, have been observed over the following decades.

            And more details have been learned about the subject since then.

            Have you done any simulations? I suspect not.

            Thus your claims have not been ‘certified’ in any way, so I am surprised you consider them to be valid….

    • Willard says:

      Graham D. Warner gaslights again:

      Thermal insulation is the reduction of heat transfer (i.e., the transfer of thermal energy between objects of differing temperature) between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence. Thermal insulation can be achieved with specially engineered methods or processes, as well as with suitable object shapes and materials.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation

      That’s it.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Your own link proves me right:

        “Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[1] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”

        Thank you.

        • Willard says:

          Graham D. Warner gaslights again:

          Thermal insulation. Subject.

          Provides a region of insulation. Predicate.

          In which thermal conduction is reduced. The main description he keeps missing.

          Creating a thermal break or thermal barrier. One possibility.

          Or. Logic connector Graham always distorts.

          Thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body. Another possibility.

          This is not *my* website, BTW. It’s just a wiki entry.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …but we’re not talking about thermal conduction being reduced, because we’re talking about radiative insulation, specifically. Thus the only relevant sentence is the "reflected rather than absorbed" one…and that proves me right.

          • Willard says:

            Graham D. Warner keeps trying to determine what *I* am talking about.

            In *my* own thread.

            Thermal insulation is the reduction of heat transfer between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence.

            That’s it.

            Nothing more, nothing less.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …and, radiatively, it’s where thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.

            That’s it.

            Nothing more, nothing less.

          • Willard says:

            Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:

            The principle behind [Multi-Layer Insulation] is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.

            Op. Cit.

            By his Sky Dragon crank logic, spacecrafts would only need one layer!
            . This thread isn’t about what he tries to make it about. Worse, he keeps insisting on pure reflection *while* whining about blackbodies!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "By his Sky Dragon crank logic, spacecrafts would only need one layer!"

            That’s certainly not my logic. More layers are more effective, but of course all of those layers, in practice, use reflective materials. The GPE idea that multiple layers of blackbody materials would somehow eventually add up to a perfectly reflecting layer is nonsense. What would changing all those layers to reflective materials then achieve? Nothing!

          • Willard says:

            It is indeed Graham D. Warner’s logic that insulation either proceeds one way or the other but not both, whereas it is an engineering fact that multi-layer insulation works both ways, just *any* substance in the universe, except perhaps black holes.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Huh? What on Earth are you talking about?

          • Willard says:

            Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Absolutely not.

            This makes sense:

            A blackbody (reflectivity zero) has no radiative insulating capability. A perfect reflector (reflectivity one) is a perfect radiative insulator. Everything real exists on a spectrum between the two.

            This makes no sense:

            A blackbody (reflectivity zero) already has considerable radiative insulating capability. A perfect reflector (reflectivity one) is a perfect radiative insulator. So everything real exists on a spectrum between pretty good radiative insulator and just below perfect.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT, here’s what makes sense for real objects conforming to Planck’s law:

            Reflectivity + emissivity + transmissivity = 1.0

            For the GPE objects which do conform to Planck’s law:

            0 + 1.0 + 0 = 1.0

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No contradiction there to anything I said.

          • Ball4 says:

            Great. Less word salad.

          • Willard says:

            Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, I’m not gaslighting. Never have, never will.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …I’m not gaslighting. Never have, never will.

          • Nate says:

            Again, DREMT shamelessly picks and choose which information to accept and which to reject in Wikipedia pages.

            This

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation

            “The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”

            is rejected, with no rationale offered.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nate, knowing full well that I do not read or respond to his comments, nevertheless once again tries to interject into a discussion that I am involved in.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            nate’s dialog isn’t proof. where is your evidence?

          • Willard says:

            Gill’s comments are an absolute proof that he still does not know that air can act as an insulator.

            LOL!

          • Nate says:

            “nates dialog isnt proof. where is your evidence?”

            After I show a link, with a clear explanation, a derived equation, using real laws of physics, Bill asks for evidence.

            Clearly, he doesnt actually WANT evidence.

            DREMT pretends that facts in posts he doesnt read, but everbody else can read (and he has read before) can be ignored!

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            DREMT, try this for intuition.

            “A perfectly transparent material has no radiative insulating capability because is does not interact with radiation. It stops no radiation and sends no radiation back.
            A perfect reflector (reflectivity one) is a perfect radiative insulator. This returns all radiation and lets none through.”

            You should be thinking “perfectly transparent” for your “other end of the spectrum”.

            Maybe this will help. Consider sitting outdoors on a chilly day with an IR heater a few feet away. The transparent air between you and the heater will provide no radiative insulation for that IR heater. You (and your chair and your table) will be warmed by the heater.

            At the ‘other end of the spectrum’ a sheet of reflective aluminum will provide excellent radiative insulation. The IR from the heater will bounce off in other directions.

            What if we paint the aluminum black on both sides. Now the IR gets absorbed, rather than reflected. This makes the sheet warm up a bit. This makes the side facing you warm up — and radiate more. Not a lot perhaps, but more than the the chilly surroundings. You are pretty well, isolated from the warming effects of the IR heater, but not perfectly.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Thanks, Tim, but I’m happy with my 2:07 PM comment from yesterday.

            No GPE.

          • Nate says:

            Be happy then. But don’t expect to convince others.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …Tim, but I’m happy with my 2:07 PM comment from yesterday.

            No GPE.

          • Willard says:

            Has Graham D. Warner said he was drawing, Nate?

            I stopped reading his comments since he started hot doggin’.

          • Ball4 says:

            … only if the 1LOT and/or 2LOT are misapplied as in DREMT’s work.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says: