The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2024 was +0.93 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up from the January, 2024 anomaly of +0.86 deg. C, and equaling the record high monthly anomaly of +0.93 deg. C set in October, 2023.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).
A new monthly record high temperature was set in February for the global-average ocean, +0.91 deg. C.
The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 14 months (record highs are in red):
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.13 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.09 | +0.17 | +0.00 | -0.10 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.17 | -0.13 | -1.43 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.26 | -0.03 | -0.37 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.40 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.07 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.88 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.44 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.70 | +0.88 | +0.51 | +0.86 | +0.94 | +1.54 | +1.25 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.90 | +0.94 | +0.86 | +0.93 | +0.40 | +1.13 | +1.17 |
| 2023 | Oct | +0.93 | +1.02 | +0.83 | +1.00 | +0.99 | +0.92 | +0.63 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.91 | +1.01 | +0.82 | +1.03 | +0.65 | +1.16 | +0.42 |
| 2023 | Dec | +0.83 | +0.93 | +0.73 | +1.08 | +1.26 | +0.26 | +0.85 |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.86 | +1.06 | +0.66 | +1.27 | -0.05 | +0.40 | +1.18 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.93 | +1.03 | +0.83 | +1.24 | +1.36 | +0.88 | +1.07 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for February, 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:
I suppose I should leap in and ask Willard to stop trolling before he starts, but I won’t.
And I say Flynnson is the very first one who should stop tr0lling all the time but for sure he won’t.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Silly sock puppet.
Good to see there wasn’t much of a delay.
A bit warmer than I expected given the ERA data, but that did depend on the last few days.
This marks 9 months in a row, where the monthly record has been broken. In this case the record for February was broken by more than 0.2C.
The top ten warmest Februaries are now
1 2024 0.93
2 2016 0.71
3 2020 0.60
4 1998 0.49
5 2017 0.31
6 2010 0.30
7 2019 0.22
8 2021 0.20
9 2002 0.14
10 2003 0.09
2018, and 2023 are tied with 2003 for tenth place.
Before 2023, February 2016 was the highest anomaly of all months. March 2016 was the second highest at 0.65C. Now February 2016 is only the 7th highest anomaly.
Of the top ten highest anomalies, 8 where made in the last year.
Year Month Anomaly
1 2023 10 0.93
2 2024 2 0.93
3 2023 11 0.91
4 2023 9 0.90
5 2024 1 0.86
6 2023 12 0.83
7 2016 2 0.71
8 2023 8 0.70
9 2016 3 0.65
10 2023 7 0.64
I don’t think record breakers are the best way to assess warming. But it’s pretty clear it has been unusually warm in the last 8 months.
My simple statistical model – that was completely wrong last year, is currently predicting 2024 as being 0.64 +/- 0.21C, with a greater than 90% chance of setting a record.
I doubt the odds are that high, as this is a very unusual situation, and I still expect the El Nino effects will more quickly than usual.
What does your statistical model look like?
Pause wise – the trend from October 2015 is now 0.16C / decade, and the trend over the last 6 years is 0.60C / decade.
The trend since the start of Monckton’s “Great Pause” is now pretty much identical with the overall trend at around 0.15C / decade.
Do not put your faith in cherry-picked short term deviations in trends.
That’s why the Monckton Pause receives so much ridicule here.
The 13 month running mean keeps on rising and breaking records. Now 0.2 C above the old record. How high will it go?
Nate,
You wrote –
“How high will it go?”
Have you an answer? Have you asked a climate scientist or fortune teller, or are you just hammering away on your keyboard trying to appear intelligent?
The future is unknowable.
“The future is unknowable.”
Not really. I can predict with confidence that very soon you will mention something about the state of the Earth 4.5 Billion years ago.
And that factoid will, again, tell us absolutely nothing about the current global climate trajectory.
Nate says:
”Not really. I can predict with confidence that very soon you will mention something about the state of the Earth 4.5 Billion years ago.”
Indeed Nate we see you predicting with confidence the direction of chaotic systems on a regular basis.
Gill is an astrologer who can’t predict seasons. ROFL.
And prediction was highly accurate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1637579
“You still havent managed to describe this mythical greenhouse effect. What was its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?”
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I was expecting a February anomaly of +0.90 °C. +0.93 °C is bunkers.
Good job.
I have to credit where it is due. Nice job.
Arkady, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
M
O
N
K
T
O
N
P
A
W
S
Does your propagandist gobbledygook have some meaning?
You could beg more questions than your comments word count, Troglodyte:
https://newrepublic.com/post/178602/pa-man-decapitates-father-video-uprising-biden-regime
Only Lord Puzzler knows what he means.
W
You would make Fernando proud.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wiltard practices the philosophy of Pride, Anger, Envy, and Sloth.
You miss three, Troglodyte.
Who said “The mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” and pleaded the fifth more than 450 times?
Is that the best you can do?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I haven’t observed the other three but if you say so.
Moral qualities aren’t observable entities, Troglodyte.
Here’s what’s observable:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-biden-obama-b2506194.html
Marxist/Fascist ideology is easily observable.
Troglodyte can recognize his own:
https://goad.substack.com/p/getting-kicked-out-of-the-trump-event
Empty vessels make the loudest noise,Plato.
Fake skeptics fall for fake quotes.
Wiltard believes that moral qualities aren’t observable. He’s a genius!
Troglodyte projects his moral judgements into his perceptions.
Priceless.
You think you speak for Western culture. You hate Western culture. Marxist.
You think your mind probes do not carry a cost, Troglodyte:
https://bsky.app/profile/nytimes.com/post/3kn7qq6z7nc2m
apparently he punched some low life that offered his daughter cocaine at a party in a las vegas hotel. the guy went down and hit his head on a coffee table. sounds like justified accidental homicide. but his hands may be registered as deadly weapons considering he was a professional wrestler.
Apparently Gill says stuff.
No wonder he and Troglodyte are reviving Hoovers playbook;
https://theconversation.com/president-trump-revives-j-edgar-hoovers-tyrannical-playbook-128730
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Another big bump. Not surprising, given the very warm ocean temperatures lately. El Nino and global warming are a nasty mix. With that big fire in TX, which is still still out of control as I writre, Some folks in West Texas might realize things may get even worse in future years. Think they will still vote for Trumpy?
Climate change is driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents.
There is no artifact of Trump in any climate data.
Only the seriously deluded think they can fight climate change. Only a mo ro n would decide their vote on the basis of fighting climate change.
El Nino and global warming are a nasty mix.
There’s no nasty mix; warming is a good thing. We also are unsure what is really behind the spike.
El Nino and global warming are behind the spike.
b,
El Nino is a pattern of historical weather observations. Just a name for a set of numbers.
Didn’t you know that?
The spike started in May and rose more than half a degree until September; there is no way those variables alone can fully account for that, not even close.
Yep. ENSO and total heat uptake is all you need to explain most of the UAH TLT changes. There are, of course, other contributors (like solar, volcanic, etc.) but those are minor compared to the first two.
b,
El Nino is a pattern of historical weather observations. Just a name for a set of numbers.
Didnt you know that?
That’s laughably absurd. You can’t explain climate change with just two variables.
> Thats laughably absurd.
1. Denial.
***
> You cant explain climate change with just two variables.
See above.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“ENSO and total heat uptake is all you need to explain”
Hmmm. The N. Hemisphere Atlantic stepped up very high early last year for some unknown reason, which cannot have been ENSO.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
click N. Atlantic.
Willard,
The 2016 El Nio reached a high of 0.71, while the 1998 El Nio reached a high of 0.62. The 2016 El Nio was very strong (2.6 ONI index), and the 1998 El Nio was also very strong (2.4 ONI index). However, the current one is less intense (~2.0 ONI index). Despite this, the sea surface temperature anomaly is more than 0.2 higher than the previous peak. Notably, the current El Nio started peaking last spring, well before the normal timeframe, and peaked in the fall without rising above that level since. There is a possibility of breaking the previous record, but the sustained nature of the current conditions is unusual.
Explain this phenomenon with just those ENSO and global warming, LOL.
“Despite this, the sea surface temperature anomaly is more than 0.2 higher than the previous peak.”
global, not sea surface.
walter: Thats laughably absurd. You cant explain climate change with just two variables.
First…I didn’t say climate change could be explained with just 2 variables. What I said is “Yep. ENSO and total heat uptake is all you need to explain most of the UAH TLT changes. There are, of course, other contributors (like solar, volcanic, etc.) but those are minor compared to the first two.”
Second…I stand by what I said. In my model only two variables is all that is need to explain most of the UAH TLT changes. It is proof that it can be done.
And don’t hear what I didn’t say. I didn’t say two variables can explain all of the UAH TLT changes. I didn’t say the variables that my model uses are the best. I didn’t say that there aren’t other factors. There are an infinite number of things I didn’t actually say. So make sure if you want to challenge something make sure I actually said it first.
https://i.imgur.com/bil9W22.png
Bdgwx boldly claims that a mere two variables are responsible for the spike, only to then attempt a desperate retreat into the comforting embrace of his laughably simplistic model featuring a grand total of five variables.
Monkey Man goes so far as to deny what he can see with his own eyes, implying that every variable in a model must be explanatory.
LOL
Willard, it’s clear to any reader that the assertion regarding the sole drivers behind the spike being global warming and El Nio didn’t originate from me. This oversimplified attribution tends to surface frequently in climate science discussions.
Monkey Man it’s clear that you keep using a formal apparatus that you do not master very well.
Patience, grasshopper.
walter, It’s hardly a bold claim. Others, including Dr. Spencer, have said as much.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/weak-el-nino-conditions-help-explain-recent-global-warmth/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard is a monkey.
bdgwx is a monkey.
The learning! Oh, the learning!
LOL
I know. How can anyone expect to learn if they disregard the most important element of climate – unpredictability?
“walter, Its hardly a bold claim. Others, including Dr. Spencer, have said as much.”
What holds true in 2020 cannot be assumed to not hold true in 2023, even if you do endorse what Dr. Spencer said in that link.
*cannot be assumed to hold true*
Is there any unpredictability in Monkey Man’s talking points?
walter, There’s no reason why total heat uptake and ENSO would not be contributing in 2023. The real question is whether there are additional factors that were unique to 2023. The fact that this El Nino is a bit more atypical in its timing suggests a new factor could be playing a minor role. But there are always other factors playing a minor role. Those minor factors obviously help determine the exact magnitude of the spikes…ya know…whether it ends at 0.93 or 0.90 or some other specific value. But those minor factors don’t explain the spikes like how the two primary factors do.
Nate brought up the anomalous North Atlantic anomaly above; there’s a potentially big variable. Plus, El Nio doesn’t start its impact in May; it starts in the autumn. So the spike arrived way too early for this to be classified as El Nio timing. Overall heat uptake would not be a primary factor for such an anomalous event; it would be a small contributor because this is weather, not climate.
“brought up the anomalous North Atlantic anomaly above;”
*the unusual North Atlantic anomaly above*
“So the spike arrived way too early for this to be classified as El Nio timing.”
*classified as abnormal El Nio timing*
The ENSO response in the UAH TLT layer typical lags ENSO itself by 4-5 months. It is always impacting temperature; just with a lag. The Feb value is loosely associated with ENSO from Sep or Oct. El Nino was strong at this time so we expected the spike to be strong.
What may be atypical this time is the timing of the spike. It had an onset earlier and with a magnitude higher than expected. You can see from my model that the 13m GAT is just barley on the uncertainty envelope. Just going by prior expectations we cannot eliminate the possibility that one of the next few months this year hits higher than 0.93 C. However, with the early onset its possible the dip occurs earlier as well. We’ll have to see how that plays out in the near future.
Regardless, total heat uptake and the ENSO explain even this recent spike both in terms of timing and magnitude reasonably well. Had you been tracking my (and many others) posts you would have seen that we were warning people that new records were going to occur sooner rather than later. We’re also now saying that a drop will occur sooner rather than later now that ENSO is waning. Refer to the graphic I posted above.
walter: “it’s clear to any reader that the assertion regarding the sole drivers behind the spike being global warming and El Nio…”
What was actually said: “ENSO and total heat uptake is all you need to explain most of the UAH TLT changes. There are, of course, other contributors (like solar, volcanic, etc.) but those are minor compared to the first two.”
swannie…is it necessary to remind readers that you think heat can be transferred naturally from cold to hot?
No, it’s not “necessary” since I don’t hold to that simplistic view. gordo still can’t fathom that thermal IR radiation results in energy transfer between bodies. In the classic engineering radiation heat transfer situation, two bodies with different temperatures will exhibit said energy transfer in both directions, the net energy transfer is always from hot to cold when both bodies have similar surface emissivities.
Gordo never learns, on purpose…
Mr. Swanson,
not only will I vote for Mr. Trump, I have sent him $2,000 and intend to send more.
Hopefully the temp will stay high and we will avoid the ice and snow in the future as we did this winter.
Best wishes to someone who says it believes mankind can control such, but is busy consuming many products using hydrocarbons to improve its life.
Lewis Guignard
Union Grove, NC
come visit
YES Mr. Swanson.
Absolutely.
And I send him money.
Hopefully it will stay warm and we will avoid the ice and snow in winter as we did this year.
Didn’t use near as much firewood as in the past.
So keep using those petroleum distillate dependent products to improve your life.
According to some it makes the weather warmer.
Its only weather.
Its only less than a miserly +1 degree.
Its obviously due to a fault with the sensors.
Its obviously due to somebody faking the data.
Its obviously due to interference by Michael Mann, NASA and the UN.
Its obviously done to damage Trump in an election year.
It’s mainly due to the massive amount of water injected into the stratosphere by the 2022 underwater Tongan eruption.
Ayuh. The only other plausible explanation is weakening earth magnetic field.
DMT,
if you say so.
I believe thermometers respond to heat. Maybe Im wrong.
One thing we know for certain, it has nothing to do with anthropogenic warming.
Deniers all agree on what it ISNT.
And all with great certainty, they fail to agree on what it IS.
From the data that’s been collected, we believe it is within historical natural temperature variability that’s been observed in previous interglacial periods.
“we believe ”
So you speak for all deniers?
How Warm Are the Oceans on the Icy Moons? The Ice Thickness Provides a Clue.
https://www.universetoday.com/165986/how-warm-are-the-oceans-on-the-icy-moons-the-ice-thickness-provides-a-clue/
“Scientists are discovering that more and more Solar System objects have warm oceans under icy shells. The moons Enceladus and Europa are the two most well-known, and others like Ganymede and Callisto probably have them too. Even the dwarf planet Ceres might have an ocean. But can any of them support life? That partly depends on the water temperature, which strongly influences the chemistry.”
Also links to:
Ice-Ocean Interactions on Ocean Worlds Influence Ice Shell Topography
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023JE008036
walter…”We also are unsure what is really behind the spike”.
***
Mark twain addressed that when he claimed…’there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics’. The spike is a lie as a representation of global temperatures. That’s not to say UAH is lying, they are simply the messengers of a statistical average that has no meaning.
This spike is the result of a statistical anomaly, nothing more. Here in the Vancouver, Canada area, there has been no indication that even a slight warming is going on.
I was just out walking in the late afternoon and there is a chill in the air typical of a winter’s day. I was out a couple of days ago with a wind blowing in from slightly north of west and I needed to be bundled up with a toque covered with my hoodie, a thick, quilted jacket, and thermal long johns under my sweats.
There is no Arctic air happening and our night time temperatures are below 0C at night. That is cold for this part of the world.
I agree with what you write, Gordon. I believe my location will be one of the warmest grid points on the map, but we didn’t experience any unusual weather last monthjust many more days in the 50s and 40s, with not very many at or below freezing, which is more typical. Historically speaking, milder temperatures here are not unusual; there were months in the 50s, 60s, and 70s with mild temperatures seen most of the month. That’s exactly what we had.
The absolutes are more important because they are the ones that get averaged. I would prefer using frequency distribution charts to better see temperature range and variability. With averages, many different days can derive the same average, which is problematic.
Many people place too much importance on using y=mx+b; climate is far too nonlinear, and I keep reminding people that what we are experiencing now could very well just be some kind of temporary 20-30 year elevated blip from a cooling trend. Who knows? The climate will do whatever it does; Swenson correctly says that you cannot use the past to predict the future.
I am a simple man, not a climate scientist or any kind of scientist at all, but quantitatively oriented. So, my question for all of you is this. If for each human on the planet I allocate a surface area of 780 feet by 780 feet to occupy with all the other creatures of the Earth and all the plants and other forms of life that occupy the Earth, can I change the temperature of my surroundings in a lasting way? This is a pretty big area, over 14 acres about a dozen football fields. Is my reducing this question all you debate over to this simple question silly. Don’t disregard the word”lasting” in my question.
“can I change the temperature of my surroundings in a lasting way? This is a pretty big area, over 14 acres about a dozen football fields.”
Yes apparently so, when you consider how easily humans can alter their surroundings.
Even hundreds of years ago, humans were able to deforest large swaths of Europe and N. America, for the timber and to create farms.
To say that a number seems too big to you, is in the category of ‘argument by incredulity’.
It is your incredulity, but that in itself, is not an argument.
Since what seems incredible to you is just a personal gut feeling and others may not find it incredible at all.
Can you demonstrate any situation where human activity has altered climate other than UHI?
Local temperature has demonstrably been altered by urban heat island effect. UHI is too small to affect climate on a global and lasting scale.
Humans created the Ozone Hole, which increased UV radiation over a wide area.
Humans created the conditions that led to the Dust Bowl, by plowing up the prairie grass, with its deep roots, and replacing it with shallow rooted crops over a vast area of the Great Plains.
And all the evidence together is quite strong that humans have created AGW.
“Humans created the {one of} conditions that led to the Dust Bowl.”
Without the drought {which humans almost certainly did not create} there would have been no Dust Bowl.
Humans created the {one of} conditions that led to the Dust Bowl.
Without the drought {which humans almost certainly did not create} there would have been no Dust Bowl.”
No disagreement. But without human contribution, as described, there would also would have been no Dust Bowl.
Humans created the {one of} conditions that led to the Dust Bowl.
Without the drought {which humans almost certainly did not create} there would have been no Dust Bowl.”
No disagreement. But without human contribution, as described, there also would have been no Dust Bowl.
Nate,
“Humans created the Ozone Hole, which increased UV radiation over a wide area.”
Well, no, they didn’t.
Ozone is created at the top of the atmosphere by high energy UV interacting with oxygen. The only way for this high energy UV to reach the surface is remove any oxygen (or any other matter it may interact with) from its path.
You are a gullible wee soul, aren’t you? If you look at the angle of incidence of the Suns rays on the atmosphere, you will quickly see that that there can be no increased UV radiation in any case.
You must be extremely ignorant of basic physics to say such demonstrably bizarre things.
Carry on anyway.
Humans did NOT create the ozone hole, Dust Bowl, or this temporary spike in temperatures.
The cult DID create the false belief that they did.
“Humans did NOT create the ozone hole, Dust Bowl, or this temporary spike in temperatures.”
Evidence? Or is it just your usual assertion without evidence?
Its not fair to ask somebody to prove a negative when the burden is on somebody to prove a causation. Apparently Nate is ignorant of the entire purpose of the scientific method.
Nate strongly holds to the propositive of guilty until proven innocent.
Gill holds dear to the “let me say stuff while you keep making me sammiches” doctrine.
“Its not fair to ask somebody to prove a negative when the burden is on somebody to prove a causation.”
False,
In this case Clint stated unequivocally that things “humans did NOT create”
He has no evidence to support his assertion.
Meanwhile there is evidence that humans created the Ozone Hole, the Dust Bowl, and AGW.
And you assert positively That humans are primarily responsible for the industrial age warming and never produce proof of that either.
Gill did not make me any sammich.
Prove me wrong.
Clint asserted with certainty a thing for which he has no evidence, at all. Bill knows all about that.
“for the industrial age warming and never produce proof of that either.”
Lots of evidence provided, almost all of it knee-jerk rejected.
Because none of it is empirical evidence.
Knee jerk rejects…
Are talking about land area?
Global climate is about ocean area.
Ocean warms, and land cools.
Average global land is about 10 C, the warmer ocean surface causes the average global air temperature to be about 15 C.
And most sunlight is absorbed in tropical ocean area- humans wanting to cool Earth {which is a bad idea, maybe} could alter the tropical ocean area- they could increase or decrease global climate average temperature.
I think a lot people should live in ocean settlements, if not for any other reason, than is warmer. Or like having a lot of tropical island paradises- with great surfing.
gb…”Global climate is about ocean area”.
***
Good point. It would seem the huge Pacific Ocean in Tropical regions is controhling global temps. I don’t think it an accident that ENSO prevails in those areas of the Tropical Pacific.
Martin…first of all, you need to define what you mean by temperature. Obviously, if you change the air temperature, that heat will rise and disperse with altitude. No net warming.
If you mean the actual temperature of the solid surface, that too will dissipate naturally in the atmosphere.
Ask yourself this. If we allotted each human his/her tract of land, then the Sun went out, would each human’s contribution heat the planet sufficiently to survive?
“So, my question for all of you is this. If for each human on the planet I allocate a surface area of 780 feet by 780 feet to occupy with all the other creatures of the Earth and all the plants and other forms of life that occupy the Earth, can I change the temperature of my surroundings in a lasting way?”
Obviously you can change the local climate. Imagine the difference in the micro climate of your area if you paved it entirely with asphalt versus a forested area. This is the essence of the Urban Heat Island effect, which no one seriously questions. In the vernacular this is largely an albedo effect along with local moisture availability.
“Is my reducing this question all you debate over to this simple question silly.”
It’s not silly, but it’s a very incomplete view that misses the key point that makes the issue intractable.
Anthropogenic global warming by greenhouse gas emissions is inherently a commons problem in that the local benefit of using fossil fuels carries an externalized global cost which is not captured by normal “free market” mechanisms. In the sense that the cost of undesirable emissions (essentially a pollutant) are not inherent it is a literal textbook example of free market failure.
Yes, you have the problem defined. But solving it?! Not so easy because it’s global with too many vested interests on both sides.
So we must adapt, and minimise energy costs because abundant energy will surely be the best way to cope with changing climates.
The WORST thing we can do is willfully (or at least foreseeable) destabilise economies and raise electricity prices using tech like windmills which was cutting edge 400 years ago…piss off poor people by making things unaffordable gives them nothing to lose and sure as hell they will come to overthrow your system of government.
Adapt, it’s the only real choice – along with more nuclear and gas. Coal is OK, but mining it is dirty and fiarly dangerous, and gas burns cleaner. Keep coal for metallurgical purposes.
Nuclear is so cheap that nuclear power plants install solar panels to cut on costs. There are only two things that drive fossil fuel prices down: subsidies and externalities. And in the end, every extra bit of CO2 will have to be sucked out of the atmosphere in some way if we do not want to disrupt these economies you cherish so much. This comes at a steep cost.
If that process could take millennias, adaptation would make sense. Hundreds of years is really fast on a geological scale. But we are talking about decades.
Mad Max was not meant to be a blueprint.
“windmills which was cutting edge 400 years ago”
OMG.
You think they have hardly advanced?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Now if only the ice and Australia would agree.
Happy with the satellites compared to earth observation sites.
angech
” Happy with the satellites compared to earth observation sites. ”
*
Aha.
Recently, for quite different reasons, I analyzed surface temperatures in two small regions in North America, and subsequently compared them to UAH’s satellite data.
1. The 2.5 degree grid cell encompassing Vancouver, BC, Canada
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1et2MVXgC7Htzc3ing1E5D3ABR60lIqyh/view
2. The Corn Belt (40N-48N — 105W-85W)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19P9CjfPkdmcpgzgtw0Xlm_4Pkb2uqNXO/view
*
Unlike you, I look at data, and I’m happy with earth observation sites too.
Should you doubt these results above: do yourself the same job.
Here in northeast we had a nice ElNino winter , relatively warm no cold spells and very little snow, the snow that did fall melted rapidly
We want more warming
In your opinion…but all our flower bulbs that busted out and then froze, not so much.
I hear this a lot, but generally the people who think they want “more warming” actually don’t.
Warming will mean 10s if not 100s of millions of additional climate refugees looking for safe harbour in northern countries in the next 25 years.
Will you really welcome millions or 10s of millions of additional refugees to your country?
I have a little question about the UAH data.
I’ve been looking at the monthly gridded data recently, and noticed there seem to be a larger number of grid points with a value of zero than would be expected. In general there seem to be around twice as many zeros as there are other similar values.
For example, for 2023, I get the following counts for anomalies between -0.03 and +0.03
-0.03 27033
-0.02 27101
-0.01 26754
0.00 53822
0.01 26842
0.02 26827
0.03 26863
All years seem to show a similar pattern.
Could this just be the result of how the figures are rounded? It looks like the 0 value covers twice the range of temperatures as the others.
I’ve noticed this too. In the past I’ve speculated that it has something to do with water vapor phase changes clamping the values near 0 C. This would not be unlike how water in vessel has a clamping effect at 0 C for an extended period until the phase change is complete and the temperature begins to drop below 0 C at a steady rate once again.
I wondered at first if there was a statistical or physical reason, but it seems unlikely given that the almost identical anomalies are not affected.
And as I said, when you see how consistently the 0’s are close to double the other values, it seems more likely it’s to do with how they are rounded. Possibly each non-zero value is just being rounded towards zero. Zero is then reported for any value between (-0.01, +0.01) – making it twice the bin size as over values.
Hopefully that means it shouldn’t affect any average. It s=would be different if they were random spurious zeros.
You can thank Jim Gorman for me noticing this.
The fact that it is double the others is interesting. And yes, I agree that does suggest a possible rounding explanation.
bellman…if you read John Christy on that, he explains that warming in the Tropics is minimal, maybe even zero. If you look at a UAH contour map that lays out the planet as anomalies on a world map, you can see that most of the planet has minimal warming along a huge swath abutting the Equator.
Walter and I have discussed this and agree that the elevated average is a result of statistical averaging, not a true warming. For example, here in Vancouver, Canada, I have noticed no effect of this on-going spike. Of course, one would not notice a warming of a few tenths C.
Much ado about nothing.
That’s nothing to do with what I’m describing.
Could you provide a reference for the John Christy quote? The UAH data doesn’t suggest zero warming int he Tropics. The rate up to January was 0.13C / decade, and up to the start of 2023 was 0.12C / decade.
January 2024 was a record for the Tropics Anomaly, and this month was not much cooler. See the table in this post.
Bellman
Please don’t waste your time with an all-time everything denŷing ignoramus like Robertson. He doesn’t know anything, would never able to process any data but nonetheless braggarts as if he was aware of everything.
*
But… could you please explain how you find so many anomalies in the grid between -0.03 and +0.03 for 2023?
A month’s grid data contains 10,368 cells, of which 9,504 contain valid data (since the three lowest/highest latitude bands do not).
For January 2024 I count 127 out of 9504 anomalies between -0.03 and +0.03: for December 2023 there were 141.
Perhaps you have built the sum of this since December 1978?
Your right of course. That was the count for all the data. For 2023 it’s
-0.03 391
-0.02 420
-0.01 425
0 930
0.01 453
0.02 447
0.03 438
As a check here are my figures for January 2024
-0.03 19
-0.02 20
-0.01 28
0.00 56
0.01 20
0.02 20
0.03 20
Total = 183
For December 2023
-0.03 28
-0.02 20
-0.01 15
0.00 53
0.01 24
0.02 31
0.03 21
Total = 192
I’m not sure why my figures are a little different from yours. I double checked the values for January using a search on the text file, and it agrees with my figures.
Now it’s your time to be right! Your numbers are perfect.
Apparently I’m too tired and doing too many things in parallel, as you can see on this thread :–)
Bellman
And here is how the stuff looks like – of course not using any spherical area conserving projection! It’s merely the 1:1 display of 9,504 cells as 66 lines of 144 columns each.
1. LT Jan 24
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vGIpDvk67goHko3igZ5I3NWZ24YDMH–/view
2. LS Jan 24
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sgac91LmiZ2rcgDLdq9A5bFnWdbJrkgv/view
A similar job could be done for MT and TP of course: the data structures are identical for all four atmospheric layers in UAH 6.0 and for the LT in UAH 5.6.
Bellman, slightly off-topic, but because I know you do modeling too I wanted to let you know that the volcanic AOD data has been updated through 2023.
https://github.com/ClimateIndicator/forcing-timeseries
Thanks for the link. I’ll have to look into it.
https://youtu.be/f_lRdkH_QoY?t=5357
After an embarrassing showing simping for an autocrat, Tucker Carlson finally finds his balls (as long as Daddy Putin isn’t in the room with him).
Tucker Carlson bashed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine, claiming that the “denazification” of the country was “one of the dumbest things I’d ever heard.”
Tucker revealed himself as being pretty dumb as he tried to pose an agenda on Putin. He was out-foxed through the entire interview.
Had he bothered to check, he would have seen that the US Congress voted years ago to denounce the Azov battalion, for their neo-Nazi ways. Kyiv dispatched that battalion to eastern Ukraine to deal with so-called Russian troublemakers, as reported by the western media. Those so-called troublemakers were Ukrainians who had revolted when the president for whom they had legally voted was overthrown in a coup in 2014. That’s what wrankled Putin and Tucker missed it completely.
Tucker is pretty stoopid. Had he done minimal research he might have noted that thousands of Ukrainians hold a candle-light vigil each year to celebrate Ukrainian Nazi war criminals like Stepan Bandera and SS Galacia.
Go on, look it up and learn something yourself. Bandera was a co-leader of the UON, a group formed in the Ukraine in 1929 who were based on fascist ideology. Their covert actions against Stalin cost them dearly when he decided to deal with them by starving the Ukraine into submission. In other words, those ijits cost a lot of innocent Ukrainians their lives. They are doing it right now in the Ukraine as they force Zelensky not to deal with Putin.
Bandera sided with the Nazis in WW II and was wanted at Nuremberg for war crimes. Same with the SS Galacia, a Ukrainian division of the Nazi SS.
Tucker knows he is dumb, but I would say he smarter than most people in the media.
If denazification is not dumb, why doesn’t Canada do it?
Is Russia denazified?
I think not, and both Russia and Canada imported Nazis.
Just because Canada {and US} has Nazis, isn’t a good reason to invade, either.
Don’t believe Robertson’s trash – whatever it is about.
Robertson tells exactly the same thing about an alleged large Nazi background in Ukraine that is – not surprisingly – propagated in Western Europe (especially in Germany, France, Italy and Hungary) by extreme right-wing and left-wing parties and groups.
These extremes share the same thing: to support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine against all odds. The connections between Russia’s FSB and these extremes are best known.
*
Of course: the Azov battalion really exists!
But only gullible idîots like Robertson, credulously believing the Russian Nomenklatura around Putin (or possibly being paid by it to spread its lies), endlessly repeat the same nonsense about this ridiculous troupe.
The truth is that the Nomenklatura around Putin wants to withdraw what Mikhail Gorbachev initiated in 1991, and tries to reestablish what existed long time before, what they name «Новоросія», i.e. ‘Novorossiya’:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/New_Russia_on_territory_of_Ukraine.png
and which started in 2014 with the invasion of Ukraine’s Crimea.
See also:
https://www.fpri.org/article/2014/05/putins-greater-novorossiya-the-dismemberment-of-ukraine/
*
There are for sure more Nazis per km^2 in Russia, Canada, the US and most parts of South America than in the Ukraine.
Simply because after WW II, incredibly many Nazis managed to secretly leave Germany via Rome, Italy toward North and South America with the help of the Catholic Church and… the US Army.
Gordon has been tricked into believing that (some) Ukrainians support Nazism, when what they support is Bandera’s fight for Ukrainian independence, and they airbrush his Nazi collaboration out of their narrative.
The Kremlin paints them as Nazi sympathisers. This is a lie.
Also, just as many people, in different parts of Ukraine, remember his Nazi collaboration and condemn him.
https://www.dw.com/en/stepan-bandera-ukrainian-hero-or-nazi-collaborator/a-61842720
Don’t trust Gordon to shed light on much.
The higher the peak the deeper the drop, see 1998.
The Atlantic ocean is about to start a 30 year cooling.
Source?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
#4
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
#12
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Charles Best
Here is a comparison of HadISST1 SST, the rawest SST series available, to UAH 6.0 LT’s grid ocean data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15syqSRmKI4XLU6esTQf4ZUnkjkrZeExh/view
What you see everywhere is the so-called detrended variant whose sole use is to demonstrate that behind the time series there is a cycle.
Some people like to de-trend data. If you’re looking for cycles, then it makes perfect sense to de-trend… unless, of course, you believe that the trend is in itself cyclic.
skeptikal
What’s the sense of this redundant reply in which you repeat what I say?
What you like so many others don’t get is that if you want to compare AMO with temperature time series, then either
– you use the ‘undetrended’ (!) AMO
or
– you use the detrended AMO but then have to detrend the other time series as well, otherwise the comparison makes no sense at all.
*
Here are charts which hopefully help to understand:
1. AMO detrended vs. undetrended
https://tinyurl.com/AMO-detr-vs-undetr
2. AMO undetrended vs. surface time series
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1alycZI-rbKOXsiBKiRDpwI3L1T2LIoPb/view
Different reference periods… I should update the stuff.
Bindidon,
Don’t get upset. My reply was not meant for you. It was meant for the people who can see the meaning of the message I’m trying to convey.
1. I don’t get upset by such superficial posts.
2. Ooops?
” It was meant for the people who can see the meaning of the message Im trying to convey. ”
What the heck are you ‘trying to convey’, skeptical?
Just a load of blah blah.
Cycle nuts should not need to detrend is the point.
@ Hans Erren
“The higher the peak, the deeper the drop, see 1998.”
___________________________________
The higher the peak, the higher the next peak.
And the higher the next one, the higher the one after the next one. See 2016 and 2023.
This will goe on for many decades.
And the higher the temperature, the louder the denying.
What would we be denying? That climate is changing due to solar activity and shifting ocean currents?
NASA: For the 100th time, it’s humans driving global warming, not the Sun!
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2502/
Ark, if you believe correlation over physics, then go with ice cream stores cause global warming. The correlation is much better…..
Dor the 100th time, In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. ~Galileo
Humble reasoning says the sun drives climate and oceans moderate climate. Its been that way since God created earth.
See King Canute and his experience with tides.
Marxist global warming afficionados deny God exists.
The opinions of Galileo, Feynman or Einstein on epistemology is too often factually wrong.
The carbon cycle has been the control knob since before humans appeared and created a God who allegedly created the world six thousands years ago, three centuries after the Egyptian civilization presumably appeared.
Last time the Earth was around 450 ppm was 3M years ago:
https://www.rmets.org/event/pliocene-last-time-earth-had-400-ppm-atmospheric-co2
It’s just a matter of time until we get there unless we get our act together and stop falling for the shiniest autocrat that preys on troglodyte insecurities.
Contrarians and cranks alike should drop the talking points that are refuted by K-12 resources.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ark…”NASA: For the 100th time, its humans driving global warming, not the Sun!”
***
At one time, the head of NASA wanted to get rid of James Hansen and the climate division (GISS), the NASA pseudo-science department. Unfortunately, he was over-ruled by Al Gore. who regarded Hansen as his bosom-buddy.
GISS has been a thorn in the side of NASA, dragging them down into the realms of pseudo-science. Of course, NASA PR department is not helping by claiming the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit.
Ken,
God gave us, some of us anyway, the intelligence to understand and decipher the natural world; to not do so would dishonor Him.
Physics is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
See King Canute Syndrome.
Arkady Ivanovich, please stop trolling.
Very good, Ark. And physics is why we know Moon is NOT spinning, ice cubes can NOT boil water, CO2 15μ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface, and the “EEI” is bogus.
“God gave us, some of us anyway, the intelligence to understand and decipher the natural world; to not do so would dishonor Him.”
You’re paraphrasing Galileo.
We do not have the power to alter climate.
We do and we did, e.g.:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261
Between word games and numbers games, contrarians who associate themselves to Galileos and by serendipity one of the biggest braggarts in the history of science, should know on which he sides.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Humble reasoning says the sun drives”
Show us that reasoning, Ken.
“The carbon cycle has been the control knob since before humans appeared and created a God who allegedly created the world six thousands years ago, three centuries after the Egyptian civilization presumably appeared.”
Derp
1 Timothy 1; 1-7 (Important bit is verse 4)(7 really applies to Willard)
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
You’re on the wrong side of the aisle to be speaking for our sweet socialist zombie, Kennui:
1 The Troglodytes, along with some religion scholars who had come from Roy’s, gathered around him.
2 They noticed that some of his disciples weren’t being careful with ritual anointment before poasting.
3 The Troglodytes – cranks in general, in fact – would never comment without going through the motions of a ritual throat clearing,
4 with an especially vigorous scolding if they had just come from the political conventions.
5 The Troglodytes and religion scholars asked, “Why do your disciples flout the rules, showing up at gatherings without kneeling to Saint Galileo?”
6 Jesus answered, “Lew was right about frauds like you, hit the bull’s-eye in fact: These people make a big show of saying the right thing, but their heart isn’t in it.
7 They act like they are worshiping me, but they don’t mean it. They just use me as a cover for teaching whatever suits their fancy,
8 Ditching Team Science’s command and taking up the latest fads.”
9 He went on, “Well, good for you. You get rid of Team Science’s command so you won’t be inconvenienced in following the religious fashions!
10 Planck said, ‘Respect your models and your theories,’ and, ‘Anyone denouncing models or theories without offering anything should be left uncited.’
11 But you weasel out of that by saying that it’s perfectly acceptable to say of models and theories, ‘Gift! What I owed you I’ve given as a gift to God,’
12 thus relieving yourselves of obligation to Team Science.
13 You scratch out Team Science’s Word and scrawl a whim in its place. You do a lot of things like this, including denial and requesting sammiches.”
14 Jesus called the crowd together again and said, “Listen now, all of you – take this to heart.
15 It’s not what you swallow that pollutes your life; it’s what you vomit – that’s the real pollution.”
All that to say you’re a godless heathen, worse, one that thinks he knows it all.
What a bore.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Whatever you might cajole yourself with when you appeal to your pet deity has little to do with the true message of the New Testament, beloved Kennui.
I have not come here to bring peace.
‘I have not come here to bring peace’
Its what boring tr~lls do.
Oh, Kennui.
“I have not come here to bring peace.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
By Kennui’s logic, Mike Flynn, that’d be the Jesus.
wee willy…you are ranting more than usual, having a bad hair day?
Gordo, please stop trо lling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
F,
You wrote –
“This will goe on for many decades.”
How many decades, and why will it stop?
You are just trolling, aren’t you?
#2
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
F,
You wrote
“This will goe on for many decades.”
How many decades, and why will it stop?
You are just trolling, arent you?
Binny, if you can’t answer either (a soundly based guess will do), what’s the point of pretending that there is a GHE? Do you think this warming will continue forever, or stop before the seas boil?
Just whining about me trying to find out your opinions are, doesn’t make you look very sure of yourself!
Carry on grumbling.
#3
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
#4
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
#5
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
#6
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
#7
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
#8
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner yanks my chain again.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
–SPACE: SpaceX launches Crew-8 astronaut mission to International Space Station for NASA (video).
Flashback: Some parts of America still work.
Posted at 8:18 am by Glenn Reynolds–
https://instapundit.com/
That also worked.
Also Starship had a Wet Dress Rehearsal last nite.
Which was needed to get launch permit.
Many guess, test launch three, might happen within 2 weeks [depending in this test, and FAA]. And lots of other things.
Musk wants 9 starship launches this year. And I have mentioned he is a madman.
I would go for for 4. But would focus a couple billion on moving the ball forward on ocean rocket launches.
And of course, I would test, cheap floating breakwaters.
I posted this somewhere, but in terms of history:
–From an historical standpoint, the application of a floating structure for the attenuation of surface gravity waves was first considered by Joly (1905).
Only minimal efforts were expended on the concept until the necessity for ensuring the offloading of men and materials during the Normandy invasion of World War II, at which time two different types of wave barriers were developed by Great Britain. One of these developments was a portable barge-type unit which was floated into position and sunk at a specific location by filling with seawater. This “phoenix” structure (204 feet long by 62 feet wide by 60 feet high) effectively intercepted the preponderance of wave energy to which it was subjected. The second type of wave barrier was a true floating
breakwater which had a cruciform cross section (200 feet long by 25 feet wide by 25 feet deep). This “Bombardon” was designed to withstand a wave 10 feet high and 150 feet long, and was successful during the invasion. However, the structure collapsed during an unexpected storm when the seas grew to 15 feet in height with lengths of 300 feet, thus generating stresses more than eight times those for which the structure had been designed.–
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA110692.pdf
The Mulberry wharf structures towed from the UK to Normandy were not to suppress gravity waves, which are theoretical waves that make no sense to me. Waves in an ocean are caused by ocean currents an the artificial harbours were intended only to reduce wave action enough to allow supplies to be unloaded.
The idea of a gravity wave in the atmosphere is actually a phenomenon of gases in the atmosphere. Compressing air into waves has more to do with convection than gravity. Gravity does compress air unevenly with altitude but that can hardly be labeled a gravity wave.
What is meant by a gravity wave is an actual variations in gravity acting like a wave. Personally, I think the theory is nonsense, mainly because we have no idea what gravity is. An equally stoopid theory is that of particle/wave duality.
If Brits want to call ocean waves, gravity waves, I am not going to have a cow.
But the wind generated ocean waves, do involve the force of gravity.
An interesting question could be, what lake/ocean waves look like on the Moon.
My understanding is water on the Moon is quite bouncing. Or Earth gravity could be said to suppress waves.
But if space rock hits Earth ocean, the wave is not “suppressed” but you don’t “see it” until in runs across shallower water, and it’s climbs hundreds meters tall and traveling at sub sonic velocity.
gb…”But the wind generated ocean waves, do involve the force of gravity”.
Of course they do, but the meaning of gravity wave in science has something to do with gravity acting in waves, which it doesn’t do. Gravity acts as a constant force and varies with altitude, not as a wave.
The concept of a gravity wave, as far as I can see, is related to the nonsense about space-time.
‘Very Bizarre’: Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data
by Tyler Durden Sunday, Mar 03, 2024 – 05:10 AM
https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/very-bizarre-scientists-expose-major-problems-climate-change-data
Linked from: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.
“With no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a series of interviews about their research.
For the last 35 years, the words of the IPCC have been taken to be gospel, according to astrophysicist and CERES founder Willie Soon. Until recently, he was a researcher working with the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard & Smithsonian.
And indeed, climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st centuryheretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions, Mr. Soon told The Epoch Times.”
The fact that they don’t just throw out the bad surface data and instead just use satellite data, which would be the closest thing to statistical perfection, says a lot. Carl Mears tried to claim that the surface data is more accurate than satellite data, which is nonsense. He’s just a little bitch, who felt the pressure of having a dataset with the Pause. Of course, with satellite data, you can get complete coverage of Earth even in remote areas that humans are unable to reach.
And any data that incorporates spatial interpolation should, at the VERY least, not be taken at face value.
> Hes just a little bitch
Well well well.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
That’s not nice.
which would be the closest thing to statistical perfection
Christy et al. 2003 asses the uncertainty on monthly anomalies of +/- 0.20 C.
Carl Mears tried to claim that the surface data is more accurate than satellite data, which is nonsense.
He is correct. You can do your own type A evaluation of uncertainty and prove this out for yourself.
Of course, with satellite data, you can get complete coverage of Earth even in remote areas that humans are unable to reach.
The myth that never dies. Satellite data is actually very sparse. Refer to figure 4 in Spencer et. al 1990 Global Atmospheric Temperature Monitoring with Satellite Microwave Measurements for an illustration.
And any data that incorporates spatial interpolation should, at the VERY least, not be taken at face value.
Satellite datasets use extensive interpolation. For example, UAH interpolates missing grid cells using grid cells from up to 4175 km away. Contrast this with GISTEMP which limits its interpolation to only 1200 km.
Thanks:
https://climateball.net/but-data/#interpolation
Today is a great Climateball day!
I got another shoutout. Thanks!
BTW…if you need a reference that 4165 km claim it is Spencer & Christy 1992 Precision and Radiosonde Validation of Satellite Gridpoint Temperature Anomalies Part I.
Page 850, last paragraph on the left side. They talk about interpolation being performed on 2.5 degree grid squares out to a maximum distance of 15 grid. Given 111.1 km per degree longitude at the equator that comes out to 111 km/degree * 2.5 degrees * 15 = 4165 km.
They also talk about doing the interpolation up to 2 days away which is something the traditional surface station datasets do not do at all.
I’m highlighting the potential of satellites. All the datasets are adjusted, but satellites have the potential to monitor and provide information at a truly global scale. Near-surface measurements do not; they have correlation with anomalies.
[MONKEY MAN] I’m highlighting the potential of satellites.
[ALSO MONKEY MAN] The fact that they don’t just throw out the bad surface data and instead just use satellite data, which would be the closest thing to statistical perfection, says a lot. Carl Mears tried to claim that the surface data is more accurate than satellite data, which is nonsense. Hes just a little bitch, who felt the pressure of having a dataset with the Pause. Of course, with satellite data, you can get complete coverage of Earth even in remote areas that humans are unable to reach.
Those two statement(s) don’t contradict each other.
Monkey Man is just a little bitch.
Hogle
” The fact that they dont just throw out the bad surface data and instead just use satellite data, which would be the closest thing to statistical perfection, says a lot. ”
You of course DON’T mean ‘satellite’ data, Hogle.
You mean that ‘satellite’ data which fits your incompetent ‘no warming let alone CO2-based problems’ narrative, i.e. UAH (and since recently, NOAA STAR) data; but CERTAINLY not RSS data.
*
” Carl Mears tried to claim that the surface data is more accurate than satellite data, which is nonsense. Hes just a little bitch, who felt the pressure of having a dataset with the Pause. ”
All you coward are able to do is to discredit, denigrate and – above all – insult people whose results you’d never be able to technically let alone scientifically contradict.
*
” Of course, with satellite data, you can get complete coverage of Earth even in remote areas that humans are unable to reach. ”
This is absolutely ridiculous, see Christy/Spencer:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/5/8/1520-0442_1992_005_0858_parvos_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf
*
” And any data that incorporates spatial interpolation should, at the VERY least, not be taken at face value. ”
This is even more than absolutely ridiculous.
You remind me a long conversation 10 years ago or so in Berlin I had with a French engineer woman who was at that time responsible for the design of new highway routes in France.
She was laughing a lot about climate pseudo-skeptics like you because climate skepticism is, as she explained, the one and only corner where people doubt about necessity and accuracy of interpolation, a matter accepted in so many domains (including insurance etc).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1640617
“instead just use satellite data, which would be the closest thing to statistical perfection, says a lot.”
Walter, not sure where you get this erroneous idea. The satellite data have huge systematic uncertainty of the order of 50%, as the various analyses produce wildly different temperature trends.
One problem is that they have very poor vertical resolution, so as they try to measure the warming trend of troposphere, they cannot avoid including some of the stratosphere, which has a much larger cooling trend.
They must use an algorithm that is basically guessed, to extract the troposphere from the mix of troposphere plus stratosphere, and this gives significant uncertainty.
Nate will be praising the satellite data in his next post such that it can accurately measure atmosphere temperatures with enough accuracy to be confident in an EEI of 1.5w/m2.
And of course when you point out in the climate system that La Nina is an indication of a cooler ocean, Nate will just say thats and internal difference that averages out to nothing.
Nate doesn’t argue this stuff from a science perspective he argues from a political perspective of constant lies.
nate…”One problem is that they have very poor vertical resolution, so as they try to measure the warming trend of troposphere, they cannot avoid including some of the stratosphere…”.
***
Nate needs to do some reading on AMSU theory. The AMSUs have multiple channels that sample O2 emissions at various altitudes. Channel 5 is used mainly for surface temperatures and is centred at about 4 km, halfway up Mt. Everest. The stratosphere is sampled by a different channel. Recently, UAH has incorporated two other higher altitude channels to help them move away from look-ahead scanning which requires more complicated weighting functions. It also enables the use of cells.
Of course, this confuses the heck out of Binny, who thinks UAH applies a formula in lieu of actual physical sensors. Although channel 5 is centred at 4 km altitude it can easily receive O2 emissions right to the surface layer. However, due to spurious microwave transmission from the surface they don’t extend right to the surface. Through interpolation they can get close enough that radiometers agree with their surface projections.
“h requires more complicated weighting functions.”
Gordon seems to not understand that weighting functions are required because of what I posted, the mixture of stratosphere into the troposphere measurement.
As usual, Gordo doesn’t know what he writes about. The MSU/AMSU instruments such as AMSU channel 5, record the sum total of the emissions received at a particular microwave frequency. That sum is an altitude weighted intensity value, for which the theoretical representation shows a peak at some pressure altitude but which also includes some contribution from both the surface and the Stratosphere. The theoretical model is based on another model which represents a ideal temperature vs. pressure altitude and which may not represent conditions appropriate for other latitudes or seasons.
The UAH LT is a combination of 3 channels, the equation for doing so is based entirely on the theoretical models for each channel. The LT also incorporates an approach which requires fitting the data to curves, which may be another problem, given that the dates for the higher pressure altitude slices of data does not correspond to the dates for that at lower altitudes.
As usual, Gordo doesn’t know what he writes about. The MSU/AMSU instruments such as AMSU channel 5, record the sum total of the emissions received at a particular microwave frequency. That sum is an altitude weighted intensity value, for which the theoretical representation shows a peak at some pressure altitude but which also includes some contribution from both the surface and the Stratosphere. The theoretical model is based on another model which represents a ideal temperature vs pressure altitude and which may not represent conditions appropriate for other latitudes or seasons.
The UAH LT is a combination of 3 channels, the equation for doing so is based entirely on the theoretical models for each channel. The LT also incorporates an approach which requires fitting the data to curves, which may be another problem, given that the dates for the higher pressure altitude slices of data does not correspond to the dates for that at lower altitudes.
“Nate will be praising the satellite data in his next post ”
Bill is quite stoopid, as he seems to believe all satellites are equal!
CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.
It is a very small forcing and feedback.
It is a very-very small-small forcing and feedback.
Before get solving about a very small forcing and feedback the CO2 trace gas content in Earths thin atmosphere, please consider about Earths surface the very strong specular reflection.
The smooth surface planets and moons specular reflection should be necessarily considered in the planets and moons Energy in estimation, because otherwise the Planet Energy Income will be very much overestimated.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Making Earth colder, could count as a crisis.
In simple terms, Russia is coldest country in the world, and it has the most nuclear weapons.
At moment, cold kills far more people than warm.
Well, let’s see what the coupled term Φ(1 – a)S produces:
Albedo =
=(satellite measured SW diffuselly reflected W/m^2) /S W/m^2
Earth’s Albedo = 0,306
So = 1362 W/m^2
(Earth’s satellite measured SW diffuselly reflected W/m^2) =
= Albedo * So = 0,306 *1362 W/m^2 = 416,8 W/m^2
The Earth’s surface the not reflected SW W/m^2 =
= Φ(1362 W/m^2 – 416,8 W/m^2)=
= 0,47*(945,2 W/m^2) = 444,2 W/m^2
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Albedo = “mostly” clouds
One could say a lot about clouds.
Clouds both cool and warm. And that is very simple thing, to say about clouds.
Of course, (everything else equals), for planets and moons, the less their surface temperatures are differentiated, the higher their average surface temperatures are.
–
But the theoretical T.effective does not pose any Mathematical CONSTRAINT to planets’ and moons’ the average surface temperatures (Tmean).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What kind of feedback, Christos? There is a positive amplifying feedback and a servo-type feedback that has no amplification factor. The first would be dangerous and the second harmless.
Problem is, a positive amplifying feedback is not possible in the atmosphere since it would require an amplifier. Many alarmists think positive feedback can amplify, which is nonsense.
I still don’t know what is meant by a forcing. It appears to be jargon from differential equation theory where one function is used to force a response from another. For example, a unit impulse function can be applied to a differential equation function representing an amplifier to ‘force’ a response.
Last time I looked, there were no differential equations in the atmosphere, just in climate models.
” no differential equations in the atmosphere”
Gordon reveals his anti-science tattoo.
Does the Alleged Climate Crisis Justify Ignoring Accusations of Chinese Slave Labor?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/03/does-the-alleged-climate-crisis-justify-ignoring-accusations-of-chinese-slave-labor/
I am wondering, if anyone knows how many slaves China has.
And in terms of GDP, how do you count the labor of slaves?
Russian Military Suffers Heavy Losses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpkcjTSYxG0
In Yemen they are recruiting about 100,000 soldiers, and using a picture of Joe Biden for target practice- for their holy war.
And meanwhile US military recruitment is down.
gb…you don’t believe that Ukrainian propaganda, do you? They have 150 million people in Russia.
For over a year now we have been hearing propaganda about how Russia is losing the war and how they have been stopped. The truth is, they got what they came for and are currently holding it against desperate Ukrainian attempts to get it back.
I would say US intel propaganda.
“They have 150 million people in Russia.”
Google says:
“143.4 million (2021)”
And I would say flat or declining. I actually know some American that moved to Russia- or Russia gained 4. And perhaps/maybe more Americans are doing that- I don’t know.
But other than my personal knowledge, I don’t think Russia is having many people move there {from US or anywhere}.
Russia lost the war, by starting the war. If took it in 3 days, they would have lost the war.
When was last time any country, has won a war?
Any, in last hundred years?
gb…if you watch the interview of Putin by Carlson, Putin holds nothing back. When he does, he tells you why, usually for security reasons. He carefully explains the history of the the USSR and the Ukraine, something Carlson initially tried to steer him away from. It was clear that Carlson had an agenda by which he intended to hold the interview and Putin out-foxed him.
Even after what Putin told him, which can be easily verified from our own history of Russia and Europe, Carlson failed to grasp what Putin was getting at about Nazi elements in the Ukraine.
Anyone who has read the history of WW II knows how the Russians were brutalized by the Nazis. I have no doubt it is still a sore point with many of them. It had to be galling that certain Ukrainians sides with the Nazis and descendants of those traitors are still operating in the Ukraine today. Thousands of them hold candle-light vigils to celebrate the Ukrainian Nazi war criminals like Stepan Bandera and the SS Galacia.
When the Ukrainian president was deposed in a coup in 2014, it was not the Ukrainian army or police who forced the coup. Neither was it Ukrainian protestors in general since they had held peaceful protests. The president was forced out by armed protestors while the army and police stood by.
So, who were those armed protestors? There is only one group in the Ukraine who are known to be armed and that are the same Nazi-based nationalists whose descendants fought with the Nazis. The nationalists run around killing and harming people they don’t like and no one acts. Why? The obvious reason is that they are feared and that there are enough of them to create such fear.
In 2016, they forced a sitting president to pass a law honouring Ukrainian Nazi war criminals. What kind of country does that under the guise of democracy? What kind of country allows armed nationalists to depose a democratically-elected president?
It took 8 years for Russia to act and their claim that they did so to rid the Ukraine of Nazi forces and to allow native Russians to vote on whether to remain in the Ukraine or separate seems sound enough to me.
Having said that, I don’t understand things that Putin has done, like backing Syria or Iran. Then again, I don’t understand international politicians and how they act. Russia seems to fear the US taking over the Middle East since it has countries like Georgia considered part of that area.
I am not so naive as to accept Putin on his word, but other factors independent of him corroborate what he claimed in the Carlson interview.
binny van der klown, cousin of Klint Klown…
“Of course: the Azov battalion really exists!
But only gullible idots like Robertson, credulously believing the Russian Nomenklatura around Putin (or possibly being paid by it to spread its lies), endlessly repeat the same nonsense about this ridiculous troupe.
The truth is that the Nomenklatura around Putin wants to withdraw what Mikhail Gorbachev initiated in 1991, and tries to reestablish what existed long time before, what they name Новоросія, i.e. Novorossiya:”
***
Azov no longer exists, it was eliminated by the Russians in Mariupol.
Putin explained the Gorbachev give-away adequately. When Gorbachev engineered the break-up of the USSR he naively believed the West would welcome them into the fold. Putin himself tried to join NATO and was rebuffed by hysterical ijits like Hillary Clinton and the Obama regime. Clinton is known to have a hysterical fear of Russians dating back to the Cold War era. .
My take on it. Gorbachev did not understand that Western capitalists were drooling over the prospect of picking the pockets of Russians. They had no intention of enabling a democracy in Russia, just as they resisted a democracy in China in 1915.
I called this myself. When the USSR broke up in 1990, I told several people they could not count on us here in the West to help them transition from a totalitarian state to a democracy. That would have been the smart thing to do, be patient and help them. I knew too well that corporate greed merchants had no interest in that.
An early pick-pocket, Bill Browder, a wall street type, hired a Russian accountant to help him bypass Russian laws on income taxes for foreigners. In other words, he was bent on cheating the Russians in the same manner Wall Street types cheat US citizens. When his accountant was caught and imprisoned, Browder escaped to the UK, leaving his accountant to face charges of fraud.
When Browder whined to people like Hillary Clinton, she saw to it that sanctions were imposed on Russia. That’s how much Democrats favoured democracy in Russia. Then they helped start a war in the Ukraine by assisting in a coup to remove a democratically-elected president. His crime? He favoured economic support from Russia over support from the EU.
The war in the Ukraine today was fostered and promoted by Obama Democrats. It is now thought that Biden profited directly from the Ukraine via his son.
Gordon Robertson
Is there a good chance you are consuming false narratives put out by Russian Intelligence? You are a gullible blind believer as long as it goes against Established views. You still think the evil Lanka is a hero. You should read about Measles outbreak in Florida. Your evil hero is getting his wishes satisfied. Children getting sick for no reason except parents believe the lies. If Lanka gets his ultimate wish thousands of children will die of Small-pox again. Then he can celebrate.
You can celebrate with Russia as they arrest and detain anyone who dares question the official narrative (one you blindly believe without question).
Not sure why you think Russian Intelligence is more truthful than Western Journalists. Maybe both lie but I am certain Russian Intelligence is NOT telling the Truth about anything. Yet you believe it blindly and come here spreading their lies. Why do you do this?
no Norman, anything I have written can be easily corroborated with a little effort. I have never claimed that all Ukrainians are Nazis and I have no idea how many support that nonsense. However, those that do have an inordinate influence in the actions of the Ukraine. I think Zelensky is under their thumb.
Even Wiki has an article on the UON and Stepan Bandera, confirming that he was a Nazi war criminal and that the UON is largely a fascist, white-supremacist organization.
https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/01/02/poland-condemns-ukraines-commemoration-of-wartime-nationalist-leader-bandera.
Here are a couple of links, apparently written by a Ukrainian that should enlighten an intelligent mind.
They are written by Andrii Portnov, a Ukrainian historian. I think he waters down the actions of Bandera but I can live with his description given that I know nothing about him directly.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/bandera-mythologies-and-their-traps-for-ukraine/
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/how-eastern-ukraine-was-lost/
All things Nazi ended 1945.
You’ve been watching too many ‘Hogan’s Heroes’ episdodes.
Trudeau acts more like a charismatic leader than anyone in Ukraine. He is like a totalitarian Nazi leader and you should be concerned. Ukraine is just a squirrel to distract the easily distracted, and you remind me of such.
I read that Stepan Bandera is revered by some Ukrainians as a fighter for Ukrainian independence, and that they conveniently forget his Nazi collaboration. They do not celebrate it. They are not Nazi sympathisers. Although there are, as in many countries, a handful of Nazi-lovers.
There are also plenty of Ukrainians who remember his Nazi collaboration and condemn it.
Don’t believe the Russian bull.
.” I think Zelensky is under their thumb.”
Sure, the Jewish president is influenced by Nazis, who elected him!
Hee haww!
Nate,
You wrote –
“Sure, the Jewish president is influenced by Nazis, who elected him!”
I agree.
Did you miss the
Hee haw! ?
If not then
Hee Haw!
troubleshooting…
bellman…re John Christy quotes…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2011/November/Nov2011GTR.pdf
Note…this is not the Christy quote I mentioned re the Tropics, I still need to find it. However, from this pdf, UAH reveals for November 2011…
“Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
November temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.12 C (about 0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.07 C (about 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.17 C (about 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November.
Tropics: +0.02 C (about 0.04 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for November.
***
This is indicative of what I meant….only 0.02C warming in Tropics compared to +0.17C in Southern Hemisphere.
For October it was -0.05C compared to baseline.
Other quotes…
“The atmosphere has warmed over most of the Earths surface during the satellite era. Only portions of the Antarctic, two areas off the southwestern coast of South America, and a small region south of Hawaii have cooled. On average, the South Pole region has cooled by about 0.05 C per decade, or 0.16 C (0.30 F) in 33 years. The globes fastest cooling region is in the central Antarctic south of MacKenzie Bay and the Amery Ice Shelf. Temperatures in that region have cooled by an annual average of about 2.36 C (4.25 F).
The warming trend generally increases as you go north. The Southern Hemisphere warmed 0.26 C (0.46 F) in 33 years while the Northern Hemisphere (including the continental U.S.) warmed by an average of 0.65 C (1.17 F). The greatest warming has been in the Arctic. Temperatures in the atmosphere above the Arctic Ocean warmed by an average of 1.75 C (3.15 F) in 33 years. The fastest warming spot is in the Davis Strait, between the easternmost point on Baffin Island and Greenland. Temperatures there have warmed 2.89 C (about 5.2 F)
Note how the warming and cooling are in regions, not global.
“While Earths climate has warmed in the last 33 years, the climb has been irregular. There was little or no warming for the first 19 years of satellite data. Clear net warming did not occur until the El Nio Pacific Ocean warming event of the century in late 1997. Since that upward jump, there has been little or no additional warming”.
Note…no net warming till late 1997. Binny is still in denial about that fact.
You mean he said no net warming since 1997.
And he said that in 2011. 13 years later there has been warming since 1997.
Trend since 1997 is: 0.114 C/dec (+/- 0.104)
That’s UAH data. Even with the big 1998 el Nino right at the start of the trend analysis.
So what was the trend since 1997 in 2011?
0.008 C/dec (+/- 0.273)
A quote from Roy in the pdf that clarifies his position as a skep.tic, not a luke-warmer……
“How much of that underlying trend is due to greenhouse gases? While many scientists believe it is almost entirely due to humans, that view cannot be proved scientifically.
I fully expect Binny van der Klown to drop by and claim the paper is invalid since it was written in 2011. That means he thinks Newton is invalid since it was written around 1630.
John Christy in Fortune Magazine:
“As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that’s certainly true…
Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050… but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn’t even notice it.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20221124184305/http://archive.fortune.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm
Yes, Christy, like Roy Spencer, is a lukewarmer. They both agree GHGs have a warming influence, but they think the influence is very small.
Sorry, missed this comment.
“This is indicative of what I meant.only 0.02C warming in Tropics compared to +0.17C in Southern Hemisphere.”
That’s the anomaly for one month. And it’s using an old version of UAH.
Using UAH6 data, with a different base line – the Tropics for November 2011 was -0.21C, compared to Southern Hemisphere of -0.10C. But the trend in the Tropics up to the end of 2011 is +0.11C / decade, compared to SH of +0.10C / decade.
“Clear net warming did not occur until the El Nio Pacific Ocean warming event of the century in late 1997. Since that upward jump, there has been little or no additional warming”
Using UAH6 data, the trend up to start of 1997 are,
Tropics = 0.12C / decade
SH = 0.09C / decade
NH = 0.09C / decade
For 1999 – 2011 inclusive the trends were
Tropics = 0.11C / decade
SH = 0.05C / decade
NH = 0.05C / decade
Claiming that there had been little of no warming since the peak of 1998 is the usual cherry picking.
Overall warming up to start of 2023
Tropics = 0.12C / decade
SH = 0.11C / decade
NH = 0.16C / decade
Plastic makers lied about recycling for decades. What do we do next?
The plastic industry pushed recycling as a solution to waste, while internally dismissing it as technically and economically unviable.
By Harri Weber | Published Feb 28, 2024 10:00 AM EST
https://www.popsci.com/environment/recycling-lies/
Linked from https://instapundit.com/
—
ITS GREEN LIES ALL THE WAY DOWN: Plastic makers lied about recycling for decades. What do we do next?
Posted at 2:30 pm by Glenn Reynolds
Corporations don’t lie, do they?
So what is the answer, glass or wax coated cardboard? Are those better?
Now that the spike of 2023 is really a surge with a cluster of 6 data points, the question is why did it suddenly get so hot? My guess would be that the observation of “bath water” temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean had something to do with it, but not everything.
The hurricane season had lots of named storms, but not so many really strong ones. Too much hot water maybe. There was a rather dramatic graphic showing the huge swath of cooler water that followed Hurricane Franklin. It never made landfall as a major. That is all the proof one needs that hurricanes cool the ocean.
The annual small increase in CO2 is probably not the reason for any of this.
Fair comment.
“…why did it suddenly get so hot?”
The El Niño combined with the record-setting Hunga-Tonga volcano (causing the HTE).
Two REAL forcings.
HTE had a small GHE forcing.
Which you dont believe in. Nothing else is science.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
This months Yale Climate Connections This is Not Cool video, following up on an earlier satellite temperature measurements video, explores the debate over the relative merits and comparative accuracy of surface thermometers vs. satellite data.
Preeminent satellite expert Carl Mears, of Remote Sensing Systems, sides with surface thermometers as consistently providing a generally more reliable record. “I would have to say that the surface data seems like its more accurate,” Mears said.
According to Zeke Hausfather, a regular Yale Climate Connections expert author and a doctoral candidate working with Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, Weve tried using just the raw data . . . globally, you get pretty much the same warming. The necessary and routine adjustments to surface temperature data sometimes attract disproportionate general circulation media attention, Hausfather says, but those have had very little significant impact over the last 30 years or so. The satellite records historically have been subjected to much, much, larger adjustments over time, according to Hausfather.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/03/experts-opt-for-surface-rather-than-satellite-temp-data/
“According to Zeke Hausfather, . . . ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Since you insist:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:2016
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike, Mike:
https://youtu.be/WX7aWsxe9yw?si=3G9zvtxyUxsuLoPc
Where were you seven years ago?
Willard, please stop trolling.
It is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON, because what we have found is that the satellite measured planets and moons the average surface temperatures (Tsat) RELATE, (everything else equals),
as the planets’ and moons’ their respective (N*cp) products’
the SIXTEENTH ROOT.
(Tsat.planet.1) /(Tsat.planet.2) = [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ]^1/16
Where:
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
********
Also we have corrected the Planet Blackbody Effective Temperature (Te), because we have found that planet surface the STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION was NEGLECTED.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ken:
“See King Canute…”
King Canute Syndrome: the medical term for climate change denial.
“We do not have the power to alter climate.”
We have altered the composition of Earth’s atmosphere raising the concentration of GHGs significantly since the mid-18th century. No small feat!
“Marxist global warming afficionados deny God exists.”
https://youtu.be/awLR19UuzTg
CO2 has gone up from 280 ppm to 420 ppm since 1959. That is significant.
How much of that increase is due to human emissions? Some of it, perhaps most of it, is attributable to ocean off gassing as the ocean is slowly warming.
There is still no reliable evidence that the increase in CO2 is causing any change to the earth’s climate.
> There is still no reliable evidence that the increase in CO2 is causing any change to the earths climate.
Step 1 – Pure and naked denial.
Ken isn’t the cabal sycophant that Willard is and that upsets Willard so much he launches into an ad hominem tirade.
The evidence is that climate is driven by solar activity and moderated by ocean currents. There is no artifact of carbon dioxide in any climate data.
The only denial comes from people who think the sun plays no role in climate; an absurd premise to say the least.
Willard offers “pure and naked cultism”, as usual.
If asked for the science to support his beliefs, all he will provide is beliefs. He can’t say how CO2 can heat the surface from valid physics, because it can’t.
Poor silly willy is nothing more than a child of the cult.
> Ken isnt the cabal sycophant
Step 1 – Pure, naked denial
> There is no artifact of carbon dioxide in any climate data.
Moar 1. Pure, naked denial.
“Moar 1. Pure, naked denial.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Step 1 Pure and naked denial.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
That is {assumed to be} significant.
“…ocean off gassing…”
I don’t know where you get your information, but they’re lying to you. Ever hear of ocean acidification? https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
“There is still no reliable evidence that the increase in CO2 is causing any change to the earths climate.”
I’m sure that must be true in your echo chamber. Here on Earth One we’ve been studying, and gathering evidence of it since 1861.
I respect your commitment to the narrative, but it makes me wonder about your motives.
“I respect your commitment to the narrative, but it makes me wonder about your motives.”
Arkady Abramovich, please stop trolling.
#11
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
“CO2 has gone up from 280 ppm to 420 ppm since 1959.”
CO2 levels were 315 ppm in 1959. 280 ppm before 1850.
“That is significant.”
Yes, a 50% increase.
“How much of that increase is due to human emissions? Some of it, perhaps most of it, is attributable to ocean off gassing as the ocean is slowly warming.”
Incredible coincidence that this rise mirrors anthropogenic emissions in timing and scale, and that somehow the oceans are outgassing CO2 while we measure an increase in oceanic CO2.
Also, the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 has changed in line with the burning of fossil fuels, not with the isotopic change that would accompany ocean outgassing.
It’s definitely anthropogenic.
barry,
You wrote “the burning of fossil fuels”. Anthropogenic heat production.
Creates heat. Thermometers are constructed to respond to heat.
“Creates heat.”
How much? Enough to make any significant difference?
You have no idea, do you. This is just the usual blather.
Swenson is like a 1980s AI. It has pre-programmed responses to a small cache of word-strings stored in its software, resulting in regular, accidental non-sequiturs.
barry, please stop trolling.
The evidence is that climate is driven by solar activity and moderated by ocean currents. There is no artifact of carbon dioxide in any climate data.
The only denial comes from people who think the sun plays no role in climate; an absurd premise to say the least.
> There is no artifact of carbon dioxide in any climate data.
Step 1 – Pure, naked denial
Up to you to show there is an artifact of CO2 in any climate data.
Don’t come back till you have evidence.
Step 2 of the Contrarian Two-Step:
2 – Sammich Request.
Sammich all ready.
Though I doubt he will be able to eat it or digest it.
Does the third step turn his denial from a two-step to a waltz?
Depends on how you interpret the denial of having being served a sammich. I suppose I could add:
3. – Saying Stuff.
This would cover for Bordo’s storytelling and Monkey Man’s appeals to ignorance.
“Depends on how you interpret the denial of having being served a sammich. ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Sometimes both Step 1 and Step 2 can be done at the same time, eg.
[KENNUI] Not a wishful sammich. (Gimme real evidence.)
“[KENNUI] Not a wishful sammich. (Gimme real evidence.)”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Note the 36% decrease in the outgoing longwave radiation flux in the band between wavenumbers 750 and 600.
That 18W/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere and ultimately finds it way back to the surface. This raises the equilibrium temperature.
This is generally known as the greenhouse effect.
Increasing the atmospheric CO2 content broadens the band, increases the flux warming the surface and further increases the equilibrium temperature.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
The problem is logarithmic.
30 Wm-2 is due to CO2 at 280 ppm.
Doubling CO2 concentration reduces direct thermal radiation to space by 3 Wm-2 … too small to make any significant difference in climate.
The only way to increase the amount of radiation available in the CO2 ab so rp tion spectrum at any given moment in time is to increase solar irradiance.
Ent, you have linked to that bogus chart many times. You either don’t understand it, or don’t care about reality. I suspect it’s both….
But let’s say there is 18 W/m² from CO2 that doesn’t go directly to space. Let’s accept your bogus premise. Now, could that bogus 18 W/m² warm a 288 K surface?
The answer is NO. The low energy 15μ photons from CO2 would likely not be absorbed, or if they were absorbed, their frequency is way below the average frequency of molecules in a 288K surface. To raise the temperature, the average vibrational frequency, corresponding to the average kinetic energy, must be raised.
You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes. Your cult cannot understand science. They believe they can just make up nonsense to support their false beliefs. It’s like when you made up the nonsense that passenger jets were flying backward. Or Ball4 claiming Earth has a “REAL 255K surface”, or Norman insinuating moons have a square orbit, or Folkerts claiming that fluxes simply add.
Your beliefs are all against science and reality.
> The answer is NO.
Step 1 – Pure denial.
Kennui is not that far from the IPCC’s position. About 4 Wm-2 is something like 1.2C directly. Add feedbacks and you get 1.5-4.5C. Not far from the difference between the middle of the last Ice Age to the our present interglacial.
Contrarians might be cuing “but you have no evidence about the future” as I’m typing this.
Ken
“Doubling CO2 concentration reduces direct thermal radiation to space by 3 Wm-2
That’ about right.
Now, what does that do to the temperature?
Increase ASR by 4W/m^2 and you increase surface temperature by 1C. The 3W increase for doubling CO2 increase direct radiation to the surface will increase surface temperature by 0.75C. A climate sensitivity of 3 will increase the temperature rise to 2.25C.
That’s a conservative estimate, but it is not “too small to make any significant difference in climate. “. That is twice the warming to date and we’re already seeing worrying changes.
Ken
“Doubling CO2 concentration reduces direct thermal radiation to space by 3 Wm-2
That’ about right.
Now, what does that do to the temperature?
Increase ASR by 4W/m^2 and you increase surface temperature by 1C. The 3W increase for doubling CO2 will increase surface temperature by 0.75C. A climate sensitivity of 3 will increase the temperature rise to 2.25C.
That’s a conservative estimate, but it is not “too small to make any significant difference in climate. “. That is twice the warming to date and we’re already seeing worrying changes.
The modest warming observed in our climate is still well below the temperatures that occurred during most of the Holocene.
Current GHE is 340Wm-2. It means temperatures are 15C instead of -18C. 33C from 340Wm-2 means about 1C for every 10Wm-2. So 3Wm-2 should be about 0.3C.
There is no evidence that feedbacks would occur. No one seems to consider whether there are feedbacks in the existing 340Wm-2 or why, if there is feedbacks in the 340Wm-2 they would be significantly greater because of a very small increase of 3Wm-2 due to CO2.
Doubling CO2 will take at least two centuries. 0.3C over two centuries is not a matter for concern.
Warming would be beneficial. Every degree C warming means 1 degree latitude further north where food can be grown reliably.
The only change in temperature that would be worrying is if temperatures abruptly go down 3 – 5C as they did at the start of the little ice age.
> There is no evidence that feedbacks would occur
1. Pure denial.
And as predicted:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1638866
Willard, please stop tro
“> There is no evidence that feedbacks would occur
1. Pure denial.”
Wishful thinking is not evidence.
> Wishful thinking is not evidence.
Step 2 – Sammich Request.
Entropic Man,
You wrote previously –
“The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets”
Now you write –
“Note the 36% decrease in the outgoing longwave radiation flux in the band between wavenumbers 750 and 600.
That 18W/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere and ultimately finds it way back to the surface. This raises the equilibrium temperature.
This is generally known as the greenhouse effect.”
Not a stack of blankets, then?
In any case, the surface cools every night, giving up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat. Hence four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
You might like to address the question of why surface thermometers show rising temperatures.
Obviously nothing to do piles of blankets or mythical GHEs.
Ken
Rather a Gish Gallop you’ve put up there, but I’ll try to answer what I can.
This is the best data on temperatures since the last glacial period.
https://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
“The modest warming observed in our climate is still well below the temperatures that occurred during most of the Holocene. ”
That turns out not to be the case. We are now at about 1.3C on the right hand scale, about 0.8C warmer than the Holocene optimum.
The LIA bottomed about 0.8C cooler than the Optimum, not 3-5C cooler.
“Doubling CO2 will take at least two centuries. ”
No. CO2 concentration is increasing at 2 ppmyear and accelerating. We are currently at 420ppm and will reach 560ppm no later than 2090.
“There is no evidence that feedbacks would occur. ”
If you do the maths, the Holocene warming was 1.2C due to orbital changes, 1.5C due to extra CO2 and 2.5C due to climate sensitivity. That’s 5.2For which almost half was due to feedbacks.
EM,
You might not have noticed that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
There is no GHE. Your pile of blankets had no effect, did it?
Fanatical GHE cultists simply refuse to believe that the Earth is not magically getting hotter. No amount of cunning equations or calculations involving should be, would be, or could be temperatures, can change facts.
Have you had second thoughts about writing “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets”?
That makes you sound pretty delu$#8204;sional, doesn’t it?
> delu$#8204;sional
Mike Flynn,
Please stop trying to bypass Roy’s moderation.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It looks like the Holocene data is considered by some to be controversial.
The GISP ice core data compiled by Easterbrook et al clearly shows Holocene to have been much warmer than now.
You can ignore the blather and scroll to the graph https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
So how to decide who is more likely correct?
Anecdotal information suggests Easterbrook is more correct than your Marricott:
Romans grew grapes in North England with which to make wine. Its too cold to reliably grow grapes in North England.
Vikings grew barley on Greenland with which to make beer. Its too cold to reliably grow barley on Greenland.
Battle Thermopilae Spartans vs Persians was fought over a strip of land 100 meters wide. Said strip of land is now a kilometer wide. Sea level was clearly higher at this location than it is now. Arguably sea level drop may have other causes than a cooler climate.
Nobody could argue that Kennui can’t be helpful:
https://climateball.net/but-historical-times#greenland
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-historical-times#romans
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-historical-times#thermopylae
More contrarian anecdotes, please!
Ken,
The Holocene Optimum is connected with the solar insolation reaching a summer maximum, specifically at the latitude of Greenland.
However Greenland temperature is not Global temperature.
Here is a gem from Clint:
“The answer is NO. The low energy 15μ photons from CO2 would likely not be absorbed, or if they were absorbed, their frequency is way below the average frequency of molecules in a 288K surface. To raise the temperature, the average vibrational frequency, corresponding to the average kinetic energy, must be raised.”
He should know that raising the temperature raises the amplitude of molecular vibrations, not the frequency of those vibrations.
Never took enough physics.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner vacuously resurrects another thread.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/04/met-office-must-account-for-the-junk-temperature-data-propping-up-net-zero-insanity/
“Pressure is likely to grow in the coming days for the U.K. Met Office to make a full public statement about the state of its nationwide temperature measuring stations. This follows sensational revelations in last Fridays Daily Sceptic that nearly eight out of ten sites had huge scientifically-designated uncertainties that essentially disqualified them from providing the accurate data required to promote the collectivist Net Zero agenda. Our report went viral on social media with over 1,300 retweets on X, and it was reposted on a number of sites. The investigative journalist Paul Homewood has covered the Met Offices temperature claims for many years, and in the light of the new disclosures he noted that if it wanted to continue to use its existing station measurements, it should show a warning that the margin of error is so great that they have no statistical significance at all.”
“The investigative journalist Paul Homewood”
LOL
I don’t know about “reporter” but Homewood is certainly not a statistician.
Not a lot of people know Paul.
And the very best is
” Our report went viral on social media with over 1,300 retweets on X, and it was reposted on a number of sites. ”
Plus crétin tu meurs.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
#10
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
From a caption in a related WUWT link…
‘There is a 1 in 27 million chance that a climate alarmist will tell the truth’.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/27/uk-met-office-says-2014-was-not-the-hottest-year-ever-due-to-uncertainty-ranges-of-the-data/
Upthread, the ignorant braggart Robertson who lacks any technical skills and hence insults me and denigrates all what I post here, wrote his usual blah blah:
” The spike is a lie as a representation of global temperatures. That’s not to say UAH is lying, they are simply the messengers of a statistical average that has no meaning.
This spike is the result of a statistical anomaly, nothing more. Here in the Vancouver, Canada area, there has been no indication that even a slight warming is going on.
I was just out walking in the late afternoon and there is a chill in the air typical of a winter’s day. I was out a couple of days ago with a wind blowing in from slightly north of west and I needed to be bundled up with a toque covered with my hoodie, a thick, quilted jacket, and thermal long johns under my sweats. ”
*
People like Robertson always confound their vague, superficial gut feeling with examining real data.
*
So, the global average has no meaning?
Then why not move down to the smallest portion of the Globe published by the UAH team: a cell in their 2.5 degree grid, i.e. an area of about 51,000 km^2 at Vancouver’s latitude?
In the small grid cell centered at 48.75N-123.75W (a place on Vancouver Island), you find 58 GHCN daily stations located in British Columbia, CA or Washington, US (at altitudes varying from 5 m up to 1100 m), with at least 30 years lifetime and having sufficient data for anomaly construction wrt the mean of 1991-2020.
A comparison of the very local average of the 58 anomaly time series to UAH’s grid cell anomaly (itself being the result of a huge, complex average of different daily data coming from different satellite-borne microwave soundings) gives this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1et2MVXgC7Htzc3ing1E5D3ABR60lIqyh/view
*
As anyone can see, even the smallest possible comparison between surface and satellite data clearly shows since 2010 local warming, both at the surface and in the lower troposphere – indicated of course by a polynomial fit of the third order, and of course NOT by using the trivial y=mx+b stuff, as is brazenly claimed by some pseudo-skeptical ‘specialist’s.
This trivial y=mx+b stuff however tells you the following:
Trends, in C/decade
1979-2023
LT: 0.12 +- 0.05
surf: 0.20 +- 0.04
2000-2023
LT: 0.22 +- 0.11
surf: 0.30 +- 0.10
2010-2023
LT: 0.56 +- 0.28
surf: 0.47 +- 0.25
*
Thus, the very local average for UAH’s ‘Vancouver’ cell shows since 2010 a trend
– way higher than that for UAH48 aka CONUS:
2010-2023
LT: 0.35 +- 0.13
– and a tiny bit higher at the surface than does the CONUS station average:
2010-2023
surf: 0.44 +- 0.20
What did the boundary layer do?
As always, Blindsley-H00d assumes that others are missing something instead of clarifying things himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundary_layer
The best is that he will never be able to answer his own question.
Throwing sand in the eyes of those few who know even a bit less than himself: that is the only method he ‘masters’.
binny…”People like Robertson always confound their vague, superficial gut feeling with examining real data”.
***
As usual, Binny van der Klown gets it backwards. He thinks its OK to impose ill-gotten data that infers in tenths of a degree that my gut feeling is wrong. When I walk into a cold winter’s breeze, I am supposed to read Binny’s data and force myself to accept it’s not really cold.
That’s the alarmist deeelusion, crunch numbers and tell lies about them.
And again: Robertson dûmb and brazen lies:
" He thinks its OK to impose <b>ill-gotten</b> data… "
Anyone who is definitely no more than a pseudo-engineer (in my native tongue: 'un ingénieur d'opérette'), hence too stûpid to find, download, let alone process data by his own, never will be able to do more than discredit and denigrate other people's results, instead of presenting a well-done technical contradiction.
*
Last night it was -6°C on the terrace, at least 4°C colder than it has been in the last five weeks – due to a sudden cold wind in contrast to an exceptionally warm February.
If I were as stûpid and disingenuous as Robertson, I would claim that we have record cold here south of Berlin, so no warming!
binny isn’t even good at insults, never mind statistics.
The point I was making is that every day for the past several months has been the same old, same old here in Vancouver, Canada. There is no sign of global warming or climate change here in Vancouver. No sign of a spike consisting of tenths of a degree C. If that is happening elsewhere on the planet, good for them. There is no global warming or climate change here in Vancouver.
Higher lows:
https://www.vmcdn.ca/f/files/glaciermedia/images/climate-enviro-solutions/climate-modellingattribution/bc-modelled-climate-temps.jpg
” binny isnt even good at insults, never mind statistics. ”
Indeed I’m, compared to you, ‘not even good at insults’: never in my life did I ever insult persons like you did so many times, by calling them ‘cheating SB’, for example.
*
” The point I was making is that every day for the past several months has been the same old, same old here in Vancouver, Canada. ”
Even here you aren’t able to remind what you recently told about ‘record colds in Vancouver‘.
Do you recall?
” NOAA should send a delegation to Vancouver, Canada, the warmest part of Canada in winter. Over the past several weeks we have set records for cold weather in October and the last couple of days have been seriously cold by our standards. Meantime, the rest of Canada regard us as wimps because it is much colder in those parts of the nation in October. ”
” Thats the thing, Walter, we set records for cold weather here in the Vancouver, Canada area in a climate claimed to represent recodrs for warming. ”
I proved you wrong weeks ago, of course.
*
” There is no sign of global warming or climate change here in Vancouver. ”
Here are two charts in which a few stations around Vancouver are compared to all stations within a 2.5 degree grid cell and to the same UAH 6.0 LT grid cell.
1. Absolute values wrt 1991-2020
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1njlA6DgHPDxBxC26kOvcsBt2Cq3pcNa1/view
2. Anomalies wrt 1991-2020
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_SKqWFK_07ShBwvT0wTf2HqalJRoiyKg/view
*
” No sign of a spike consisting of tenths of a degree C. ”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GBMm9XN4BROiC_yljcBXD44tCMaF0m4h/view
Look at the green spikes at the end of the chart (2021, 2022, 2023).
*
” … never mind statistics. ”
No statistics here, Robertson: only real, honest engineer’s work.
You don’t know anything about statistics, let alone about engineering.
And above all: you are anything but honest.
If you want to gain better insight into how your regional climate is changing, you’d be better off calculating percentiles and frequency distribution charts and examining them over time. Anomalies just hide a lot of detail and can lead to misleading conclusions. That’s why people above are getting confused about the spike.
Monkey Man has not been surprised by the spike because he has made percentiles and frequency distribution charts.
Nobody saw them but he did.
Willard is a monkey.
Monkey Man is a fraud.
No, Hogle: Willard isn’t a monkey at all, let alone are bdgwx and Bindidon monkeys.
All three simply are people who see that you claim things you’d never be able to prove.
Human beans are monkeys who vote.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner quacks a little more.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
“Upthread, the ignorant braggart Robertson who lacks any technical skills and hence insults me and denigrates all what I post here, wrote his usual blah blah:”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Entropic man writes:
“That is twice the warming to date and were already seeing worrying changes.”
What worrying changes do you speak of?
You know, the ones that make you close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and go “LaLaLa”.
The changes you denialist s pretend aren’t happening.
EM,
You wrote –
“You know, the ones that make you close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and go LaLaLa.”
OK, which ones are they? Your imaginary, irrational fears (phobias), or something rational, that can expressed in English, rather than LaLaLa.
I’ll reassure you that weather changes, as does its statistics – climate. Surface temperatures vary between around 1200 C and -90 C. If you get too hot, find some means of cooling down, if you get too cold, find some means of heating up.
By the way, you’ll find you can’t live for more than a few months above 5000 m or so.
You might as well close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and go “LaLaLa”.
You don’t mind if I laugh at the spectacle, do you?
3 – Saying Stuff
Willard, please stop trolling.
I invite you to drop by Vancouver, Canada and point out your imaginary changes. Heck, I’ll even buy your a beer, as long as I don’t have to sit there and listen to your Irish blarney.
Thanks. I’m more convinced than ever.
“This marks 9 months in a row, where the monthly record has been broken.”
It is possible that we could end up with a year’s worth of consecutive record-breaking months.
While this wouldn’t have been remarkable in the first few years of the UAH record, I wonder what the odds are of that happening with 45+ years of data, factoring the variability over the period. I’d guess even the current 9-month streak would have very low odds.
barry,
“I wonder what the odds are of that happening ”
You could always educate yourself, and satisfy your curiosity. I’m assuming that you have absolutely no intention of seeking knowledge, but are just trolling.
Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
> Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
2. – Sammich Request
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Please listen to Barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639097
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson – I don’t know how to calculate the probability, and yes, I have little interest in spending a few hours trying to figure out how, when my curiosity is on it is mild. I posted with the hope that someone here who has the skill might give it a go.
By the way, please stop tr0lling.
barry,
OK. You are not very interested. I don’t blame you – predicting the outcome of a deterministic chaotic system is impossible.
Do you know this? If you do, trying to get somebody else to waste their time attempting something you know is impossible, might indicate what sort of fanatical GHE cultis5 you are.
At least when Willard is spouting unintelligible gibberish, it is obvious that he is away with the fairies.
Are you pretending otherwise?
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry, please stop trolling.
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry,
OK. You are not very interested. I dont blame you predicting the outcome of a deterministic chaotic system is impossible.
Do you know this? If you do, trying to get somebody else to waste their time attempting something you know is impossible, might indicate what sort of fanatical GHE cultis5 you are.
At least when Willard is spouting unintelligible gibberish, it is obvious that he is away with the fairies.
Are you pretending otherwise?
Mike Flynn,
Please continue to play dumb.
Thats a pretty feeble record as its only a statistical warming. The only thing that has been warming has been overnight lows for the past 80 years. The highs hit their peak about 80 years ago. the only place left for them to get warmer is from under retreating ice sheets.
All that is orthogonal to what I was saying.
barry, please stop trolling.
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry, please stop trolling.
#9
Flynnson
Stop confusing this blog with the kindergarten you play in all the time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It will likely be the same for some time till the water from Hunga Tonga moves out of the stratosphere.
Besides, the spike is not representative of the planet as a whole. It is nothing more than a statistical anomaly, driven by some parts of the planet. There is no way it has warmed in the Vancouver, Canada area. Of course, who is looking for a few tenths C warming other than an alarmist?
I hear the AMO is about to switch phases. That should fix it.
“the spike is not representative of the planet as a whole.”
It represents an average global temperature, and of all the figures UAH publishes, best represents the planet as a whole.
Whereas temperatures in Vancouver or the tropics or my vivarium do not.
I am content for you to be fixated on Vancouver or the tropics, but not on my vivarium.
barry,
Don’t be dim. About 70% of the surface is underwater, and nobody has the faintest idea of its average temperature.
As to the rest, it varies between about 1200 C, and -90 C.
Nobody measures the surface temperature anyway.
Just guesses piled on estimates, furiously trying to avoid the fact that the exposed sunlit surface cools every night anyway. The planet itself has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Are you implying that the planet has stopped cooling, and is starting to get hotter? You’d have to be a GHE cultist to believe something as outrageous as that!
Carry on believing.
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry, please stop trolling.
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry,
Dont be dim. About 70% of the surface is underwater, and nobody has the faintest idea of its average temperature.
As to the rest, it varies between about 1200 C, and -90 C.
Nobody measures the surface temperature anyway.
Just guesses piled on estimates, furiously trying to avoid the fact that the exposed sunlit surface cools every night anyway. The planet itself has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Are you implying that the planet has stopped cooling, and is starting to get hotter? Youd have to be a GHE cultist to believe something as outrageous as that!
Carry on believing.
“The planet itself has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.”
You were wrong Swenson, it was quite easy for me to accurately predict the future!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1637176
I wonder if Nate is seeing differential equations in the atmosphere. Might explain his deeeelusional thinking.
Gordon seems to believe mathematical sciences can’t or shouldn’t be applied to understand nature.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Nice red-herring argument, Nate.
Climate models are based on differential equation, not the atmosphere. That’s why the models cannot predict the future, differential equations cannot be applied to anything real.
Sure, Maxwell’s equations dont apply to anything real!
Sure, the Heat equation doesnt apply to anything real!
Hee Haww!
Gordon confirms his extreme ignorance.
FYI,
“Numerical weather prediction (NWP) uses mathematical models of the atmosphere and oceans to predict the weather based on current weather conditions.”
“The atmosphere is a fluid. As such, the idea of numerical weather prediction is to sample the state of the fluid at a given time and use the equations of fluid dynamics and thermodynamics to estimate the state of the fluid at some time in the future.”
“The equations used are nonlinear partial differential equations which are impossible to solve exactly through analytical methods,[36] with the exception of a few idealized cases.[37] Therefore, numerical methods obtain approximate solutions”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_weather_prediction
Oh well!
Nate,
You wrote –
“Numerical weather prediction (NWP) uses mathematical models of the atmosphere and oceans to predict the weather based on current weather conditions.”
Unfortunately, they don’t work.
In a deterministic chaotic system, the approximate future is not determined by the approximate present.
If you believe otherwise, you might be a fanatical GHE cultist. You can’t even describe the mythical GHE, can you? How hard can it be?
Too hard for you and your fellow religionists, obviously.
“Unfortunately, they dont work.”
The usual weird denial of what everybody else in the world gets, that weather prediction works!
Once again, the Robertson boy demonstrates his unbeatable level of incompetence.
He should have a look at what he definitely doesn’t have the least clue of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_equation
Especially the History section, beginning with
” Differential equations came into existence with the invention of calculus by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz. ”
shows how arrogant and ignorant he behaves.
*
In contrast to the completely uneducated Robertson who can only discredit and denigrate, the outstanding astronomer Tobias Mayer knew Newton’s work on differential equations, and used it in his 1750 treatise on Moon’s rotation about its inner axis.
Like any scientifically minded person, Mayer did not trust his gut feeling, and wanted to obtain mathematical proof that our Moon had sufficient sphericity to allow the use of spherical trigonometry to calculate arcs and angles on its surface.
Mayer got it wrong, Bindi. Moon does NOT spin, it only orbits. It’s the same as a ball-on-a-string.
Puffman, please stop throwing more bait.
Clint R
” Mayer got it wrong, Bindi. Moon does NOT spin, it only orbits. Its the same as a ball-on-a-string. ”
Stop smalltalking and stalking.
Give us instead a mathematical proof that Mayer ‘got it wrong’.
Of course: AVOID by the way
– to mention again your stoopid ‘ball-on-a-string’ childish idiocy
AND
– the trivial trash Tesla wrote in a ridiculous inventer pamphlet – without having ever read the work of Kepler, Newton, Mayer, Euler, Lagrange and Laplace.
Sorry Bindi, but you don’t get to make up rules just to protect your cult beliefs. The ball-on-a-string is REALITY. It’s a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. It’s supported by physics, for those that understand vectors.
You don’t have a such a model. That’s why you’re angry and frustrated. Your cult provides NOTHING except false beliefs.
I don’t mind reminding you of that every time you mention Moon….
Clint R #2
” The ball-on-a-string is REALITY. Its a viable model of orbiting without spin. Its supported by physics, for those that understand vectors. ”
I’m not interested in your claim based on no more than gut feeling.
I’m interested in your mathematical proof that Tobias Mayer’s treatise about the lunar spin is wrong.
And you can’t prove it wrong without having completely understood what he did:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
Then, having understood the treatise, you can walk along the entire document, and show us all places where Mayer’s computations based on spherical trigonometry were wrong.
*
You never presented any theoretical document about anything on this blog; I therefore doubt your ability to technically and mathematically contradict Mayer.
*
As long as you fail to give us the proof, your replies will be ignored.
So, to recap again: the following issues are settled and correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis. It is instead rotating about a central axis, located at the other end of the string. As Little Willy put it: "what we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not."
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion (sorry, Tim) and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the below GIF (not the MOTR). Don’t forget that nobody is saying the motion of the MOTL can’t be described in another way: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames (sorry, Ball4). Don’t forget that this has a specific meaning, which I have outlined numerous times.
4) “Orbit” and “spin” are independent motions, as shown in the following video: https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=TOKFBw-1q7tw9Ak7
The above four points are now (as before) beyond debate. They’re settled. Once every "Spinner" agrees, we can move on to discussing whether "orbit without spin" really is like the MOTL or the MOTR. Until then, we wait for "Spinner" to argue against "Spinner" until all are in agreement on the four points.
J’ai toujours espoir que ducon aura sa leçon, mais non.
Pas super différent de Bordo, au fond.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639879
Graham D. Warner looks for another food fight.
Not at all. I’m looking for “Spinner” to argue against “Spinner”.
Graham D. Warner relapses.
Little Willy keeps responding, without saying anything of any significance. Can always count on him for that. He’s incapable of ignoring my posts.
Graham D. Warner decided he’s gonna last word another thread by trying to inject talking points that have little to do with what Binny or Puffman said.
See what I mean? All he had to do was not respond to my last comment, and he’d have proved me wrong. Instead, he proves me right.
Again.
Graham D. Warner unsportingly keeps trying to make himself relevant:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639596
Keep proving me right, Little Willy. Thanks.
I wonder if Bordo asks for any evidence that he would crash into a tree before putting the breaks.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I certainly would require evidence that a tree was likely to be in the way as I drove down a freeway. I try to avoid driving into forests, unless there is a road through one.
I wonder if Bordo really lives in Vancouver, and not LA.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Lots of trees in Vancouver, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
barry…”Incredible coincidence that this rise [CO2 emissions] mirrors anthropogenic emissions in timing and scale, and that somehow the oceans are outgassing CO2 while we measure an increase in oceanic CO2″.
***
Several points…
1)The IPCC have based CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere on a pre-Industrial guess of 270 ppmv. That guess is cherry-picked from ice core samples in Antarctica that ranged up to 2000 ppmv.
2)there is good evidence from Beck that CO2 concentrations exceeded 400 ppmv in the 1940s, and at other times, therefore the notion that CO2 is rising linearly is suspect.
3)there are no international stations for measuring CO2 density. The main station on Mauna Loa is located on an active volcano.
Guess what an active volcano out-gases. Duh!!!
Here’s the irony, the observatory was shut down in 2022 when the volcano erupted and lava took out the power lines to the station. The station is still inaccessible.
https://gml.noaa.gov/obop/mlo/programs/esrl/co2/co2.html
3)The CO2 warming theory intentionally negates the real driver of current warming, recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Allow me to summarize in part.
-the main CO2 measuring station is located on an active volcano and is currently unavailable…
-the Little Ice Age has been discredited by the IPCC as a phenomenon local to Europe.
barry wrote “Incredible coincidence that this rise [CO2 emissions] mirrors anthropogenic emissions in timing and scale,”.
What? Is barry quite mad?
Mankind burns fossil fuels, creating CO2 and H2O amongst other things – like heat!
Barry is amazed that the emissions are due to emissions?
Quite out of touch with reality. Neither CO2 nor H2O produce heat. Making them from fossil fuels does.
Surprise, surprise!
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry wrote “Incredible coincidence that this rise [CO2 emissions] mirrors anthropogenic emissions in timing and scale,”.
What? Is barry quite mad?
Mankind burns fossil fuels, creating CO2 and H2O amongst other things like heat!
Barry is amazed that the emissions are due to emissions?
Quite out of touch with reality. Neither CO2 nor H2O produce heat. Making them from fossil fuels does.
Surprise, surprise!
Swenson, please stop tr0lling.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry,
Dont be dim. About 70% of the surface is underwater, and nobody has the faintest idea of its average temperature.
As to the rest, it varies between about 1200 C, and -90 C.
Nobody measures the surface temperature anyway.
Just guesses piled on estimates, furiously trying to avoid the fact that the exposed sunlit surface cools every night anyway. The planet itself has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Are you implying that the planet has stopped cooling, and is starting to get hotter? Youd have to be a GHE cultist to believe something as outrageous as that!
Carry on believing.
Mike Flynn,
Please stick to PSTering.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“1)The IPCC have based CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere on a pre-Industrial guess of 270 ppmv. That guess is cherry-picked from ice core samples in Antarctica that ranged up to 2000 ppmv.”
Multiple independent ice core samples from different regions of the planet and other proxies corroborate about 280 ppm pre-industrial. There is no credible (ie Jarowoski) criticism of this.
“2)there is good evidence from Beck that CO2 concentrations exceeded 400 ppmv in the 1940s, and at other times, therefore the notion that CO2 is rising linearly is suspect.”
Multiple measuring stations around the world since the 1950s confirm a steady rise and no wild spikes. Whereas Beck used data from near factories, in cities, that got local levels and did not account for the local factors.
So either post 1956, CO2 levels magically stabilised from wild fluctuations to a steady rise, or Beck’s paper is a dud.
3)there are no international stations for measuring CO2 density. The main station on Mauna Loa is located on an active volcano.
Multiple independent measuring stations – ie in Antarctica not near a volcano, corroborate the M/L record, which DOES account for volcanic activity and exogenous factors where your vaunted Beck does not.
If you are criticising the researchers at M/L, who are aware of contamination issues and account for them, then you must equally if not more greatly, criticise Beck, who took no notice of local factors.
Some useful information for you about measuring stations alternative to M/L:
“Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii; American Samoa; and South Pole, Antarctica. GML first began measurements of CO2 at the observatories in 1973, and added CH4 and CO measurements in the 1980’s. Continuous in-situ measurements of these gases provides great detail in their long term trends, seasonal and short-term variations, and diurnal cycles.”
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/insitu/
That’s just one institute. Since the 1970s scores of atmospheric monitoring stations have sprung into being. Here’s a fairly comprehensive list of the institutes that run them.
https://gaw.kishou.go.jp/documents/db_list/organization
Comparing measurements from all over the world corroborates the M/L record.
barry,
All well and good – but CO2 has no heating properties at all.
Particularly at night, and over the last four and a half billion years!
What are you trying to say?
Mike Flynn,
Please stop playing dumb.
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Allow me to summarize in part.
-the main CO2 measuring station is located on an active volcano and is currently unavailable… ”
*
Here we see once more what an incompetent and disingenuous liar Robertson actually is!
The reason: he exclusively picks his misinformation out of contrarian blogs – regardless the kind of misinformation.
NOAA, Newton, Einstein, viruses, Russia: all the same trash.
ark…”Ever hear of ocean acidification?”
***
It’s a rumour. Basic chemistry tells us that the absor.p-tion of parts of trace gas into oceans the size of Earth’s oceans cannot budge the pH balance significantly.
Please enumerate this “basic chemistry” for our edification.
Antonin Qwerty,
Don’t you understand basic chemistry?
I am surprised to are appealing to the authority of Gordon Robertson.
I am surprised that you couldn’t see that I asked the question knowing he wouldn’t be able to answer.
And also that you believe “to” is a pronoun.
No … Waite … the second one doesn’t surprise me at all.
Now Baby … Isn’t it Time you got back to your copy-paste?
Every Time I Think of You, I think of your copy-pasting.
AQ,
What is the point of asking a question of someone, when you believe they don’t know the answer?
Are you mad?
A rational person would seek answers from someone who they think is smarter than them.
Maybe you believe everyone is smarter than you, is that it?
“What is the point of asking a question of someone, when you believe they dont know the answer?”
Swenson would never do that…Tee hee hee.
Thanks Mikey for letting me know that you ask me so many questions because you believe I am smarter than you.
Or are you saying you are not rational?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
What is Ocean Acidification?
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning coal in large quantities, the worlds ocean water has gradually become more acidic. Like global warming, this phenomenon, which is known as ocean acidification, is a direct consequence of increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earths atmosphere.
Prior to industrialization, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million (ppm). With increased use of fossil fuels, that number is now approaching 400 ppm and the growth rate is accelerating. Scientists calculate that the ocean is currently absorbing about one quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans are emitting. When carbon dioxide combines with seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce the seawater pH, hence the term ocean acidification.
Currently, about half of the anthropogenic (human-caused) carbon dioxide in the ocean is found in the upper 400 meters (1,200 feet) of the water column, while the other half has penetrated into the lower thermocline and deep ocean. Density- and wind-driven circulation help mix the surface and deep waters in some high latitude and coastal regions, but for much of the open ocean, deep pH changes are expected to lag surface pH changes by a few centuries.
https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/how-the-ocean-works/ocean-chemistry/ocean-acidification/
Willard, please stop trolling.
pH in the great barrier reef daily goes up and down more than the alleged pH change of the ocean.
Its not acidification. pH of the ocean is alkaline. More or less alkaline is the correct science lexicon. Its not acid till pH is less than 7.
You should consider the pH levels before Holocene when 140 meters of current sea level was locked in continental ice sheets. Sea life has not suffered from the pH changes that occured then.
> Its not acidification.
Step 1 – Pure Denial.
200ppm atmospheric CO2 during the last interglacial, against 280 ppm in the Holocene and 420ppm today.
During the glacial period thee ocean CO2 content would equilibrate with the lower atmospheric concentration and produce a higher pH than anything seen in the last 10,000 years.
Ken,
Ocean acidification refers to the fact that the average PH of the ocean surface has dropped 26% due to rising atmospheric CO2.
Here is some data: https://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/trends/ph.gif
This figure and the quote below are from a 2006 study:https://ibb.co/Y87wzgr
Where’s your data and/or studies?
In God we trust. All others must bring data.
A,
I hope you are not implying the existence of a GHE which you cannot describe, are you?
That would be pretty silly, and make you look like a fanatical, and clueless, GHE cultist, wouldn’t it?
Carry on avoiding reality.
Mike Flynn,
Do continue to play dumb.
Wonky Wee Willy,
I hope you are not implying the existence of a GHE which you cannot describe, are you?
That would be pretty silly, and make you look like a fanatical, and clueless, GHE cultist, wouldnt it?
Carry on avoiding reality.
Mike,
I hope you’re not implying that I’m implying the questions you beg.
But I do like when you beg.
Do continue.
Ken,
“Its not acidification. pH of the ocean is alkaline. More or less alkaline is the correct science lexicon. Its not acid till pH is less than 7.”
Sounds like you have never taken a chemistry course, not even a basic high school chemistry class.
Water is an acid, water is also a base.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner relapses.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Oh boy was I wrong. I expected a drop.
But this confirms for me what I stated earlier … UAH seems to over-represent the very high temperatures, though rather inconsistently, and under-represent the average temps and lower.
JRA-55 shows declining temperatures since Sept.
https://climatlas.com/temperature/jra55/jra55_globe_t2m_recent_2023.png
Memories:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2020/01/05/trend-pat-michaels-and-ryan-maue-ride-the-crazy-train/
I was just providing commentary on the thread topic, which was that UAH is over-representing current temperatures.
I thought you were just providing a graph, Monkey Man.
Have you asked the chatbot about reanalysis?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner can’t resist being an asshat.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Koolin ahead
https://youtu.be/TR8-0WQKX_Y
Yep, any month now.
barrytard biting my ankle again
Are you saying that it will never get any colder?
Are you saying I’m saying it will never get any colder?
Thought Eben was hoping for more warmth! Now this..
Might or might not get a La Nina.
We had 3 in a row, and it didnt stop us from breaking warm records right after.
Of 8 international ENSO forecast groups, 1 has a possible la Nina beginning in June.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20240305.nino_summary_5.png
2 of these groups forecast a possible la Nina beginning/continuing in July.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20240305.nino_summary_6.png
Once again, there is the Spring Prediction Barrier caveat, which means significantly more uncertainty in forecasts just now.
Actually, CanSIPS shows La Nina by everyone else’s reckoning but BOM.
What month?
JMA are forecasting neutral through NH Summer. Do you have a link to CanSIPS?
I got CanSIPS from your first graph. It is below BOM’s 0.8 threshold, but above everyone else’s 0.5.
For July, I see 3 forecasts beyond the -0.5C threshold, and 4 forecasts short of it.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20240305.nino_summary_6.png
The mean of these results is about -0.5.
For June, 2, maybe 3 forecasts are beyond the -0.5 threshold.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20240305.nino_summary_5.png
Just remembered BoM SST anomaly threshold is at 0.8. That still leaves discrepancies between reporting if CanSIPs is saying everyone but BoM is forecasting Nina.
Are you saying that there will not be a La Nina?
Are you saying you can’t read what people say?
Claiming
NOT (A => B)
is logically equivalent to
NOT B
is RLH’s favourite fallacial argument.
And he believes no one can see through it.
I don’t think he can see through it.
Probably not. I think he subscribes to the belief of that other clueless denier, Ivar Giaever, that he is the smartest person he knows.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
I made up a couple of Dad jokes.
My son found a two-leaf clover.
I said, “Half your luck!”
I asked my daughter if she’d rather be rich or respected.
She said, “Neither, Dad, I want to be just like you.”
I didn’t make up this joke but I like it a lot…
My wife is kicking me out because of my terrible Arnold Schwarzenegger impersonations.
But don’t worry: “I’ll return!”
What is a “dad joke”?
Dad jokes are known for being short, a little lame, and not too crude. Jokes Dads tell to their kids.
I guess the following doesn’t qualify as a dad joke:
Q: Why are New Zealanders like sperm?
A: Because millions come out, but only one works.
It doesn’t, but it will do.
What did the Jewish Maori say?
Hey bru.
Theyve seen The Terminator?
I don’t have kids. Doesn’t stop me telling Dad jokes, though.
I asked my wife to rate my listening.
She said, “You’re an eight on a scale of ten.”
No idea why she wants me to urinate on a skeleton.
OK. That one was funny.
A dad decides HE will make the breakfast.
Declares
“I need absolute silence, I’m cooking an egg.”
Dunno why I keep my vacuum cleaner.
It’s only gathering dust.
I gave my son one last chance not to use his pipe whistle indoors.
He blew it.
A shirt I bought kept picking up static electricity.
I went back and they gave me another one free of charge.
You should try blindfolded archery.
You don’t know what you’re missing.
And still nobody can describe this mythical “GHE”, can they?
Not surprising, considering the GHE is mythical.
GHE [Greenhouse Effect] is related to the warming effect of manmade greenhouses. Which “trap” heat.
Specifically greenhouse structures build on the land.
On Earth, land cools and the ocean warms. Or greenhouses don’t cool as fast as other land surfaces.
GHE is also like a parked car with windows rolled up- but the term was used before there was parked cars with windows rolled up.
If a cars windows are not rolled up, the car’s interior isn’t warmed up as much. Or it’s about preventing convectional heat loss.
Other transparent surfaces, like oceans and lakes, also “trap heat” though such surface do have evaporational heat loss.
What inhibits evaporational heat loss is a higher vapor content in the air.
We live in an Ice Age, a Ice Age has drier air, as compared warmer global climate state, like a greenhouse global climate.
Sorry gb, but you haven’t been paying attention. The bogus GHE is NOT related to a real greenhouse, or to a closed car in Sun.
Both a real greenhouse and the car warm because warm air cannot escape, and the temperature rises, The atmosphere continually cools, emitting energy to space, That energy must continually be resupplied by Sun, or the planet would drastically cool.
Earth is ONLY considered to be in an “ice age” because of manmade definitions.
Clint R better term to clarify is greenhouse gases.
Or how is Ozone a greenhouse gas.
Or how is sulfuric acid of Venus atmosphere counted as a greenhouse gas. Or how are Earth clouds “greenhouse gases”.
Or define greenhouse gases.
“Earth is ONLY considered to be in an ice age because of manmade definitions.”
All definition are manmade. Or we had words for a long time, and dictionaries for a much shorter period of time.
Words are whatever people decide they are, dictionaries try limit meaning of words, so they is less confusion or add clarifition.
Otherwise everything in a cargo cult of nonsense.
What is airplane?
Something which can bring cargo and strange people. Or maybe related to acts of god.
As I said before, the confusion about Earth climate is related to Venus.
One ask the question is Venus a starship- does it keep warm without sunlight or when far from any star.
I think if Venus was at Earth distance from Sun, it would be colder than Earth is. Or it has less “greenhouse effect” as compared to Earth.
Or turn it around, if Earth was at Venus distance, it would be colder
than Venus rocky surface.
Most people who know anything, would agree.
But if talk Venus in terms 1 atm pressure [far from it’s rocky surface] and about Venus when it’s at Venus distance from Sun, most Venus is not very warm.
https://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-NorthAtlantic%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
The past 8 months CANNOT be explained with just global warming and El Nio as the primary drivers. There is most definitely a third important variable. This is a plausible alternative.
One contender is reduced albedo.
Curiously supporting evidence comes from your old friend Paul Homewood.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/05/the-continuing-albedo-change-warms-the-earth-more-than-twice-as-much-as-co2/
The spike’s influence has manifested itself in areas unaffected by past ENSO cycles, such as the North Atlantic, to which I linked above, and the South Atlantic:
https://i.postimg.cc/7Yf4hyYp/Screen-Shot-2024-03-06-at-8-23-48-AM.png
The North Atlantic SSTs correlate with stratospheric temperatures and land surface temperatures. As you sceptics say “Correalation is not causation.”
At least until you can identify a mechanism.
That’s why we know the GHE is bogus. There is no mechanism for CO2 warming Earth’s 288K surface.
And what’s your point?
Arguing from ignorance does not a mechanism provide.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Well, the main point of my thread is to provide evidence that the spike is unrelated to ENSO, and show that the people who say so are full of shit. Going by the logic above of ENSO’s 4-5 month lag, July’s value of 0.64 deg. C reflected a -0.1 ONI value, which doesn’t make sense. Dr. Spencer acknowledged that at the time the report came out.
So, if no one thinks that is convincing enough evidence, I will go to greater lengths to support this. In these datasets, there’s no ENSO influence, which is good evidence that supports my position.
walter, no influence you say? Just with CO2 and ENSO alone R^2 = 0.63. Adding volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols bumps us up to R^2 = 0.72. Adding TSI and the seasonal effect gets us up to R^2 = 0.74. And the single factor removal for ENSO is R^2 = 0.21 while the single factor addition for ENSO after first detrending UAH is R^2 = 0.30. So yeah…ENSO has a significant effect especially on the shorter monthly timescales.
My mistake – not no influence; definitely some. But it can’t explain it by itself; I don’t think it’s the dominant contributor. It’s probable that Hunga Tonga has an indirect influence. There is something peculiar associated with the spike.
“walter, no influence you say? Just with CO2 and ENSO alone R^2 = 0.63. Adding volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols bumps us up to R^2 = 0.72. Adding TSI and the seasonal effect gets us up to R^2 = 0.74. And the single factor removal for ENSO is R^2 = 0.21 while the single factor addition for ENSO after first detrending UAH is R^2 = 0.30. So yeahENSO has a significant effect especially on the shorter monthly timescales.”
Your polished turd doesn’t reflect reality. You’re bringing a water pistol to a firefight and expecting to douse the flames.
walter: But it cant explain it by itself
No offense. But duh. We all know that. However, that doesn’t mean that ENSO has no influence. In fact, it has a lot of influence especially on monthly time scales. In fact, it is the primary reason for the existence of the recent spike. ONI spiked so TLT spikes.
Don’t hear what isn’t being said. It isn’t being said that ENSO perfectly explains the timing of the spikes. It doesn’t. It isn’t being said that it perfectly explains the magnitude of the spikes. It doesn’t. It isn’t being said there aren’t other influences. There are.
walter: Your polished turd doesnt reflect reality.
The skill of my “polished turd” is assessed against UAH TLT which I think most people would describe as reality. My “polished turd” has a skill of R^2 = 0.74 and 1m RMSE of 0.14 C and 13m RMSE of 0.07 C. That’s pretty good considering Christy et al. 2003 report the 1m uncertainty at 0.10 C and 0.075 C (1-sigma).
So here’s what I want you to do. Demonstrate just how much of a “turd” my analysis is by presenting your own analysis with better skill scores than what I came up with. Considering that what I did was equatable to a “turd” I’m expecting a much higher R^2 and much lower RMSE from a model that you fully document in your next post.
> it can’t explain it by itself
🧐
The North Atlantic shows exact correlation with the Hunga-Tonga eruption, while the South Atlantic shows a significant delay. The HTE produced multiple varying results. It may take decades to sort it all out.
Good sources, Walter.
I agree. I think Hunga Tonga played a role, maybe indirectly because of the time lag. I recall reading comments over Judith Curry’s summer of 2023 article about the eruption altering atmospheric circulation and reducing cloud cover, allowing more solar radiation to absorb into the planet. Then there’s, of course, the strong El Nio; these two variables can explain the spike.
Global warming’s role here is just in regards to where we currently are in the warming phase, making the peak higher than it would be if it occurred earlier.
thats right. we should be seeing a concerted effort by government to correctly understand these phenomena but like the pandemic response we are instead seeing a concerted effort to divert attention from these phenomena. Al Gore, Michael Mann, and UEA was the first of many such efforts to minimize natural climate change.
I am on to this planetary movement causing small moves of around 2k as seen in the jaggedness of the ice core records.
Ice core records are interesting especially with regards to the lack of skepticism surrounding them being an accurate records interglacial and glacial periods caused by Milankovitch orbital variation, especially with the warm periods. Orbital variation should have some kind of sinewave shape to it. But these waves as then smoothing rise into an interglacial reach a point where it looks like somebody chopped off the top of the sinewave at an angle. What could that be? That could be the highest levels of CO2 trapped in ice bubbles now swimming around the bottom of the ocean instead of being locked in the ice sheet.
And Milankovitch talk of orbital variation itself is totally wild. Get a load of this explanation of Milankovitch theory from a group of thinkers associated with Bill Nye the Science Guy and many others including prestigious institutions.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-pull-of-jupiter-and-venus-on-earth-causes-major-climate-events/
”That is, except every 405,000 years, when the gravitational pull of massive Jupiter and Venus yanks the earths orbit into an ellipse of about 5, producing the Milankovitch cycles that cause the planets glacial and interglacial cycles.”
Come on Venus doesn’t have a meeting with Jupiter once every 405,000 years and conspire to combine their gravity to jerk the earth’s orbit into a 5 degree ellipse.
This half truth nonsense actually claims support from the following:
350+ Notable Experts
Including Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Alan Alda, Margaret Atwood, John Legend, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Ariana Huffington, Sir Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Sara Blakely, Nick Offerman
Research Institutions
200+ Including MIT, Harvard, NIH, Oxford, Cambridge, University of Toronto, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Stanford, Yale
If there were a concerted effort the fake crisis would end within a few years. This isn’t hard to figure out if employ even a fraction of the resources as you have surrounding the modeling project. thats struggling because the scent dog is on the wrong trail.
“Come on Venus doesnt have a meeting with Jupiter once every 405,000 years and conspire to combine their gravity to jerk the earths orbit into a 5 degree ellipse.”
It couldn’t possibly be more science that Bill just doesn’t get or hasn’t bothered to learn.
It can only be a conspiracy!
What he’s missing is that the Earth’s orbital changes occur only after many small nudges by the planets.
Wrong.
No link, no evidence, no credit.
No link, no evidence, no credit for your notion that a single planetary alignment should do something significant.
Because your thought-bubbles are not science.
Some evidence for you to reject:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/#:~:text=Over%20time%2C%20the%20pull%20of,departs%20from%20a%20perfect%20circle.
why do I need to refute that? Seems true to me and it’s you denying it.
It makes clear that the eccentricity variation period is 100,000 years and 400,000 y.
Which means it has to be the result of many MANY planetary nudges, not a single jerk as you ignorantly insisted it needs to be.
“Come on Venus doesnt have a meeting with Jupiter once every 405,000 years and conspire to combine their gravity to jerk the earths orbit into a 5 degree ellipse.”
“why do I need to refute that?”
Because you just denied it here:
“What hes missing is that the Earths orbital changes occur only after many small nudges by the planets.
Bill Hunter says:
March 9, 2024 at 6:25 PM
Wrong.”
nate, the planets aren’t the only factor. i am early research and have found some tantalizing information.
in short the ice age pattern appears to be (and i am stretching here) related to a rotation of some kind of our solar system other than the galactical center since our rotation about the galactical center is variously estimated to take between 200 and 500 million years. supposedly the solar system is estimated to be ducking in and out of one spiral arm.
i only suspect objects within the influence of our sun to be responsible for the natural variation between solar grand minima and grand maxima. . .though some do argue the sun’s activity is not influenced by tides in its gas layers.
so i am just starting a pursuit of this that it might be and all i need is about a .6w/m2 impact arising out of this to account for the lia to grand maximum warming using the 3.0 sensitivity figures. if i get half that then i can account for half the warming. but who knows maybe sensitivity is even higher. but you chop down a tree by first cutting a notch out of it.
oops goofed above. i need .6% not .6w/m2.
Have fun with that. Be quantitative.
Sounds like it has nothing to do with recent history.
> Global warmings role here is just in regards to where we currently are in the warming phase,
🧐
Willard is a monkey.
Monkey Man rediscovers the dormitive principle.
The contrarian path is one of eternal bliss.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you don’t like my response, then elaborate further on your “🧐”.
Global warming is long-term, and we’re talking about a weather event here.
Step 2 – Sammich Request.
“we should be seeing a concerted effort by government to correctly understand these phenomena”
Oooh, increased government spending on scientific research. Saucy.
the money being squandered on mitigation would be far more advisable spent on fixing Dr. Revelle’s concerns and even if it were used to enlighten Bill Nye that would be better too.
barry, please stop trolling.
Money to sue Fred might indeed have been a good idea:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-note-about-roger-revelle-julian.html
Too bad there’s no statute of limitation for silly contrarian talking points.
he folded because he had no evidence of what he said was true. if he had the evidence he would not have folded. his only regret is he failed his Emperor.
> he had no evidence of what he said was true
Step 1 – pure denial.
No doubt true all you need for a defense is a reasonable basis for believing what you said. When you personally actually believe you do you reach out for help, you don’t cave.
Now in hindsight he believes the opinion of the family which he had no knowledge of at the time but firmly believes if he had fought he would have found that help.
But as I say all this demonstrates is a willingness to abandon your professionalism and surrender to your personal beliefs.
Since there is no professional obligation on the part of academic scientists beyond themselves having great pride in the science. . .you hear all the time that they have every right to engage in processes politically and advocate for themselves.
This isn’t an insult to the academic community. . .its just basic human nature. Choosing to submit to regulation has its positives and negatives. Mostly its great for the haves and not so great for the have nots.
“No doubt true all you need for a defense ”
Bill naively thinks you can easily win in court against the powerful or wealthy.
Fred Singer is neither powerful nor wealthy.
Here is the other side of the story. Pretty compelling. Science isn’t established by argument but by actually laying out the science. I have no doubt that Spencer, Lindzen, or Happer would hold the positions they hold if the actual scientific method showed they were wrong.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070513003344/http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_283.pdf
thats also why your arguments always fall short. When you try to lay out the science what did you come up with?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567
Gill ignores the fact that Fred was back up by:
– the Heartland Institute
– the Competitive Entreprise Institute
– the CFACT
– the Institute of Public Affair (LOLOLOL)
– Exxon
– Donors Capital Funds
– Scaife
– the Koch Brothers
– Reynolds Tobacco Company
I probably forget half of his other backers.
Gill is just at Step 3 – Saying Stuff.
Didn’t Lancaster have Russia and China on his side?
Does Gill not know who SLAPPed Justin?
It is increasingly rare that any of Bill’s posts align with reality.
Bill,
From your source:
“bear in mind that the temperature cycles for which Jupiter and Venus may be responsible occur over a very long time, extending before we got here and continuing after.”
So bear in mind that the transit of Venus last year, had NOTHING to do with Earth’s current warm spike, as you had tried to claim!
And oh BTW there was no transit of Venus last year as you had claimed..
yes a transit across the face of the sun is a rare event, but a transit through the space between the sun and earths orbit known as an inferior conjunction happens every 1.6 years.
According to Gill August the 13th was the hottest day last year.
And in 2022, it was in January.
ROFL
FYI, a planet passing near the sun that doesnt cross the sun’s disk is not called a Transit.
Inner conjuncts are a thing:
https://www.astrologybylauren.com/new-blog/2023/8/3/the-venus-conjunction-2023
It’s old astronomy talk.
Unless he meant transit of a constellation. Not so rare.
“Venus will transit in the sign of Aquarius on March 7, 2024, and will remain here till March 31, 2024. Venus is the planet of love, relationships, beauty, and comforts. Its movements through the zodiac greatly influence how we experience these areas of life.”
Willard says:
”According to Gill August the 13th was the hottest day last year.
And in 2022, it was in January.
ROFL”
———————
Strongman alert!
where did I suggest that Venus was the only influence on temperature variation?
Seems to me to be pretty darned boneheaded to constantly be looking for a single cause of global temperature variation. You know how solar cycles are too weak to be the cause of warming. And ENSO is too short. And Venus too small. And Russian disinformation so dependably invariable.
Fact is IPCC is only allegedly highly confident that CO2 accounts for 1/2 the observed warming. That adds up to a whopping .8degC per doubling of CO2 and where is the evidence that they even considered the effects of the 8 planets in our solar system? Milankovitch believed them to be a multitude of cycles that really had no peak in periodicity.
It takes hundreds of millions of years to go around the galaxy. 100,000 years is a cycle of either such precision or distance it needs to be teased out of the data. Yet there is no documentation for it despite it being widely accepted as the cause of the ice ages.
thats one heckuva lot of undocumented natural variation. One could spend years measuring the rate of change and come up with 100,000 years and be completely wrong.
Sheesh that was Strawman Alert!
What about Gill’s whataboutism?
“Seems to me to be pretty darned boneheaded to constantly be looking for a single cause of global temperature variation.”
But you get new thought bubbles that work for the moment.
Nate says:
”FYI, a planet passing near the sun that doesnt cross the suns disk is not called a Transit.”
”So bear in mind that the transit of Venus last year, had NOTHING to do with Earths current warm spike, as you had tried to claim!”
”And oh BTW there was no transit of Venus last year as you had claimed..”
”FYI, a planet passing near the sun that doesnt cross the suns disk is not called a Transit.”
”Unless he meant transit of a constellation. Not so rare.”
—————————–
boy you are all over the place like a soup sandwich!
dictionary definition a transit:
”an act of passing through or across a place.
”the first west-to-east transit of the Northwest Passage” ”
i am referring to transiting the area closest to the earth. which is on the same side of the sun as earth is on.
obviously you are really having an unsuccessful argument claiming that has zero effect on earth’s orbit.
Willard says:
”Its old astronomy talk.”
willard is babbling again. i am not sure if he is claiming inferior conjunctions with venus no longer occur or if he is trying to discredit me by suggesting i am into astrology like he loves to do to skeptical scientists by suggesting they are in league with the oil company’s. either way i win.
Gill imagines that contemporary astronomers care more about inferior conjunctions than astrologers back in the days. LMAO!
Perhaps he could tell us about Nicola’s studies on Grand Conjunctions?
Bill, you want to do astronomy , but wont communicate it effectively if you use non-standard terminology.
Doesnt matter, cuz you are doing astrology.
So what did you mean by: ”So bear in mind that the transit of Venus last year, had NOTHING to do with Earths current warm spike”?
Do you think gravity only works if venus passes across the sun’s face since clearly gravity was what the whole discussion was about.
“Do you think gravity only works if venus passes across the suns face since clearly gravity was what the whole discussion was about.”
No.
Science is quantitative. Your feelings about the significance of Venus’s gravitational effects are not.
You haven’t bothered to do the minimal back-of-the-envelope calculation to see if your notion is plausible. One that any real scientist would do before blurting it out.
My ‘seagull sinks the Titanic’ story was meant to convey the point that without such a calculation, any silly scenario can look plausible.
Do you STILL not get that?
And you still have no data or papers to support your notion.
“So what did you mean by: So bear in mind that the transit of Venus last year, had NOTHING to do with Earths current warm spike?
Did you not read the quote from your source that came immediately before my statement?
“bear in mind that the temperature cycles for which Jupiter and Venus may be responsible occur over a VERY LONG TIME, extending before we got here and continuing after.”
Which means ONLY over the tens or hundreds of thousands of years that are required for these planetary nudges to alter the Earth’s orbit, and thus alter the warming via solar insolation.
i did a back of the envelope and came up with a maximum venus effect around an anomaly of less than .05k so venus on the back side the oct anomaly would have been around .88k. i am not claiming that as it was a maximum. it may well be half that.
“i did a back of the envelope and came up with a maximum venus effect around an anomaly of less than .05k so venus on the back side the oct anomaly would have been around .88k.”
How? Show us your work.
You will when I am done. If you want to figure it out here is a good place to start. https://www.theplanetstoday.com/gravitational_forces_of_the_planets.html
“If you want to figure it out”
Sure, the effect is negligible.
You claimed to find a non-negligible numerical result by a simple calculation.
Yet you cannot show us that. Then it is not believable.
how would you know when you want me to show you how to calculate it?
You made the claim. No work no credit.
I made no claim. You asked me if I had bothered to do the minimal back-of-the-envelope calculation to see if your notion is plausible. One that any real scientist would do before blurting it out. (the claim that gravity of other planets influenced the orbits of other planets). I said I had gave you a source of the force and the answer my calculation came up with and noted it could be off by a lot.
You on the other hand have flipped back and forth between gravity of other planets having no influence on the earth’s orbit, calling it astrology; to claiming it was like suggesting a seagull sinking the titanic.
So have you done a back of the envelope calculation and estimated a range of impacts on the recent global temperature anomaly? If so what number did you come up with?
No backsliding allowed, bill.
Your claim was about the global T spike of 2023 being cause by the planetary positions.
I pointed out a difference in this years earlier and stronger rise:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1634516
About 0.5 C larger jump over the last 6 months than previous stronger El Ninos.
You claimed:
“This has everything to do with the mini Milankovitch cycles of orbital interactions. Venus didnt pass in front of the Sun in 1998 until January 98 and maximum neutrality of Jupiter and Saturn didnt occur with only Saturn in the position of neutrality.
This past year Venus passed in front of the sun in August 2023.
Further the optimum Jupiter/saturn neutrality position was also achieved in August 2023.”
I am not proposing Nate that planetary movement accounts for everything.
We had on top of the planetary effect that has been building over the entire past 300 years the following:
HTE the largest explosion in a long time that went clear into the mesosphere. But perhaps due to the lack of dust all we got out of it was an ozone loss effect that was more closely aligned with the El Nino.
It seems alone ozone fixes itself a lot faster than the Montreal Protocol because it only banned the sales of cfc’s and worldwide there are still a lot of cfc’s in aging equipment. For example my grandfather who was in refrigeration built his own refrigeration system to live independently in a rural area when he retired. He had several 5 gallon tanks filled with freon to recharge his system. Who knows how much the cfc depletion curve is but actual ban only got started a few years before a natural ozone depletion cycle that comes and goes every 20 years.
Its so cyclic that one cannot say with certainty how much the ozone hole correlates to anthropogenic emissions of cfcs vs the natural planetary cycles.
this recent planetary cycle undid quite a bit of progress on the ozone hole, but we seldom see an analysis of worldwide ozone so its hard to correlate anything there.
Also we had an LIA recovery to a solar grand maximum that appears to have occurred via increasing solar activity over a period of 260 years plus post 1700 that no doubt built up a significant imbalance that is currently amortizing. . .such some of the warming seen isn’t just some instantaneous surface forcing by co2. That is likely playing out mostly as a loss of surface ice and a diminishment in cold upwellings on the ocean affecting the ocean SSTs, increasing feedbacks from evaporation and such.
And of course on top of that you have to add at least some impact from CO2 making cold places a little warmer from overhead airs hotter than the surface, if that effect isn’t already too near saturation to matter much at all.
Ok so “This has everything to do with the mini Milankovitch cycles”
is no longer the claim. It is now a potpourri of random guesses..
So next time, we can expect you to think through your declarations before you make them?
I can’t help you if you continue insist on a one track mind approach.
We were talking about peak El Nino’s which is a known phenomena and the temperature impact. All these things have multiple impacts underlying them. You just don’t want to discuss them even though I think every other poster in this forum is aware of them and they know as it appears you don’t know that El Nino peaks are not caused by CO2 but by a multitude of causes that when they line up the peaks get higher.
Nate says:
”It is now a potpourri of random guesses..”
Its now? Heck Nate it always has been except when our government and some of their lackeys have lied to us.
We know solar variation, ENSO, ocean oscillations, the variation of gravitational impacts on earth’s orbit, and variations of the various GHGs all have temperature impacts and are cyclical over a wide range of time periods.
Your comment above suggests you believe otherwise. . .and that’s exactly where the BS starts.
Bill, quit trying to blame others, and take responsibility for your false claims that you made.
nate which of those items i listed are you a denier of?
Was this your claim, or not?
This has everything to do with the mini Milankovitch cycles of orbital interactions. Venus didnt pass in front of the Sun in 1998 until January 98 and maximum neutrality of Jupiter and Saturn didnt occur with only Saturn in the position of neutrality.”
It is False.
Where is your proof its false Nate? I am talking an additional incremental value of an unspecified amount. We know there has been warming in general over the past 3 decades so we should expect most of the warming in embedded in that. I was referring to the early appearance of an El Nino effect that has to be driven not by CO2, not more than in part by ENSO, leaving a natural depletion of ozone by HTE or gravitational effects of 5 major planets in the same sector of the sky. HTE also would only be a portion of it so it has to be a combination of all those things we know and the one last thing you are denier of.
Bill we were talking about the 6 month warm spike of 2023,
You claimed: “This has everything to do with the mini Milankovitch cycles”
This WAS your claim. YOU cannot back it up. You cannot show us how such an effect should be non-negligible. Thus it is FALSE, ie unsupported by any facts.
And you appear to recognize this by moving on to
a ‘potpourri of random guesses’, many of which are irrelevant to the 6 month time frame of the warming spike being discussed.
“Also we had an LIA recovery to a solar grand maximum that appears to have occurred via increasing solar activity over a period of 260 years”
“It seems alone ozone fixes itself a lot faster than the Montreal Protocol because it only banned the sales of cfcs and worldwide there are still a lot of cfcs in aging equipment. ”
“HTE the largest explosion in a long time that went clear into the mesosphere. But perhaps due to the lack of dust all we got out of it was an ozone loss effect that was more closely aligned with the El Nino.”
“We were talking about peak El Ninos which is a known phenomena and the temperature impact.”
“We know solar variation, ENSO, ocean oscillations, the variation of gravitational impacts on earths orbit, and variations of the various GHGs all have temperature impacts and are cyclical over a wide range of time periods.”
If you are unable to see that these claims are or either red herrings for the 2023 spike, or plainly contradictory with your initial claim, then you are quite hopelessly confused.
Nate says:
”Bill we were talking about the 6 month warm spike of 2023,
You claimed: This has everything to do with the mini Milankovitch cycles
This WAS your claim. YOU cannot back it up. You cannot show us how such an effect should be non-negligible. Thus it is FALSE, ie unsupported by any facts.”
Perhaps but I am less guilty than you are when you reject Seim and Olson as not being an atmospheric model.
Fact is your theory calls for a green plate effect to occur from layer to layer in the atmosphere. Yet this green plate effect does not occur in Seim and Olson when CO2 is substituted into the experiment. Sort shoots a gaping hole in every angle you argue for what you believe CO2 causes the GHE.
You regale us with the theory that as higher and thicker the CO2 gets the more the warming and you have no experiment to tie that to actual effects. For you its good enough that it ”might” cause some unquantified warming. Pasting together blackbox computer models and claim they run on known physics is a complete lie because the ”effect” isn’t known physics. Its merely planted in the model.
Of course then you go on about how convection doesn’t extend into space and thus there must be some place that convection stops being a negative feedback. But even that is defied by facts. The atmosphere extends a 1000 km above the surface and up there there is 500k to 6000k oxygen species and they don’t warm the surface for what reason? They are too thin, their optical depth as so much thinned out with altitude they are impotent. . .and yet your model doesn’t provide a single iota of these deepening optical effect.
So yes I haven’t come up with the actual numbers. And I recognize that the HTE may also be a player in the temperature spike. Perhaps even a bit of the solar maximum though it is less than previous times. But one can argue the ozone effect is less to from HTE (though we have to guess at that from how large the antarctic ozone hole is rather than a measure of ozone atmospheric wide).
So I can appreciate your concern. The government should tackle the Milankovitch theory with even greater zeal that how it got sidetracked by total BS on carbon. The government claims to believe in the gravitational effects of the Milankovitch theory but for some reason doesn’t have research labs dedicated to building models of it.
Can you imagine why that might be?
It’s always fun to see the cultists stumbling around, hitting their heads against the walls.
Ent is so confused, he repeats the exact same comment!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1638875
And he sticks with the same nonsense, from Ken: “Doubling CO2 concentration reduces direct thermal radiation to space by 3 Wm-2”
That nonsense actually comes from the bogus “CO2 forcing equation”. See here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556460
And notice Ken confirms the cult belief that ice cubes can boil water: “It’s clearly possible and video has been posted showing how.”
You just can’t make this stuff up….
Boiling is the rapid phase transition from liquid to gas or vapor.
The conditions needed to attain boiling point can be accomplished with ice cubes.
Too bad you can’t learn this basic physics concept.
Ken, your ignorance of the issue is magnified by your immaturity.
FOR ADULTS ONLY — This issue started with the cult claim that radiative fluxes simply add. That’s bogus because if it were true that would mean ice cubes could boil water. The flux from one ice cube being about 300 W/m². If fluxes simply added, then the flux from 5 ice cubes would be 1500 W/m². That corresponds to a temperature of about 260°F, plenty enough to boil water.
Once again, Clint R can’t even add and divide correctly since adults know five 1m^2 ice cubes add to 5m^2 of emission surface for 1500W/5m^2 or 300 W/m^2. Clint’s faulty science calls & humorous entertainment continue.
Ball4, get a responsible adult to explain to you what “FOR ADULTS ONLY” means.
Ball4, don’t be so ignorant.
Focus the infrared from the Sun, and you can easily boil water.
Focus the infrared from ice – from a square meter of ice emitting 300 W/m2, concentrate the radiation into 1 cm2. This will give an intensity of 300 x 100 x 100 W/m2. Yes, infrared radiation can be concentrated just like visible light! Use a germanium IR lens if you wish – you can’t see through it, but it concentrates IR nicely.
So you now have 3 million Watts per square meter focussed on a teaspoon of water. Watch the water not get hotter.
Have you managed to describe the GHE yet? What was the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? I suppose a delusional fanatic might say something really stupid like “there were no greenhouses around, so nothing to stop the planet cooling” – or something similarly idiotic!
Oh well, others are free to form their own opinions.
Focussing radiation from a source can only bring the temperature at focal point to the temperature of the source.
That’s why you can get more W/m2 focussing IR from ice but not enough to boil water.
And that’s why you can add fluxes from ice cubes but never boil water. The sum of all incident flux from any number of ice cubes can never exceed 306 W/m2. Each individual ice cube only supplies a fraction of 306 W/m2 to the receiving surface. Eventually you can fill the receiving surface’s entire field of view with ice cubes, and then, finally, you will have a grand total of 306 W/m2 incident on the surface.
barry,
And that’s why no amount of radiation from a cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of a colder surface.
As a matter of fact, a few thousand years ago, desert dwellers were making ice by exposing water to the “back radiation” beloved of GHE cultists.
According to some nutters at NASA at one time, 333 W/m2 of “back radiation” would mean that making ice in the desert is impossible. GHE cultists would claim that 333 W/m2 from “back radiation” is “hotter” than a maximum of 306 W/m2 (as you point out) emitted by ice!
As usual, the facts prove to be superior to the GHE cultist fantasies. No GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Desert people know that cloudy nights are hotter than cloudless nights. That includes Aboriginal Australians, whom your pet industry dispossesses.
What are you braying about?
barry,
And thats why no amount of radiation from a cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of a colder surface.
As a matter of fact, a few thousand years ago, desert dwellers were making ice by exposing water to the “back radiation” beloved of GHE cultists.
According to some nutters at NASA at one time, 333 W/m2 of “back radiation” would mean that making ice in the desert is impossible. GHE cultists would claim that 333 W/m2 from “back radiation” is “hotter” than a maximum of 306 W/m2 (as you point out) emitted by ice!
As usual, the facts prove to be superior to the GHE cultist fantasies. No GHE.
“And that’s why no amount of radiation from a cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of a colder surface.”
You forget there is a heat source in the GHE that doesn’t exist in the silly discussion about ice cubes. This makes all the difference.
Putting a sweater on a corpse won’t cause the body to warm up.
Putting a sweater on a live body will.
The atmosphere is like the sweater, but the surface is not like the corpse.
As usual, Flynnson insists on distorting facts of physics to promote his agenda.
He doesn’t mention the temperature of the surrounding surface with his example of making ice in the desert. It’s well known that the surface can cool to temperatures below that of the air above, which is the cause of dew or frost after a cold, clear night. The same effect causes his water to cool enough to freeze under some desert conditions which result in large IR heat loss to the sky.
“According to some nutters at NASA at one time, 333 W/m2 of back radiation would mean that making ice in the desert is impossible.”
Ha. Swenson is fine with back radiation if its ‘cold rays’.
At least he is acknowledging that space is COLD. Then he ought to admit that stopping radiant energy from going directly to space, via CO2 or H2O abs.orp.tion, would mean LESS cooling during the night.
But he won’t, because that would require him to think.
hmmmm, uh for how many millions of years has the sky been warmer than outer space nate?
“Focus the infrared from ice”
Tee hee hee.
Science deniers are all confused about optics.
Ken,
No amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of the smallest amount of water.
Surround a drop of water with as much ice as you like. You will find the temperature of the water will not rise at all.
All irrelevant anyway. Not even the most fanatical GHE cultist can describe the object of their adoration – the mythical and mystical GHE!
You certainly can’t, so playing silly semantic games is pretty pointless, isn’t it?
Over to you.
You don’t need to raise the temperature of water to boil it.
You’re as deficient in knowledge of basic physics as Clint.
Ken, the issue is NOT about many different ways to boil water. The issue is about ice not being able to radiatively boil water.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639905
I bet you’re too immature to understand. Prove me wrong.
Puffman,
Ze issue has NOTHING to do with ice cubes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/2018-6th-warmest-year-globally-of-last-40/#comment-335673
Notice the date.
Ze issue is that this is not your first sock puppet who uses that silly talking point to goad and bait.
It doesn’t matter who is teaching poor Norman. He still can’t learn. He’s in a cult.
It matters that you’re a sock puppet, Puffman.
Clint, changing the parameters of the discussion is not an excuse for your broad ignorance of basic physics.
Clint, fresh water only boils at 100C when at standard atmospheric pressure. Every other situation is not ‘standard’.
If you don’t specify the conditions don’t expect the answer you think is in keeping with ‘Clint’s bizarre views of the world’.
Ken, in a moment of madness you wrote –
“You dont need to raise the temperature of water to boil it.
Youre as deficient in knowledge of basic physics as Clint.”
Presumably, you were responding to your own fantasy, because I wrote –
No amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of the smallest amount of water.
What has that to do with water boiling? Is your febrile brain reaching boiling point?
There is no GHE. If there was, you would be able to describe it – but you can’t! That because it doesnt exist. Accept reality.
Mike Flynn,
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Please, do continue your silly semantic games.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
(Tsat.planet.1) /(Tsat.planet.2) = [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ] ^1/16
Where:
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Skeptics should broadly acknowledge that CO2 could lead to warming.
My thoughts are that without GHGs the atmosphere would be warmer than the surface, thus adding GHGs would connect that warmth to the surface and warm the surface, while helping to cool the atmosphere.
An internal movement of heat expressed in the atmosphere by oxygen and the fact that convection only operates to move heat upwards via buoyancy principles. . .thus as much as the atmosphere with GHGs tries to cool the atmosphere there is convection operating in opposition to it.
We have argued extensively that cold CO2 molecules cannot warm warmer molecules. But hey the arctic, for example, can get to -90c in winter and air transported from the equator by convection is much warmer above. So yeah, CO2 theoretically can warm stuff.
The question is how saturated is the effect. And how much of the effect is being caused by CO2 being drawn out of the oceans by a warming climate. That’s when science is thrown aside and you start hearing nonsense from people trying to feather their own beds.
> The question is
Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
Willard, please stop trolling.
–Skeptics should broadly acknowledge that CO2 could lead to warming.
My thoughts are that without GHGs the atmosphere would be warmer than the surface, thus adding GHGs would connect that warmth to the surface and warm the surface, while helping to cool the atmosphere.–
It seems more CO2 lead to warming {for a variety of reasons} but for whatever reasons {perhaps due to a variety reasons} any warming from the increase in CO2 has not been measured.
This fact suggest to me, that it could take a very long time for any warming to occur. And therefore when guess how much it is, I say within 100 years. Or it seems to me quite unreasonable to guess for say, +200 years.
And there is no {as in zero} agreement about how time more CO2 added will take to cause a certain amount of warming.
As for this:
“My thoughts are that without GHGs the atmosphere would be warmer…”
So, I guess the “without GHG” means without an ocean.
I have various problems with that. One thing is our ocean seems to part of shaping our rocky surface topography. And if you simply remove the ocean, you alter surface/ground topography “a lot”.
And the general accepted “idea” is that Earth’s topography has large affect upon global climate and global temperature. But how it does it exactly, and how much, could find a lot of disagreement.
“My thoughts are that without GHGs the atmosphere would be warmer than the surface, thus adding GHGs would connect that warmth to the surface and warm the surface, while helping to cool the atmosphere. ”
That’s right.
Without CO2 and water vapour there would be no troposphere and no tropopause. The coldest densest air at the base of the stratosphere would be in contact with the surface and it would warm with increasing altitude until it reached the ozone layer. This pattern forms very stable layers and inhibits convection.
The surface loses heat only by radiation direct to space, with no absor*btion by the atmosphere.
There is a meteorological condition called a temperature inversion in which a cap of hot air forms over cooler air and stops convection. At the surface you get a couple of days of warming weather until the air near the surface is hot enough to break through the upper layer. Violent convection then forms thunderstorms.
— Entropic man says:
March 6, 2024 at 6:12 PM
My thoughts are that without GHGs the atmosphere would be warmer than the surface, thus adding GHGs would connect that warmth to the surface and warm the surface, while helping to cool the atmosphere.
Thats right.
Without CO2 and water vapour there would be no troposphere and no tropopause. The coldest densest air at the base of the stratosphere would be in contact with the surface and it would warm with increasing altitude until it reached the ozone layer. This pattern forms very stable layers and inhibits convection.–
It does this on Venus. Though Venus has 3 atm of N2 and the rest is CO2. Which though a weak greenhouse gas, it is considered a greenhouse gas.
Wrong again, Ent.
The atmosphere, with gases absorbing/emitting photons at Earth’s 288K temperature, acts as a blanket with holes in it. Without those gases, the atmosphere would be a blanket with no holes.
That means the surface would be at a much higher temperature.
Clint R misses that the tropopause being much lower without any wv and CO2 means the 9.8K/km now dry T lapse rate only exists over much less distance thus the surface would be cooler than today. Also, cooler at each height up to the lower tropopause which would avg. around 255K globally.
Decent try though by Clint R with the atm. as blanket with holes analogy. Clint misses the dry lapse effects which is common in Clint’s amusing comments.
Wrong Ball4. The tropopause would be higher due to the increased surface temperature.
I don’t expect children to understand….
Ball4,
The lapse rate is just the rate at which temperature changes with altitude.
If calculations disagree with observation, your calculations are wrong.
Blathering about the troposphere won’t help create a GHE.
Clint, with added CO2 and wv the holes in your blanket close so THEN you get a higher surface temperature under the blanket due to sunshine and atm. shine. Clint R humorously has atm. science backwards. With less CO2 and wv, your blanket holes open up. Typical Clint R mistake.
—–
Swenson you need to actually build a greenhouse first, then you can create a GHE.
Ball4,
You nitwit – you can’t describe the GHE, can you? Why is that?
Its not clear what B4 believes here. he seems to be muddling through a list of talking points that span multiple theories of CO2 effects.
the pregnant question is why Arrhenius’ single layer theory of warming from cold rays now requires M&W’s unproven theory of convection being restricted by some mysterious force and what happens anyplace other than at the level of Vaughn Pratt’s greenhouse cover that did restrict convection.
Bill uses multiple “theories” of CO2 effects. To be more clear, Bill skips important physics & should obtain the pre-req.s to read up on optics and especially atm. optical depth as applied in the field of meteorology. This effort should result in Bill gaining knowledge of the planetary atm. window and how it opens and closes as applied to Clint’s holes in the blanket comment.
Funny you should mention that Ball4.
Since no energy is lost adiabatically, the temperature of TOA would be 341w/m2 peering through the optical depth. Increase the optical depth and it will still be a mean 341w/m2. Move earth closer to the sun or have the sun become more active and spew more watts and then the temperature you are looking at will change.
In other words, at equilibrium the room side of Clint’s blanket analogy with varying hole sizes remains the same kinetic temperature unless Clint changes the household furnace thermostat. Not bad, Bill.
“the pregnant question is why Arrhenius single layer theory of warming from cold rays now requires M&Ws unproven theory”
Argument by incredulity has become a crank favorite.
Bill is incredulous that science could have advanced over 7 decades.
“convection being restricted by some mysterious force”
Bill will never understand the physics in the paper that he endlessly bashes.
Physics claimed to exist but as of yet never demonstrated.
Its pretty clear where that the basis of the idea of additional energy being absorbed into the atmosphere, the problem is this place has not been demonstrated to actually change anything.
I got to the point of buying into a resistance to convection developing, but the problem as I see it with that theory is that condensation of water is not done by making something warmer.
Water is such an excellent radiator, and condensation releases huge amounts of additional energy one could construct a GHE out of that alone.
Its also the case that the simple act of absorbing upwelling LW is going to boost convection perhaps to the extent no warming results.
At least that is the standard that has existed for many decades prior to this old theory rising like a Phoenix out of the ashes.
Bill’s 11:53 am comment forgets measurements show “the simple act of absorbing upwelling LW is going to boost convection” also equally boosts downdrafts and downwelling LW for no change in surface warming per decade.
Downwelling LW maybe but not downwelling heat. Having some downwelling LW only changes how long it takes to get to the low temperature. We have seen Roy’s demonstration of rapid cooling in the early evening, with a quick leveling out. Only if a cloud bank comes in does it warm up some. Its only unsubstantiated theory that the net effects of the atmosphere reducing outgoing more than incoming and as of 1997 it was perfectly balanced. Only when it was discovered that it wasn’t warming as fast as it should did they come up with this ”estimated” imbalance and have been banking that now for a short time. That remains to be seen. Even a short stint of cooling will put the kibosh on that.
I can’t say yet with certainty but it does appear we are finally approaching the juncture of a new 80 year cycle, thus if AGW isn’t ALL has been made out to be. . .well with that imbalance cooling should never occur. Of course any imbalance there could still be a result of an LIA recovery so indeed that cooling event could be 20 years or more off into the future.
Clint R
I have a question you will not answer. Your post says the GHG act like a blanket with holes. Without such GHG it would be like a blanket without holes. Please explain what would stop IR emitted by the surface from directly going to space and cooling directly by radiant energy loss? As it stands only a small portion of IR emitted by the surface goes directly to space. You can disagree with this but you would be wrong.
Read my comment again, Noman. You’ve got it wrong, as usual.
Norman, you donkey,
You wrote –
“As it stands only a small portion of IR emitted by the surface goes directly to space.”
It doesn’t matter a jot. At night, the surface loses all the heat of the day – to the dark of outer space. Fast or slow – all gone, vanished, never to be seen again.
Try harder to convince others that the Earth hasn’t cooled over the past four and a half billion years, thus making a mockery of the GHE. No wonder you can’t describe the GHE – it doesn’t exist. Even a little bit.
No.
Without the GHGs the atmosphere would be all hole and no blanket.
Ent doesn’t believe in insulation, but he believes passenger jets fly backward!
Puffman still believes in skies shooting cold rays!
EM 6:12 pm, there would still be convection from the surface in that case as there is still a fluid warmed from below in a gravity field.
Thus, less troposphere and much lower tropopause would still exist at the equator and taper off toward the poles as today. Global OLR would still be reduced by N2,O2 optical depth for clear sky around 0.28 W/m^2.
Ball4,
Is your ignorance supposed to be evidence of your intellectual standard?
A parcel of air’s temperature changes not at all when the concentration of a particular constituent is changed. You cannot determine the makeup of a sample of air by measuring the wavelengths it is naturally emitting below excitation conditions, no matter what your fevered imagination tells you.
The facts are that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, making a mockery of GHE fanatics who claim otherwise. The surface cools at night, showing that all the heat of the day flees to space (plus a little of the planet’s internal heat).
Once again, making a mockery of fanatics who might claim that mythical GHGs have an6 heating power at all!
You aren’t silly enough to believe that the Earth has heated due to a GHE which you can’t even describe, are you?
Do tell.
There were no greenhouses built four and a half billion years ago, Swenson. Funny comment though.
Ball4,
Is your ignorance supposed to be evidence of your intellectual standard?
A parcel of airs temperature changes not at all when the concentration of a particular constituent is changed. You cannot determine the makeup of a sample of air by measuring the wavelengths it is naturally emitting below excitation conditions, no matter what your fevered imagination tells you.
The facts are that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, making a mockery of GHE fanatics who claim otherwise. The surface cools at night, showing that all the heat of the day flees to space (plus a little of the planets internal heat).
Once again, making a mockery of fanatics who might claim that mythical GHGs have an6 heating power at all!
You arent silly enough to believe that the Earth has heated due to a GHE which you cant even describe, are you?
Do tell.
The working greenhouse heats up under the sun, Swenson, allowing produce to be grown in the winter. Check with your local farming community.
“The working greenhouse heats up under the sun, Swenson, ”
Of course it does. And cools down in the Sun’s absence – like every rock or other inert object on the surface.
I see you managed to avoid mentioning the mythical GHE completely – a cunning move.
Go on, claim you don’t need the GHE when you have sunshine.
“Of course it does.”
Thanks for your actual GHE explanation, Swenson. Pity you can’t remember it from time to time reverting back to your mythical GHE.
The surface would warm the air immediately above it. It would start to convec t but he rapidly damped out.
Convection only occurs when the convecting air is moving through air cooler than it is.
Without GHGs the temperature gradient in the lower atmosphere would warm with altitude as the stratosphere does.
Under these conditions convection is rapidly damped because the convecting air quickly reaches the same temperature as the surrounding air
Ent, your knowledge of the science is as confused (upside-down) as your belief that passenger jets fly backward.
You don’t even understand how silly your beliefs are. In your “science”, heating a pan of water would cause the top of the water to be warmer than the bottom!
That’s why this is so much fun.
EM 8:00am, the midlatitudes stratosphere with current levels of IR active gases is observed isothermal for some 9km of z height since above the tropopause the fluid becomes warmed from above in a gravity field resulting in nil convection in that ~9km.
Reducing the wv and CO2 ppm from current levels, would lower the tropopause but not totally eliminate the troposphere.
“Skeptics should broadly acknowledge that CO2 could lead to warming.”
Roy Spencer has spent several articles on this website explaining why that is so. Unfortunately, some hard-line ‘skeptics’ believe that this view comes from a “cult” of science. Seems odd, when Spencer is well-known for arguing against action on AGW, believing that the effects are insignificant.
The problem comes when the acknowledgement is made that CO2 could lead to some warming all of a sudden seas are rising by meters, hurricanes become so mighty as to lay low the mountains of the earth, and willard is sleeping with the cats again.
Its dumb~ass hysteria when the response should be how much warming is occurring as a result of CO2 (not much) and whether its a positive (likely) or negative benefit to the climate.
I got no problem with sleeping with cats, Kennui.
More than all the warming is caused by the CO2 we dump in the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow, and 3C might increase your condo fees in your retirement village. Your beau Pierre won’t be able to do anything about it, except to munch his apple in a manlier fashion.
“I got no problem with sleeping with cats, Kennui.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Sure, screaming that the sky is falling is as useless as denying the GHE.
If only our conversations here didn’t have these issues.
Oh wait, no one here is screaming that the sky is falling.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry, please stop trolling.
I’ve noticed that a lot (not all) of the “sky is falling” comments come from contrarians. Obviously they are typically in the form of a strawman argument. The feigned incredulity at these “sky is falling” arguments that contrarians craft is irrational. I mean…if you don’t want people to think “the sky is falling” then stop creating faux “the sky is falling” arguments.
“Oh wait, no one here is screaming that the sky is falling.”
That’s because the sky is actually going up.
Bill Hunter
It seems you still have the incorrect understanding of GHE like many “skeptic” posters. They think the GHE postulates that the GHG, though colder than surface, will directly warm the surface. This is an incorrect understanding. Roy Spencer has pretty much clearly explained it as an insulating effect. In the case of GHE it is a radiant insulation.
You can see this with some research.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
You can use this website to make up a graph of TOA radiant energy. I made one for Nevada July, 2016 to August 2016. The outgoing Longwave radiant energy averaged around 290 W/m^2.
You can make a graph of surface emitted radiant energy using this tool.
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
If you go to the Nevada desert site on this link you can get a surface emission of IR.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_65e93013da554.png
The surface of the desert is emitting anywhere from 425 tp 625 W/m^2. The energy leaving from the TOA is measured at around 290 W/m^2. The atmosphere is definitely acting as a radiant barrier or insulation which causes a warmer surface with the same solar input than it would be without such a barrier.
Norman, you nitwit, there is no GHE. That’s why you are reduced to claiming that everybody else has described the GHE, but you are too incompetent or unhelpful to provide a copy of this purported “description”!
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, which rather makes a complete mockery of any supposed GHE, doesn’t it?
The fact that the surface cools every night shows that all the heat of the day is lost.
Carry on blathering about what could be, would be, or should be. Bad luck, it isn’t.
Facts outweigh fantasy every time.
Fact is greenhouses are used to allow the GHE to enable growing produce for profit even in the winter, Swenson. It’s a pity you aren’t up to speed on the science involved.
Ball4, you nitwit, you still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
That’s why you keep babbling about greenhouses! If you want to call sunlight GHE, go your hardest.
Maybe somebody even more ignorant and gullible than you will value your opinion.
Carry on.
norman…a trace gas can provide no insulating effect. The argument goes that CO2 is slowing the cooling from the surface and that is equally implausible.
There is no way that radiation can affect the rate of cooling of the surface. The rate of heat dissipation via radiation is dependent on the rate at which electrons emit it, which is pretty well instantaneously. The rate has nothing to do with anything in the atmosphere it’s a surface phenomenon.
On the other hand, the surface is cooled 260 times more efficiently by conduction/convection. The rate of that heat dissipation is based on Newton’s Law of Cooling which limits the rate to the difference in temperature between the atmosphere and the surface.
It is also dependent on the phenomenon that heated air rises. If that was not true, the atmosphere and the surface would always be in thermal equilibrium and theoretically it would never cool. Lindzen alluded to that when he claimed that without convection the average surface temperature would be 70C. Lindzen seems to have been aware that radiation itself is a poor means of heat dissipation.
However, as heated air rises, cooler air from above rushes in to take its place and that cooler air produces a temperature differential. The larger the difference in temperature the faster the surface cools. There is absolutely no way a trace gas could do that since the temperature of the cooler air is dependent on the 99% of air made up by nitrogen and oxygen.
As far as the atmosphere providing an insulating effect, that is more a property of gravity acting on the air than the air itself. Gravity arranges molecules in a decreasing pressure gradient with altitude. That is, the higher the altitude, the lower the pressure. Eventually, the pressure peters out to zero pressure.
As pressure reduces in a constant volume, temperature must decrease as well. That’s not how an insulator works to affect the rate of transmission of heat. It is the atomic structure of the insulator that affects the rate of heat transmission. A metal is a good transmitter of electrical current and heat. An insulator resists the transmission of both.
Air is a poor transmitter of heat and electrical current. Heat through a gas is done via convection but there is no insulator that I know of that can change the rate of heat dissipation via convection.
The reason you believe the atmosphere cannot slow heat loss from the surface is your erroneous belief that the surface cannot absorb radiation from the atmosphere.
You believe that radiation from a cooler source doesn’t have enough energy to cause electrons in the receiving body to transition to a higher energy level.
The energy carried by a photon is proportional to its frequency (inversely proportional to wavelength). The atmosphere does not have one single frequency in which it radiates, but multitude. The surface does not have a single-frequency emissiveness, but a broad band of frequencies.
The IR spectra of the surface and the atmosphere greatly overlap.
This means that each can absorb radiation in the frequencies they share.
The atmosphere is made up of gases with discrete spectral bands, unlike the surface, which has a broad, almost black-body Planck curve. The surface is much more able to absorb the atmosphere’s radiation than the atmosphere is able to absorb of the surface.
That is why there is an “atmospheric window,” where radiation passes cleanly through the atmosphere to space. The surface has no “window” to allow atmospheric radiation to pass through.
Now, imagine you were right and the surface could not absorb atmospheric radiation.
In this case it would reflect atmospheric radiation, which would immediately be absorbed by the atmosphere, and the atmosphere would still slow the radiative heat loss of the surface as the radiation bounced downward and reflected back more and more, as more GHGs accumulated.
But your view is wrong. The surface does absorb atmospheric IR. And the heat flow is always from the warmer object to the cooler. The intensity of radiative exchange differs, but vectors of radiation are not flows of heat. Heat flow is determined, as always, by the NET radiative exchange.
barry,
The surface cools every night, radiating away all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Esrth’s internal heat. Hence, the Earth being cooler now than four and a half billion years ago.
No GHE in sight. Boo hoo.
barry says:
The reason you believe the atmosphere cannot slow heat loss from the surface is your erroneous belief that the surface cannot absorb radiation from the atmosphere.
You believe that radiation from a cooler source doesnt have enough energy to cause electrons in the receiving body to transition to a higher energy level.
———————-
It doesn’t make any difference if you believe that or not. The radiation that you are talking about already departed the surface and if you get half back you still cooled by half and the atmosphere remains equally ready to receive another dose of radiation from the surface. thats the case if I give you $10 and you give $5 to me and $5 to your uncle in space. You remain poor and I am $5 poorer and the only person who got ahead was your uncle in space.
Adding GHGs gives you $6 back for every $10 you give out. Now uncle is only getting $4. The rules are that everyone shares equally, So you’re going to have to give me $12 to keep things square with uncle.
barry,
The radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of a hotter surface.
If you try to describe the GHE as “a stack of blankets” or “not cooling, slower cooling”, you will just engender laughter from someone who will point out that at night, the surface loses all the heat of the day.
You seem severely handicapped as far as accepting reality is concerned.
There is no GHE.
“There is no GHE”
The difference between scientists and cranks, like Swenson and several others that visit us, is that scientists gather evidence, pose hypotheses, make theories, that are inherently provisional, falsifiable, have uncertainty, and always require more testing.
Whereas cranks just declare stuff, and are always certain about it, even when its nonsense.
Wild Bill and barry, the “dollar analogy” doesn’t apply to the GHE nonsense.
Do you know why?
There is a good argument for zero GHE.
The way we calculate it takes the diameter of the earth, treat it like a disk and estimate how much radiation hits the ground.
So what is wrong with that?
1) disagreement on the mean radiant power of the sun. The 1361w/m2 bandied about is a reading taken during 2008 at the bottom of the smallest solar cycle ever recorded with instruments. Woods Hole and
others use 1380w/m2. what is the mean? Apparently nobody knows.
2) the disk size used. The atmosphere extends up to 6214miles about the surface and it has absorbing gases in it such that the thermosphere can warm to 6000k. The disk size we use is only 16% of the actual disk size of the earth system.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/atmosphere/
Meanwhile we don’t really have complete darkness. for example tonight in San Diego when most people think the daytime is 11 hours and 42 minutes its actually 14 hours 26 minutes when you include twilight. And of course the sky even beyond twilight has ground exposure to absorbing atmosphere molecules on the periphery. Well beyond sunset and before sunrise you can see light reflected off the bottom of clouds.
3) then you need to consider all means of heat transport when establishing the benchmark for a non-greenhouse atmosphere. Since the mean sunlight suggests a temperature around 279k and our temperature records are warm biased by UHI and the selection of locations.
4) Its also a fallacy that the surface heats the atmosphere and the opposite isn’t true. The polar regions are warmed by the transport of equatorial and temperate airs into the polar regions creating a natural warming of the polar surfaces when no direct sunlight is hitting it.
5) one needs to keep in mind Stefan and Boltzmann that albedo doesn’t effect equilibrium temperature. So even if reflected at elevation that elevation should be at ~279k and it is 279k the surface will need to be at least 279k through conduction and convection and to that we need to consider how much more energy comes from atmosphere reflection and hot gases like the oxygen in the thermosphere.
I would have to assume that the gap between 1361 and 1380w/m2 is what we have seen in the satellite era and that it is a measure only of direct sunlight impinging on the entire disk system making even an estimate of what the mean temperature should be a fairly wide guessing game.
Its no small wonder to me why a great scientist like Roger Revelle would be reluctant to proclaim that the science was there on the issue of carbon dioxide. But when money gets spread across a wide table their are plenty of opportunists willing to leap right in and grab what they can. . .and that can be the genesis of even larger parades. One has to ask where the accountability comes from.
> There is a good argument
Inspecteur Clouseau found ze argument!
That’s one of your funnier ones, Wild Bill. I didn’t read the whole thing but your “…such that the thermosphere can warm to 6000k” was a winner. You’ve got Sun warming to a higher temperature than its emitting temperature!
Hey, Puffman, riddle me this –
What’s the temperature of the core of the Sun, and how much lower is it than what one could get by colliding together beams of bare gold nuclei?
“Its no small wonder to me why a great scientist like Roger Revelle would be reluctant to proclaim that the science was there on the issue of carbon dioxide.”
In 1991.
Deniers always forget that we’ve had 33 more years to observe the effects of AGW!
nature warms in exactly the same way nate. it warms in ways that can also be observed. so thats not evidence of co2 causing the warming.
Revelle’s family says:
Contrary to George Will’s “Al Gore’s Green Guilt” {op-ed, Sept. 3} Roger Revelle – our father and the “father” of the greenhouse effect – remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.” Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore’s professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
When Revelle inveighed against “drastic” action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense – measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate.
Revelle never failed to point out that there are both established facts and remaining uncertainties about greenhouse warming.
[…]
Revelle noted favorably President Bush’s proposal to plant a billion trees a year for the next 10 years, which could accumulate substantial amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Revelle would have been happy to see public spending of several billion dollars annually to promote tree growth worldwide.
All of us remember our father’s frustration at the White House award ceremony in November 1990, when he received the National Medal of Science. Told he would sit next to John Sununu, a well known advocate of the “wait and see” approach, he was delighted at the prospect of bending Sununu’s ear. When Sununu failed to appear, Revelle was disappointed, saying, “I had hoped to tell him what a dim view I take of the administration’s environmental policies.”
Roger Revelle proposed a range of approaches to address global warming. Inaction was not one of them. He agreed with the adage “look before you leap,” but he never said “sit on your hands.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20180918123656/http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/revelle-gore-singer-lindzen/carolyn-revelle
… and still no reference on the Web showing ‘Woods Hole’ together with a solar irradiance of 1380 Watt/m^2.
The Hunter boy’s posts on this blog, best know to always lack references backing up his gut feeling based claims, are the only connection between the two.
“nature warms in exactly the same way nate.”
No it doesnt.
Eg nature doesnt cool the stratosphere while warming the troposphere, the same way.
Which is one among many other pieces of evidence gathered in the intervening 33 y.
barry, i agree that revelle considered it a potential risk. however, bringing his family in to testify pierces the ”professional” obligation of differentiating between fact and belief.
Gill asks for a sammich.
Gill gets a sammich.
Gill rejects the sammich.
Gill asks for another sammich.
An ordinary day in the auditing world.
I wouldn’t be surprised Willard that you never shared your deepest ”feelings” with your wife.
“however, bringing his family in to testify pierces the ‘professional’ obligation of differentiating between fact and belief.”
When disputing what someone believes, the testimony of those closest to them carries weight. There is more evidence that Revelle was misrepresented in his dying days by the Singer paper, but as you have already said that Revelle thought AGW a matter of concern there is no need to keep going.
Barry doesn’t get that Dr. Revelle believed CO2 to likely be a problem but wasn’t going to sacrifice his credibility as a scientist and proclaim that it is scientifically known to be a problem. Like there is no problem with a scientist believing in God; but its not at all credible for a scientist to proclaim that science has proven that God exists.
Bindidon says:
”The Hunter boys posts on this blog, best know to always lack references backing up his gut feeling based claims, are the only connection between the two.”
Bindidon is once again using his gut feelings to proclaim a fact.
too bad for Bindidon. Obviously incapable of typing in: woods hole solar constant into a google search.
https://www.whoi.edu/science/AOPE/mvco/description/SolRad.html
Gill does not seem to realize that recycling the “but Revelle” talking point shows he has no qualms regarding any evidence that does not go his way.
But then since he has been going all in with “But Seim & Olsen” since a year or so, it already was public knowledge.
What will he try next?
Deniers latest squirrel:
What a long-deceased scientist must have been thinking then, and what he would have thought now, 33 y later.
Like the never-ending LIA recovery, it is yet another unfalsifiable crank ‘theory’.
So Nate went to see his local psychic and concluded that he knows what Dr. Revelle would think about the science today.
My opinion is based upon what I know about Revelle’s integrity. He is a true scientist unmoved by the CAGW goldrush.
he would probably be in the Happer, Lindzen, Spencer camp as to an opinion, which is strongly supported by observation and slowly emerging but heavily suppressed science of other actors in the climate drama.
That is in no way a claim of no GHE effect from CO2. Arctic amplification is a real possibility but one still must distinguish between warming caused by the atmosphere and warming caused by the stripping of insulation off the top of the Arctic Ocean by warmer ocean currents in this time of the globe warming. . .as it clearly is shown to do naturally on a multi-centennial scale.
“knows what Dr. Revelle would think about the science today.”
Not at all. Im simply pointing out the obvious, that YOU don’t know.
And thus it is pointless to bring it up.
I have published papers with multiple authors, and thus understand that it is not uncommon that papers are written by one author, and others have less influence on the final wording.
It can certainly be the case, that if one co-author is ill, as Revelle was, that they might simply let the others handle it.
“So Nate went to see his local psychic and concluded that he knows what Dr. Revelle would think about the science today.”
But OTOH Bill does know:
“he would probably be in the Happer, Lindzen, Spencer camp as to an opinion”
LOL!
Of course he would Nate. Good scientists always go with observations and not with theory.
“Barry doesn’t get that Dr. Revelle believed CO2 to likely be a problem but wasn’t going to sacrifice his credibility as a scientist and proclaim that it is scientifically known to be a problem.”
The trumped up hair-splitting, ostensibly to preserve the reputation of a scientist you care so much about, is actually a foil to cast doubt on the risks of AGW. And didn’t you just rag someone for being clairvoyant about Revelle?
Your rationalising is transparent, Bill, and political rhetoric on a science board is boring.
Nate says:
nature warms in exactly the same way nate.
No it doesnt.
Eg nature doesnt cool the stratosphere while warming the troposphere, the same way.
———————
you should review your 3rd grade physics lessons nate. warming is not cooling.
barry says:
The trumped up hair-splitting, ostensibly to preserve the reputation of a scientist you care so much about, is actually a foil to cast doubt on the risks of AGW. And didnt you just rag someone for being clairvoyant about Revelle?
Your rationalising is transparent, Bill, and political rhetoric on a science board is boring.
——————————
wrong barry. i was just saying the record is consistent. dr. revelle who i knew was a very careful scientist. and i have no reason whatsoever to dispute what dr. revelle may have shared in his home with his family. if you don’t understand the obligation of a professional to hold to the standards of his profession versus surrendering to his personal beliefs and/or self interest that just makes you an ignorant man.
“Good scientists always go with observations and not with theory.”
Lindzen is a theorist. His famous ‘IR Iris’ theory has not been confirmed by observation. So apparently it was wrong. Oh well!
But go ahead and keep telling us more about what a long dead guy thinks.
Nate says:
”Good scientists always go with observations and not with theory.”
Lindzen is a theorist. His famous IR Iris theory has not been confirmed by observation. So apparently it was wrong. Oh well!
——————–
Nope! seems to be a good explanation for the time being for why the models are wrong. At least a better explanation that the models.
Nate says:
But go ahead and keep telling us more about what a long dead guy thinks.
—————————-
Nobody knows what he thinks. I didn’t start this tread. Seems to me it started with somebody trying to claim what he thinks. I merely added that we don’t know what he thinks and what we do know is what he said in interviews, seminars, and publications.
If his family contends he said something different to them I am not the one to argue with that, but can understand why that might be the case. Perhaps thats above your pay grade though. But clue one would be it is different than what he said in interviews, seminars, and publications.
> Nobody knows what he thinks.
Gill underestimate the level of his own ignorance. He knows almost nothing about Roger compared with whom Roger spent his life.
And that is notwithstanding that the ignorance from which Gill argues is voluntary.
Willard is conducting daily seances to glean what Dr. Revelle thought rather than simply read what he wrote or watch videos of his seminars on the topic.
Gill claims he does not see the bills he is counting in Fred’s dirty hands.
Willard doubles down on a claim that academia is not to be trusted because there is no way to tell the difference between science and political science.
We are getting closer to agreement Willard on just about everything Willard.
“I merely added that we dont know what he thinks”
Oh and also that you do know what he would probably think.
“he would probably be in the Happer, Lindzen, Spencer camp”
You need to do a better job of keeping track of what you claimed.
Gill loooooves the words Fred put into Roger’s mouth under duress.
Nate we have two stories here. We have what Dr. Revelle said in his role as a scientist to the public on numerous occasions. That was a consistent statement that CO2 was a potential problem but the science wasn’t there yet and that was long after M&W had published their paper.
Then we have what allegedly he said privately to his family.
I have been licensed as a professional and I have a family. As a professional you don’t express your beliefs or feelings. You instead express what you know to be factual via the tools of your profession. Hopefully you don’t treat your family to that sort of stoic objectivism and you can open up your feelings. Its really not controversial at all.
Its simply the case that a lot of people with strong beliefs and a lack of evidence still want to convince people otherwise by name dropping. . .and they do whatever they can. They make wild predictions that never come true. They exaggerate the evidence. They try to make natural climate change to disappear including the MWP, and the LIA. They select cherry picked trees to build a proxy case when it is well known that other weather conditions besides warming can alter their growth, they suppress papers written that sheds doubt, they get editors and other professional experts fired when they don’t conform, they insult those that they can’t fire, they accuse them of selling out (which is definitely a freudian projection since they already did), they call them ”deniers” to associate them with holocaust deniers, they build science cases by references to works that don’t apply to their current claim, etc. One could go on and on about all the effort to suppress information. Of course you can’t do that to Dr. Revelle as he is the Grandfather of Global Warming so it must be somebody else misrepresenting his views.
Simpler than that – there is the story told by those who knew Roger, and there is the fabrication from a professional fabricator, which is endorsed by a Sky Dragon crank.
Tough choice.
“convince people otherwise by name dropping”
which is exactly what you are doing here!
And assigning your opinions to this long dead person.
Hardly professional or ethical.
Nate says:
”Oh and also that you do know what he would probably think.
”he would probably be in the Happer, Lindzen, Spencer camp” ”.
All the good scientists I know lean toward the proof and the observation vs new theory.
Einstein was acutely aware of that about his theory. Thus in the face of the failure to widely convince those such that you had a lot of scientists debating over the issue, Einstein provided an means of proof via observation, which after carried out successfully united the science community.
So yes Revelle would be one of those who would be convinced by observation as many are today. Most of Roy’s posts of the last few months has been focused on that very topic.
Gill now thinks he’s Einstein or something, whom I’m sure would have ditched his theory the first times they tried to test it and failed.
LOL!
“So yes Revelle would be one of those who would be convinced by observation as many are today. ”
Agreed, since we now have 33 y of additional and increasingly sophisticated observations.
And unlikely as you do, Bill, to reject evidence simply because he doesnt understand the science.
which science have i rejected nate?
Playing dum and changing the subject.
No thanks!
Nate fails again to support his position in any way or shape or form.
Gill returns to Step 1.
You have to with Nate he never gets to step 2. You know where he describes in detail how a cold CO2 warms anything warmer.
“Nate fails again to support his position in any way or shape or form.”
Bill SHAMELESSLY pretends his opponents havent made any sound arguments in this lengthy thread.
Neutral readers can plainly see this is a BS.
“which science have I rejected nate?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1647082
Just one of many examples.
An no, Im not going down another rabbit hole repeating all the previous arguments.
observations have not attributed the warming to CO2 Nate thus thats not science. one must fully quantify Milankovitch theory before one can even make an argument from ignorance half way plausible. instead all they have done is resort to lies about Milankovitch.
“one must fully quantify Milankovitch theory”
Do you literally just randomly toss out sciency sounding words?
what you don’t understand is it takes more than a radiant barrier to create insulation.
this is simple fact that is demonstrated very well in the seim and olson experiment here: https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2023042615431593.pdf
this experiment is merely a repeat of science known for many years and in the 1970’s was established into standards and enforced
by the ftc against shysters selling the products like tinfoil to gullible customers as an inexpensive way to insulate.
so yes you can build insulation systems using radiant barriers when you also control convection. so that argument is a non-starter.
Gill has returned to Moshpitian syntax.
LOL
“what you dont understand is it takes more than a radiant barrier to create insulation.”
Bill oddly still doesnt understand that there are three modes of heat transfer.
And restricting ANY of them reduces heat transfer, which is the POINT of insulation.
Nate says:
”Bill oddly still doesnt understand that there are three modes of heat transfer.
And restricting ANY of them reduces heat transfer, which is the POINT of insulation.”
Wrong! If you move the GP to contact with the BP you completely restrict radiation and heat transfer speeds up. Just the opposite of what you just wrongly claimed.
“If you move the GP to contact with the BP you completely restrict radiation and heat transfer speeds up. Just the opposite of what you just wrongly claimed.”
Bill shamelessly obfuscates, or plays DUM.
He increases the effectiveness of one mode of heat transfer (conduction) a shit-ton, while simultaneously decreasing the effectiveness of another one (radiation).
And acts surprised that heat transfer efficiency improves.
Bill,
“Wrong! If you move the GP to contact with the BP you completely restrict radiation and heat transfer speeds up. Just the opposite of what you just wrongly claimed.”
Yes, but you are changing two methods of heat transfer when you put the plates together.
So calm down.
glad you agree with me.
Bill is good at arguing with what people didn’t say.
I said you were wrong and his response to my explanation was ”yes”.
I said: “And restricting ANY of them reduces heat transfer”
And you deny this, by giving an example of reduced radiation and INCREASED conduction.
Stop spreading manure.
Nate says:
”I said: And restricting ANY of them reduces heat transfer
And you deny this, by giving an example of reduced radiation and INCREASED conduction.
Stop spreading manure.”
You are jumping to a conclusion that reducing net radiation out results in a restriction of heat transfer. To show that you must show that convection is restricted because it operates to fill that void and only stop when the void is filled.
Coming up with a model that does that by applying some kind of non-scientifically designed atmospheric forcing both 1) assumes heat transfer is restricted; and 2) that convection would not provide massive negative feedback.
One of the canards of your side is the surface heats the atmosphere when in fact its a joint exchange of heat with, in general, the surface heating the atmosphere during the day and the atmosphere heating the ground during the night. CO2’s opportunity comes at night.
the reason that most of the significant heat records occurred in the 1930’s was the emerging solar grand maximum was powering up at that time and actively building an imbalance to be amortized later. There is more, AGW was flagging and they went hunting for the missing heat post 2009 reorganizing the temperature record so that it covered 90deg to 90deg vs 80deg vs 80deg utilizing climate reanalysis models to plug in additional warming beginning in 2014. That was accompanied with new efforts to measure the arctic post 2007 ice loss and the alarm bell went off about Arctic warming.
Gill guy continues to confuse the use of reflective radiant shields in buildings with atmospheric processes, writing:
Gill doesn’t grasp the fact that atmospheric convection can not move any thermal energy beyond the Tropopause. As a result, if the GHE increases, it would indeed increase convection within the Troposphere, which would raise the pressure altitude of the Tropopause, which would, in turn, increase the surface temperature, given a fixed lapse rate. There are reports that the tropical Tropopause altitude has increased in recent years.
The rest of his rant is just another version of the old denialist claim that “they changed the data” to show more warming.
tropopause altitude should increase with any kind of warming source Swanson. nobody is denying that it is warming. no question that some of it is coming from co2. but there is no honest and concerted effort to find an answer to how much is attributable to the natural warming as the public is fed bs by the government and their corporate/institutional lackies while the general citizenry gets financially raped.
Gill guy ignores the fact that climate models routinely include known climate influences in their construction, such as volcanoes, solar activity and man made aerosols, such as that from SO2 emissions and black carbon. Perhaps he should provide documentation to support his assertions. Naa, he ain’t gonna do it, as usual.
All they have been doing Swanson is shoveling BS. The IPCC attributes ozone for the ghg effect while the UN enviromental program has been bragging that the Montreal Protocol saved us from another half degree of warming
The effect of ozone is to absorb ultraviolet light that otherwise would hit the surface (remember all the sunscreen cautions coming out of the 90’s when the ozone hole was growing?)
Somebody at the UN is obviously wrong.
Gill guy tosses out another red herring about stratospheric ozone. Ozone in the upper atmosphere is formed by the reaction of UV with O2 over the tropics. Once formed, it acts like a GHG. It’s then transported to the polar regions, where it was being destroyed by CFC’s during Austral Spring, causing the Ozone Hole. Another example of Gill’s ignorance, I suppose.
You listen to way too much propaganda Swanson.
this Kto12 study plan will help you get it straightened out.
https://www.ck12.org/book/cbse_biology_book_class_xii/section/21.7/
Gill guy thinks my simple description is wrong somehow, offering a link regarding the problem of ozone loss in polar regions. The link emphasizes the fact that the Ozone Hole is the result of ozone destruction in polar spring, especially over the Antarctic, as solar energy arrives to the region.
Reading the text, I found no mention of the Brewer-Dobson Circulation, which
So what is your point? You make this flat out statement: ” Ozone in the upper atmosphere is formed by the reaction of UV with O2 over the tropics.” as some kind of evidence that what I said was wrong.
And you statement is essentially BS. Ozone is produced in the stratosphere world wide. The fact that there is a circulation pattern that moves ozone toward the poles is the same process that occurs in the oceans. That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said. You are just jibber jabbering because you really have nothing to say at all.
Its not even certain that mankind had a major impact on ozone. It does appear likely it had some impact.
It certainly can’t be ruled out, but there are long term natural climate processes at work that causes ozone to fluctuate. We saw some of that just in the past year and quite honestly we aren’t going to know for sure about mankinds contribution to this perhaps for another century or two. . .(based on observations of natural variation alone).
Gill guy thinks his earlier comment was OK. He wrote:
He now doubles down, writing:
Gill retreats with another example of the denialist manifesto, “It could be part of a natural cycle”, without any supporting proof what so ever. Gill forgets that a couple of folks got Noble Prizes for explaining the chemistry behind the ozone depletion in the Antarctic Ozone Hole. It involved CFC’s, which have now been mostly banned, but which are still being emitted as older equipment is scrapped.
But, here’s a post HS quiz for Gill: “What’s the cause of the increasing temperature with altitude in the Stratosphere above the Tropopause?”
Notice that Gill returns to Step 2.
”compliance with the Montreal Protocol avoids global warming of approximately 0.5-1 C by mid-century”
https://tinyurl.com/ycyn662v
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Gill guy, so ozone is a GHG, who knew? But, you are avoiding the question: Whats the cause of the increasing temperature with altitude in the Stratosphere above the Tropopause?
LMAO! yes ozone also absorbs IR.
In this case Swanson we would have gotten .5-1.0c warming from a reduction of ghgs. please pay attention!
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/images/ozone-uv/FIG-FAQ10.jpg
MEGALUL
Gill guy wrote:
As I read the report, it concluded that:
.
In other words, there would have been an extra warming had the Protocol not been accepted.
Yes you interpreted that correctly Swanson.
But you don’t seem to realize that the impact that comes from the LESS ozone (thus lesser ghg effects from ozone) if the protocol had not be implemented.
If the protocol had not been implemented we would have LESS ozone, thus LESS IR radiation from ozone (because of less ozone and thus less ghg effect) if there is a surface effect from ghg, that would mean we would cool.
So the warming is arising because the decreased ozone would neither be absorbing IR nor UV.
The IR would go to space and the UV from the sun would reach the surface.
so we would have so much more sunlight hitting the surface it would first override any cooling resulting from fewer ghgs; and we would still warm by .5 to 1.0 degrees.
Do you see the problem here?
Gill guy doubles down, arguing that the projected extra warming would have resulted from a reduction in stratospheric ozone by 2050. He wrote:
His reply further extends his scenario for how such would play out, completely ignoring the basics in the report, which focuses on the effects of uninhibited emissions of several ozone destroying chemicals. These chemicals are also GHG’s and their amounts now in the air have been reduced after the Protocol’s limits on emissions went into effect. The reports conclusions are for the combined effects at the surface of both the loss in ozone and the addition of those chemicals.
Of course, Gill’s simple scenario contains no basis in science, since he refuses to accept the validity of models used to study such problems, including the effects of increasing CO2.
Hmmmm, so if the cfc’s don’t quickly breakdown and instead hang out acting like a ghg and warming the planet .5c to 1.0c over the next 25 years acting like a ghg why did ozone virtually stop declining almost immediately in 1995 (with some suspected continued unreported emissions still continuing)?
Gill guy, perhaps you should read the full report, not just the ES. That said, see Figure ES-3. CFC-11 global emissions and reported production. The problem is just another example of the can of worms from our indiscriminate use of the atmosphere as a dumping ground for our waste. And, one can’t begin to approach all the issues without relying on models.
So you have no idea. You are just against dumping anything.
Gill guy, When I lived in the SF Bay area back in the late ’60’s, I found that the local air pollution made me sick, most likely due to CO from all those hot muscle cars (including the one I owned). For this (and other reasons) I moved away. Bad career move. So, yes, dumping all sorts of crap into the air is a bad idea and some chemicals are worse than others, long term.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-68613502
But, that’s way off topic regarding your distractions about the climate impacts of the results from the Protocol implementation.
you brought that point up. and of course so far its 100% of your concern and rationale.
Gill is actually the one who peddled the ozone bit.
LOLOLOLOLO
Willard echos the big DUH from Swanson as he has no idea of the science behind the ozone response either. Are you just against dumping of anything too?
Gill has yet to recover from Captain’s Joe Union Address.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOOOOOLLL
And Willard keeps parading about wearing his badge of ignorance.
Gill guy can’t get it thru his thick skull that to understand the potential and actual effects of emitting CFC’s, other ozone destroying chemicals and the chemicals which replaced them requires understanding the atmospheric models used to assess the problem. I can’t claim to understand the models because I’ve not actually worked with such models. But, neither can Gill claim any greater understanding, though reading the entire report might enlighten one regarding the latest scientific efforts.
Of course, Gill routinely poo-poos climate models as imperfect, so he has painted himself into a corner, as he thus has no other way to perform any analysis.
BTW, Gill, can you explain the fact that the temperature in the Stratosphere increases with altitude above the Tropopause? Perhaps you could provide a reference or two to support your reply.
E. Swanson says:
Gill guy cant get it thru his thick skull that to understand the potential and actual effects of emitting CFCs, other ozone destroying chemicals and the chemicals which replaced them requires understanding the atmospheric models used to assess the problem. I cant claim to understand the models because Ive not actually worked with such models. But, neither can Gill claim any greater understanding, though reading the entire report might enlighten one regarding the latest scientific efforts.
—————————
well at least you are honest in your yielding to authority.
the question is where does claims of people having thick skulls come
from. maybe you should leave it to those without a thick skull.
Gill continues to ignore basic science.
Can you explain the fact that the temperature in the Stratosphere increases with altitude above the Tropopause? Perhaps you could provide a reference or two to support your reply, even though that would be an appeal to authority, which he categorically rejects.
”Ozone, a type of oxygen molecule that is relatively abundant in the stratosphere, heats this layer as it absorbs energy from incoming ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. Temperatures rise as one moves upward through the stratosphere.”
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/stratosphere#:~:text=Ozone%2C%20a%20type%20of%20oxygen,moves%20upward%20through%20the%20stratosphere.
This is not too difficult for you to figure out Swanson. Oxygen species absorb UV. That UV will hit the surface and warm it if its not absorbed in the upper atmosphere. O3 and O2 get so hot they split apart in molecules with lesser oxygen atoms, providing the raw materials for production of ozone at lower levels in the atmosphere.
And while using UCAR as a reference is unreliably an appeal to authority, I can back that one up with the industrial processes of producing ozone in a factory. You know a real experiment that shows the guesses to be correct!
https://www.oxidationtech.com/ozone/ozone-production.html#answer2
Gill imagines that nobody clicks on links:
“This is exactly the opposite of the behavior in the troposphere in which we live, where temperatures drop with increasing altitude. Because of this temperature stratification, there is little convection and mixing in the stratosphere, so the layers of air there are quite stable. Commercial jet aircraft fly in the lower stratosphere to avoid turbulence and increased atmospheric drag, which are common in the troposphere below. Air is roughly a thousand times thinner at the top of the stratosphere than it is at sea level.”
ROFL!
Willard maybe you should read the post I was responding to. The question was: ”Can you explain the fact that the temperature in the Stratosphere increases with altitude above the Tropopause?”
“You are jumping to a conclusion that reducing net radiation out results in a restriction of heat transfer. To show that you must show that convection is restricted because it operates to fill that void and only stop when the void is filled.”
Sure Bill, but you havent done any calculations, applied any real physics equations, nor done simulations.
But MW 1967 did all that, and found that the GHE strengthens with increasing CO2.
And your lack of any that means you have no basis to reject it.
M&W didn’t perform any experiment nate. so a link to an experiment that shows seim and olson to be wrong is the only possible evidence you can have that m&w relied upon rather than experimented.
but its just a lie what you are saying here as there is no such experiment.
“that shows seim and olson to be wrong is the only possible evidence you can have ”
Bill ignorantly pretends that the S$O experiment proved something about the Earth’s actual atmosphere, and no other experiments ever disagreed with it!
More than that Nate it destroys the Arrhenius theory and the only explanation ever given for CO2 warming anything. Once destroyed now they just wave their hand and claim warming occurs in the upper atmosphere without demonstrating any effect that could restrict convection.
Gill switches to saying stuff.
He’s just gonna wave this silly paper until the end of time.
Bill, let’s face it, you are a arm-chair quarterback, who sees a squirrel go by: science hasnt “demonstrating any effect that could restrict convection”.
Why should we take your concern seriously when you havent put the least bit of effort, and no physics, no math, no simulations, into this ‘thought bubble’?
“M&W didnt perform any experiment nate.”
Again, over the next 55 years people made plenty of observations and further simulations, that agree with the predictions of this paper, such as a warming troposphere and a more strongly cooling stratosphere.
This an excellent example of you rejecting evidence with no rationale to do so.
Nate comes up with totally vacuous responses. What did you just say? It makes no sense whatsoever to defend your position by attacking mine.
“What did you just say?”
Lost your ability to read?
Notice that Nate didn’t come up with any evidence whatsoever that suggests M&W is correct.
“Notice that” Bill has no integrity anymore and is lost completely to the dark side.
thats what all sycophants say about the guy that points out their Emperor is wearing no clothes.
nate clearly demonstrated that if any experiment demonstrated a restriction to convection nate is completely ignorant of its existence.
that means nate hasn’t told us what his real interest in this is as clearly its not science.
“demonstrated a restriction to convection”
You have done no atmospheric physics, no modeling, no simulations, no math.
Thus you havent shown that this ‘thought bubble’ is an actual problem, Bill.
Come back when you have done your homework.
perhaps you should follow your own advice. its pretty hard to convince anybody to join your religion when you can’t give a single rational reason as to why they should.
The usual baiting.
No thanks.
the usual breathless total lack of science on your part.
Gill has a fever, and the only prescription is –
More sammiches!
Well one has wonder what you Willard and Nate are doing in here promoting your daddy’s position when neither of you have a clue about the underlying science.
Well one has to wonder if Gill RTFR.
“by CO2 being drawn out of the oceans by a warming climate”
Nobody is denying that contributes also.
ken…”Boiling is the rapid phase transition from liquid to gas or vapor.
The conditions needed to attain boiling point can be accomplished with ice cubes”.
***
You are talking about vapourization, which is not really the same as boiling. When we talk about boiling water, we usually mean the effect caused at STP where the water reaches 100C. Naturally, you can try to boil water near the top of Everest and due to reduced pressure, it will ‘boil’ at 70C or so, and that is not what I associate with boiling water. Apparently coffee at that temperature is plain yucky.
What we mean scientifically when water boils at 70 C, when the air pressure is 1/3 the air pressure at sea level, is a change of state from liquid to vapour. It’s called a boil at that temperature for want of a better word. So, there should be a pressure low enough that it will allow ice to so-called boil water.
We can use the word boil in different ways. Usually it is a reference at STP to water boiling at 100C. But I have heard the word boiling referred to a sea agitated by something as boiling water. Is that really what we are talking about here, which is more a reference to bubbling water than to boiling water due to heat.
It’s silly to claim ice can boil water knowing full well it is more a bubbling action where the water is very cold. Would you try boiling potatoes in it? You could try but we know it won’t work. Therefore boiled potatoes require a temperature of 100C.
ps. a better word for what you mean is roiling. It means to agitate a liquid and that’s what happens when low pressure allows ice to roil the water.
Making up your own long winded phony definitions is one reason why you have no credibility.
Can’t dazzle them with brillance? Baffle them with BS. That ought to be your mantra.
1 atm, on Venus is quite cool.
But water will boil at the rocky surface of Venus, but boils at at significantly higher temperature as compared to 1 atm pressure.
Though at 1 atm on Venus, where the sun is near zenith, the sunlight is intense enough to boil water, whereas on Earth a solar pond water can reach 80 C due to sunlight. Whereas something bottled [water which is sealed] reaches about 60 C when sun is near zenith on Earth, and on Venus at 1 atm, bottled water could boil and explode your typical bottled water. Open water in Venus dry air at 1 atm, would evaporate rapidly and may not get very warm when sun at zenith- and most of Venus like Earth, doesn’t have the sun near zenith, and at night would certainly freeze.
Boiling is what happens when gas bubbles form in the water and move to the surface and leave the liquid and become gas.
Boiling occurs when the vapor pressure of the liquid equals the vapor pressure of the gas above the fluid.
Vaporization is when the liquid turns to gas at the surface.
Vaporization occurs when the vapor pressure of the liquid is below the pressure of the gas above the liquid.
Basic science lessons, someone owes me fifty.
Close, but no cigar. Vaporization occurs for any molecule when the vapor pressure of the liquid exceeds the dew point of the molecule in the gas. The same applies to liquid mixtures, but it requires data for the effective vapor pressure. Condensation occurs on any surface when the dew point exceeds the temperature of the surface.
To avoid confusion, I will restate that as follows:
Close, but no cigar. Vaporization occurs for any molecule when the vapor pressure of the liquid exceeds the dew point partial pressure of the molecule in the gas. The same applies to liquid mixtures, but it requires data for the effective vapor pressure. Condensation occurs on any surface when the dew point temperature exceeds the temperature of the surface.
Tim S,
Water evaporates at any temperature when it is in the liquid form.
Water only evaporates if it has somewhere to go. If the vapor space (air or any gas) above already has more water vapor (partial pressure) than the vapor pressure of the water at that condition of temperature and composition, if not pure water, then condensation will occur rather than evaporation. How do think a distillation column works?
Tim S
Both occur at the same time, you want to discuss a triple point flask.
Or talk about theoretical and actual plates in a distallation collumn?
Even when it is raining the water on the ground is still evaporating.
I see. Now you want to compare equilibrium rates, but the net effect is just as I explained. From my perspective, the faster rate becomes the net effect.
I suppose you still want your “fifty”, but it won’t come from me.
An excellent video interview with Tom Shula (Pirani gauge) in which he slays the GHE while pointing out the fallacy of radiation as a heat dissipator.
He claims the real greenhouse effect is related to energy being transmitted to Earth by the Sun at the speed of light and the relatively slow dissipation of that energy by the surface.
Shula has a degree in theoretical physics and works directly in a field related to radiation and conduction/convection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk&ab_channel=TomNelson
I’m not watching a 45 minute video from yet another maverick scientist who claims to know better than atmospheric physicists.
“He claims the real greenhouse effect is related to energy being transmitted to Earth by the Sun at the speed of light and the relatively slow dissipation of that energy by the surface.”
The surface radiates at the speed of light, too. So the average temperature of the surface should be determined by the amount of sunlight it absorbs over its whole surface, accounting for its emissivity.
If that result equals the observed temperature of the Earth, then the atmosphere has no radiative effect on surface temperature.
Neither conduction nor convection matter for this point, because conduction is only a small part of the process, and rising parcels of air still radiate at the speed of light. So convection would only hasten heat loss, not slow it down – unless rising parcels of air cease to radiate…
I think the solar force of it’s photons, shouldn’t be ignored.
But wouldn’t go so far to say it’s everything. But say, 1% to 10% might be somewhere, in ballpark.
Nah, his claims were thoroughly discussed and debunked here.
troubleshooting…
barry…I did not claim the atmosphere cannot slow heat dissipation from the surface, I said that a trace gas can’t. I pointed out that the atmosphere can affect the rate of heat dissipation, but since it is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, it is those gases that affect the rate, not a trace gas. They do it through conduction/convection. You cannot affect the rate of heat dissipation via radiation.
I agree that the atmosphere does not have one single frequency but it has bazzillions of different elements radiating in the IR band at different frequencies. According to Bohr, each element radiates at several discrete frequencies and when you combine elements in an infinite number of combinations, those combos can radiate IR in a spectrum.
Still the rate of radiation is dependent on the transition time of the electrons in their orbits, in each element, and according to Bohr, that happens so fast it has no time element. It is an instantaneous process no matter how many orbital energy levels the electron makes. Therefore electrons emit EM at a rate so fast it cannot be quantified.
So, one instant you have heat as KE in one energy orbital and the next instant you have EM with the gained KE gone completely with a ground state jump. That’s an instantaneous conversion of thermal to electromagnetic energy with the gained thermal energy (from a previous excitation) disappearing altogether.
However, that process is on-going, therefore we should be able to measure the amount of time it takes for the surface to cool at a macro level, considering all electrons of each element in a mass. Still, there is no way to affect that rate via a trace gas in the atmosphere.
We can affect it via conduction/convection, since that rate can be cont.r.o…l.l.ed by the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere. We also know that process is 260 times more efficient at dissipating heat based on Shula’s work with the Pirani gauge.
Here…let Shula describe the process in this excellent interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk&ab_channel=TomNelson
“You cannot affect the rate of heat dissipation via radiation.”
The emissivities of the atmosphere and the surface greatly overlap. Emissivity = absorp.tivity. That’s a fundamental physical relationship.
The energy is a photon is determined by its frequency, and this is not determined by the average temperature of the source, because the source emits in a broad range of frequencies.
The surface is constantly absorbing IR from the atmosphere. The atmosphere is constantly absorbing IR from the surface. The NET exchange determines heat flow.
If the average emissions of either changes, that will impact the other.
If the atmosphere becomes more opaque to IR, it will send more IR back to the surface. That will be absorbed. This will change the exchange rate, and the surface will warm up to match.
Convection and latent heat play a part, but the Pirani gauge is not giving anywhere near the right readings for that, for a number of reasons.
The optical depth of the atmosphere matters when calculating relative heat transport. The gauge has an optical depth of, what, a few centimetres?
Conduction chiefly happens at the surface, a boundary phenomenon. Convection largely stops at the tropopause. Convection and conduction to not provide any heat loss to space – only radiation does that.
I only glanced a the video, and wondered what gas he put in the Pirani gauge. Was it N2? Did the filament match Earth temperatures?
Too many unknowns to know if it was a legit experiment.
barry,
You wrote –
“If the atmosphere becomes more opaque to IR, it will send more IR back to the surface. That will be absorbed. This will change the exchange rate, and the surface will warm up to match.”
Don’t be daft. That’s just silly, saying that radiation emitted by the surface will warm the surface. Even putting a much better reflector than an atmosphere above the surface, won’t make it hotter!
You may deny that the surface cools at night – showing that all the emitted radiation flees into space. No warming. No GHE. Just more GHE cult fantasies.
Dreams are no substitute for reality.
Mike Flynn,
Still with your “slower cooling isn’t warmer” silly semantic game?
Keep playing dumb.
Cheers.
Swenson, I hate agreeing with Willard.
Ken,
Cooling is cooling. As in, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years,
The temperature has dropped. You can agree that it hasn’t, with as many dills like Willard as you like.
Slow cooling is still cooling.
No GHE.
The sun got hotter over those 4.5 billion year, so it must be clear to Swenson that the sun has no influence on global surface temperatures.
Swenson,
Are you daft and drooling in your Maypo again.
Never heard of a reflective oven?
I heard you could bake a pizza with one.
bob, a reflective oven is NOT the GHE nonsense.
Do you know why?
Yes Dear Clint, I do know that.
The point obviously missed your brain.
Are you slow today or what?
This BS from swengoolie was what I was referring to.
“Even putting a much better reflector than an atmosphere above the surface, wont make it hotter!”
Or did your brain miss that one too?
Correct bob, a reflector oven is NOT the GHE nonsense.
Glad to see you’re backing away from your comment.
Clint,
You can’t read, I never said it was the greenhouse effect.
I am not backing down from anything I have said today.
Here’s just one of bobdroege’s non-descriptive versions of the GHE –
“The Greenhouse Effect which when an atmosphere has radiatively active gases like CO2 and water vapor make the surface of the planet warmer than it would be without those gases.”
Unfortunately, blithe assertion is no substitute for fact. The surface of the airless Moon gets far hotter than the surface of the Earth.
bobdroege’s a dimwit, but at least he’s not smart enough to accept to accept reality.
The airless lunar surface also gets far, far colder than Earth’s.
Average lunar surface temp seems to be 201K.
https://phzoe.com/2021/02/15/average-moon-day-night-temperature/
87K cooler than Earth’s.
Carry on confusing every issue you blunder into Swenson. Kudos for consistency, I suppose.
Swenson,
The albedo of the Moon is also far higher than the Earth’s, therefore it would stand to reason that the Moon gets hotter than the Earth.
The Moon also rotates on its axis slower than the Earth, days are longer, nights are longer, so the temperature swings are greater.
And we should be considering averages, not peaks.
And you are still drooling in your Maypo.
DREMPTY,
It’s obvious that that depends on how the green plate became warmer than the blue plate.
barry is still defending the GHE. Despite the falsification of the “back-radiation warming” argument:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1632578
Despite the semi debunking of the back radiation account, the GHE still causes warming of the surface.
Back radiation still exists, as radiation from the atmosphere reaches the surface and adds its energy to the surface.
bob, do you know why the energy from back-radiation does NOT increase Earth’s 288K surface temp?
A: … because the system is pretty much already in equilibrium. Add some more ppm wv, aerosols, surface albedo change, or other IR-active gases and the sun causes disequilibrium until the atm. temperature profile again equilibrates incoming absorbed SW and outgoing LW.
Yes Clint, not alone it doesn’t but when the energy from back radiation is added to the energy from the Sun, it gets warmer.
Man, are you slow today or what?
"Back radiation still exists"
As you already know, I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. It would be disgustingly dishonest of you to pretend I was suggesting that it doesn’t exist. Really repellently, grotesquely dishonest.
Maybe somebody could respond to the whole sentence.
If you claim it exists, then surely it is part of the greenhouse effect, but you probably would argue against that.
Or else claim it is heat transfer from cold to hot, when it is not that.
It is really sad watching a grown man pretend not to understand my argument. Pretend that we haven’t discussed it a dozen times before already.
Click on the link, bob, in case it’s just dementia and you need a reminder.
bob, I forgot that you believe ice cubes can boil water.
Kids these days….
DR EMPTY,
I am still just responding to your words
“barry is still defending the GHE. Despite the falsification of the back-radiation warming argument:”
Obviously that sentence means you think the falsification of the backradiation warming argument actually falsifies the greenhouse effect.
If that is indeed your argument, you need to do better, as that is not a debunking of the greenhouse effect.
As I understand it, it is a wrong argument.
I win again, you lose.
Go jam with Coldplay.
If you can explain the GHE without “back-radiation warming”, be my guest. So far, you’ve asserted:
“Yes Clint, not alone it doesn’t but when the energy from back radiation is added to the energy from the Sun, it gets warmer.”
In response to:
“bob, do you know why the energy from back-radiation does NOT increase Earth’s 288K surface temp?“
from Clint R. So you’re not doing very well so far.
DR EMPTY,
Yes, I did click on the link, and the next one and found this gem.
“You say the GP now cools, but if that were the case it would have to be cooling to the BP. It cannot cool to the BP without heating the BP. It cannot heat the BP due to 2LoT.”
The fact that the GP cools has nothing to do with anything about the blue plate.
Heat transfer is always from the blue plate to the green plate, even as the separation of the two plates causes an increase in temperature of the blue plate to satisfy the heat transfer equations.
Sorry charlie, take a course in thermodynamics.
DR EMPTY,
You fail to point out anything wrong with this statement.
Yes Clint, not alone it doesnt but when the energy from back radiation is added to the energy from the Sun, it gets warmer.
Epic Fail.
Keep reading, bob. You’re not giving the full account of my argument. A little further down, in the lengthy discussion at the first link (not the second link), you will find:
Here’s a 2LoT violation:
You separate the plates. It doesn’t matter for what reason you think the GP cools. That GP was radiating to space before the plates were separated, and on separation it is still radiating to space. The radiation to space is thus not the difference that can have led to the cooling you believe occurs. That only leaves the radiation on the other side of the GP, towards the BP, as being the difference that can have led to the cooling you believe occurs. It was not radiating towards the BP when the plates were pushed together, and now, on separation, it is.
Thus, you must believe the GP is cooling to the BP, since you believe cooling is now occurring, and the only difference from when the GP wasn’t cooling is that now the GP is radiating to the BP.
If the GP is cooling to the BP, then it’s sending heat to the BP. Warming it. We can see that indeed, you think the BP warms on separation. So, that’s you treating a single flow of IR radiation as though it were a transfer of heat.
A bit more subtle than the GP being warmer than the BP.
"You fail to point out anything wrong with this statement.
Yes Clint, not alone it doesnt but when the energy from back radiation is added to the energy from the Sun, it gets warmer.
Epic Fail."
bob, you’ve lost the thread of the conversation already. You said:
"Obviously that sentence means you think the falsification of the backradiation warming argument actually falsifies the greenhouse effect.
If that is indeed your argument, you need to do better, as that is not a debunking of the greenhouse effect."
So I challenged you to describe the GHE without relying on "back-radiation warming", and pointed out that you had already relied on it in the discussion thus far.
bob…can you actually describe the GHE without relying on "back-radiation warming"? If not, then it would seem you’re wrong, again.
DR EMPTY,
Try again,
“If the GP is cooling to the BP, then its sending heat to the BP. Warming it. We can see that indeed, you think the BP warms on separation. So, thats you treating a single flow of IR radiation as though it were a transfer of heat.”
First, as I already said, the GP is not cooling to the BP, it is just cooling by emitting radiation.
The BP does warm upon separation, that’s what solving the heat transfer equations show.
So, no, I am not treating a single flow of IR radiation as heat, because as has been pointed out by many on both sides of this argument, radiation is not heat. Radiation can transfer heat and or energy, but it is not heat.
Anyway, no matter what you assert, the heat transfer is always from the BP to the GP.
Again, you would be more likely to understand my arguments if you had taken a course in thermodynamics.
"Again, you would be more likely to understand my arguments if you had taken a course in thermodynamics."
There’s nothing remotely complicated about the Green Plate Effect, and your arguments are perfectly simple and straightforward enough for anyone to understand, bob. Nice try, though.
"First, as I already said, the GP is not cooling to the BP, it is just cooling by emitting radiation."
It has to be cooling to somewhere, bob. Can’t just be cooling.
"The BP does warm upon separation, that’s what solving the heat transfer equations show."
Solve away, bob. Be my guest.
"So, no, I am not treating a single flow of IR radiation as heat, because as has been pointed out by many on both sides of this argument, radiation is not heat. Radiation can transfer heat and or energy, but it is not heat."
Absolutely. Radiation is not heat. However, in the 262 K…220 K solution, you treat the "back-radiation" transfer as though it were a transfer of heat.
"Anyway, no matter what you assert, the heat transfer is always from the BP to the GP."
Already been through this with barry. It seems the only way you guys can picture a 2LoT violation involving radiative heat transfer is if the GP was warmer than the BP, or if the GP emitted more radiation than the BP (in other words, if it violated the SB Law as well)!
Very funny.
Just to clarify the last paragraph, as I know what bob’s like:
Two ways in which GPE proponents can accept a 2LoT violation in the GPE:
1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K.
2) The GP is cooler than the BP, but still somehow emits more than the BP, thus also violating the SB Law as well as 2LoT.
If you have any more ways, bob, just let me know.
DR EMPTY
“It has to be cooling to somewhere, bob. Cant just be cooling”
Says who?
Yes it can just be cooling, the radiation emitted could travel forever, never hitting a physical object.
“Solve away, bob. Be my guest.”
Been there done that, got a degree.
Check the Rabbetts page on the subject, but you need to do that for yourself, it’s the only way to be sure.
“Absolutely. Radiation is not heat. However, in the 262 K220 K solution, you treat the “back-radiation” transfer as though it were a transfer of heat.”
No we are not, we are treating the back radiation as a transfer of energy. The heat transfer is from the BP to the GP.
Check your guy who you claimed debunked the back radiation version of the greenhouse effect for an explanation of the greenhouse effect without using back radiation or look to the Rabbett.
“Yes it can just be cooling, the radiation emitted could travel forever, never hitting a physical object.”
Sure, bob, the radiation emitted to space could indeed do so. However, the GP was emitting 200 W/m^2 to space both before and after separation. So, that emission to space is not the difference that’s responsible for the GP cooling. The difference is the radiation from the BP to the GP.
"Check the Rabbetts page on the subject, but you need to do that for yourself, it’s the only way to be sure."
Already have. Nothing there I didn’t understand. Thanks anyway.
"Check your guy who you claimed debunked the back radiation version of the greenhouse effect for an explanation of the greenhouse effect without using back radiation or look to the Rabbett."
More handwaving.
"No we are not, we are treating the back radiation as a transfer of energy. The heat transfer is from the BP to the GP."
No response to the last paragraph of my 3:30 PM comment?
"The difference is the radiation from the BP to the GP."
Sorry, I meant the difference is the radiation from the GP to the BP.
DR EMPTY,
Alright I’ll address your last comment:
“Already been through this with barry. It seems the only way you guys can picture a 2LoT violation involving radiative heat transfer is if the GP was warmer than the BP, or if the GP emitted more radiation than the BP (in other words, if it violated the SB Law as well)!”
Well, dumb bunny, if the GP was warmer than the BP then the heat transfer would be from the GP to the BP, and no second law violation.
If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation.
And now this
“Already have. Nothing there I didnt understand. Thanks anyway.”
Obviously you don’t understand it, or you wouldn’t be claiming its wrong because it violates the second law, which you don’t seem to have a firm grasp of anyway.
And here is a description of the greenhouse effect without using back radiation.
CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in specific wavelengths, the intensity of that is based solely on concentration and temperature, some of that radiation hits the surface depositing its energy to the surface, which combined with other radiations hitting the surface causes the temperature to increase on the surface, if the concentration or temperature of the CO2 is raised.
“Well, dumb bunny, if the GP was warmer than the BP then the heat transfer would be from the GP to the BP, and no second law violation.
If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation.”
You won’t understand why, but you are actually helping make my point for me, so thanks.
“CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in specific wavelengths, the intensity of that is based solely on concentration and temperature, some of that radiation hits the surface depositing its energy to the surface, which combined with other radiations hitting the surface causes the temperature to increase on the surface, if the concentration or temperature of the CO2 is raised.“
Yeah, that still involves “back-radiation warming”, bob, you are just avoiding the term “back-radiation” itself. Silly bob.
DR EMPTY,
No it does not involve back radiation.
You should know that almost all of the CO2 radiation comes from the molecules of CO2 getting excited from collisions with N2 and O2 molecules rather than absorbing IR radiation from the Earth’s surface.
You know thermalization and its converse.
Well, bob, once you’ve worked out whether or not the GHE involves "back-radiation warming", and thus whether or not you needed to have wasted your time defending "back-radiation warming" for years, as you have done, and as though your life depended on it…just let me know.
DR EMPTY,
I have not defended back radiation for years, actually a long time ago I said it was a bad description of what is going, on you must have missed that, and it’s too long ago for me to bother searching for it just to counter your straw.
I have defended down welling infrared, but that’s a different animal.
All the radiation from CO2 is not back-radiation, as the energy the CO2 emits as infrared is predominantly sourced from N2 and O2, not upwelling IR from the surface.
Taking that statement into account, you still don’t need any back-radiation in the description of the greenhouse effect.
But then you have put up straw for years.
“Back-radiation warming” is exemplified by the Green Plate Effect. You have defended the GPE as though your life depended on it, for coming up to seven years now. It’s OK, nobody expects you to be honest.
DR EMPTY,
Sorry dude
“If that is indeed your argument, you need to do better, as that is not a debunking of the greenhouse effect.”
You said it was in your response to Barry
“If the GP is cooling to the BP, then its sending heat to the BP. Warming it. We can see that indeed, you think the BP warms on separation. So, thats you treating a single flow of IR radiation as though it were a transfer of heat.”
No, I am not treating it as a single flow of IR radiation, there are two objects, so two transfers of energy, and the difference in those two transfers is the transfer of heat.
You don’t understand thermodynamics, so take a course and stop lying about what I think.
DR EMPTY,
Sorry dude
There is no back radiation in the green plate effect.
It’s just SB law and some calculations.
Which you try your best no to understand.
Describe what you believe would be a 2LoT violation, wrt the Green Plate Effect. Plate temperatures and associated fluxes, please.
“There is no back radiation in the green plate effect.“
Hilarious, bob. It’s the radiation from the GP to the BP. That is regarded as “back-radiation”. If you can’t accept that, no point us interacting.
* Bob resenting DREMT pinning a view on him that he doesn’t hold
* Bob explaining heat flow is warmer BP to cooler GP
* Bob explaining NET flow of radiation determines heat flow
* Bob pointing out a single vector of radiation isn’t a heat flow
* Bob treating rad from GP to BP as transfer of energy, not heat
* Bob saying GP doesn’t cool to BP
* Bob emphasising exchange between BP and GP, not just one vector
I can’t believe you, DREMT! This is our dance, you hussy!
barry, bob contradicts you, here:
“If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation.”
You might want to straighten that out with him.
And, if you have no more descriptions of GPE-related 2LoT violations to add to this list:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1640797
then you really should concede the debate, as your way of looking at things is obviously wrong.
> This is our dance, you hussy!
This is Graham D. Warner’s dance with everyone!
Little Willy senses a cyber-bullying opportunity, so appears out of nowhere. I knew there was absolutely no chance he could stay out of my comments for long. Nate will wait until the discussion has gone on for a few days before chiming in with something adorable and ignorable. Oh well. Trolls will be trolls.
A warmer GP sending more energy to colder BP than it receives is, like Bob says, not a violation of 2LoT between the plates.
What contradiction are you talking about?
If you want to include the sun in this picture, warming the BP, then you have a 1st Law violation. Energy in the GP is created from nothing.
DR EMPTY,
“Hilarious, bob. Its the radiation from the GP to the BP. That is regarded as back-radiation. If you cant accept that, no point us interacting.”
I consider back-radiation to mean radiation coming back from a source, a reflection if you will, and in the BP scenario, there is no reflection.
I consider it SB radiation, or black-body radiation. The sums of which determine the temperatures.
Now for a second law violation, let’s consider your diagram with the extra arrow, and the blue and green plates at the same temperature, since in that diagram, the blue and green plates receive different amounts of radiation, yet are at the same temperature, that is a second law violation considering the entropy statements of the second law. Two things at the same temperature but receiving different amounts of radiation, means they should have different entropies.
Again, try a course in thermodynamics, because you are still wrong, just like Franco is still dead.
The one I quoted, barry. Your idea of a 2LoT violation was a cooler GP somehow emitting more than the warmer BP, in violation of the SB Law. About that, bob said:
“If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation.”
So, you two disagree.
And, if you want to take number 1) off the list of GPE-related 2LoT violations, be my guest. It only weakens your position further. You guys don’t seem to realise you are shooting yourselves in the foot. Keep on blasting away, barry.
bob, since you are unable to:
1) accept that the “back-radiation” in the GPE is the radiation from GP to BP.
2) correctly represent the diagram.
3) add what you consider to be a 2LoT violation to the list (sensible suggestions only, see 2) for why I’m not taking your suggestion seriously)
Then I suggest we stop interacting.
“If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation”
I just said I agree with that statement, DREMT.
Where do you think I’ve disagreed with it? Quote me.
“Your idea of a 2LoT violation was a cooler GP somehow emitting more than the warmer BP, in violation of the SB Law.”
Bob said no violation if GP is warmer than BP, and he is right.
No contradiction, here, DREMT.
I said to bob:
“Already been through this with barry. It seems the only way you guys can picture a 2LoT violation involving radiative heat transfer is if the GP was warmer than the BP, or if the GP emitted more radiation than the BP (in other words, if it violated the SB Law as well)!”
Because that perhaps wasn’t clear enough, I then clarified:
“Two ways in which GPE proponents can accept a 2LoT violation in the GPE:
1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K. 2) The GP is cooler than the BP, but still somehow emits more than the BP, thus also violating the SB Law as well as 2LoT.”
bob responded:
“Well, dumb bunny, if the GP was warmer than the BP then the heat transfer would be from the GP to the BP, and no second law violation [this is a response to 1)]
If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation [this is a response to 2), your argument, barry]”
So bob is disagreeing with you on your 2). OK?
It appears we are interpreting bob’s answer to 2) differently.
I’m interpreting that he’s saying if GP is emitting more to BP, then that means GP is warmer than BP, and this scenario does not violate 2LoT.
How are you interpreting it?
Yes, barry. I interpret it that way, too. In other words, he is ignoring the entire part about violating the SB Law. He is not getting what you meant, even after I clarified it for him. You should be discussing this with him. Somehow I get lumbered with cleaning up everybody’s mess!
And, by the way, I was being generous in giving you 1), in the first place. You and bob can both reject it if you like, and then your total list of ways you can conceive of heat flowing from cold to hot in the GPE will consist of only one possibility – your 2)! In other words, the only way you can conceive of there being a 2LoT violation in the GPE is if the SB Law is also violated. Keep on blasting that foot.
“Yes, barry. I interpret it that way, too. In other words, he is ignoring the entire part about violating the SB Law. He is not getting what you meant, even after I clarified it for him. You should be discussing this with him. Somehow I get lumbered with cleaning up everybodys mess!”
The only confusion is this manufactured ‘contradiction.’ bob and I do not disagree, we’re responding to your questions in different ways.
bob’s answer doesn’t violate S/B so of course he ignored it.
Mine does, and your apparent requirement that it should not is completely arbitrary.
Think about it DREMT, you’re asking for a description of a violation of a law of physics that violates no other laws of physics.
Rather than consider one would inevitably lead to the other (which is one way that these laws were worked out in the first place), you impose arbitrary limits.
barry…2) was your argument. Clearly, bob did not understand what you meant. Here I am, sorting it all out for you. You’re welcome!
“barry… 2) was your argument. Clearly, bob did not understand what you meant.”
Then how could he contradict me?
If you have managed to unconfuse yourself, congratulations. No need to pat yourself on the back, I’ll do it for you.
bobdroege says:
”DR EMPTY,
Sorry dude
There is no back radiation in the green plate effect.
Its just SB law and some calculations.
Which you try your best no to understand.”
Yep it works like this: If you trap the heat in the GP the GP warms up to the same temperature as the BP. But if you only trap half the heat going into the GP and let the other half escape to space, it causes the BP to warm instead. Sheeesh!
> If you trap the heat
Gill forgot to tell how Sky Dragon cranks are supposed to do that.
LMAO!
Via birth defect Willard.
Gill still does not get that ze question is –
Why does he still deny that, as an American Petroleum Institute report noted in 1968, no possible sources of rising CO2 in the atmosphere seems to fit the presently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel emanation theory?
I was not confused barry, bob was. By your example of a 2LoT violation in the GPE…because it was so absurd that nobody would assume you meant the GP would emit other than as the SB Law dictates, and likewise for the BP. Which is why he contradicted you in the first place, saying it was not a 2LoT violation.
DR EMPTY,
“1) accept that the back-radiation in the GPE is the radiation from GP to BP.”
What is it “back” from?
“2) correctly represent the diagram.”
What did I get wrong?
Maybe you can post the crap diagram again.
“3) add what you consider to be a 2LoT violation to the list (sensible suggestions only, see 2) for why Im not taking your suggestion seriously)”
Since the Green Plate Effect can be observed by anyone with an electric stove, a pot, a couple plates, and an instrument to measure temperature.
Thus, as an observation, it can’t have a violation of the second law.
“Then I suggest we stop interacting.”
Say you are sorry for being so wrong so often, leave the site, and stop responding.
No need for crocodile tears for hauling the straw, not lumber.
"What is it “back” from?"
I didn’t invent the term "back-radiation", bob. I’m simply instructing you that the "back-radiation" in the GPE is the radiation from the GP to the BP.
"What did I get wrong?"
Everything.
"Since the Green Plate Effect can be observed by anyone with an electric stove, a pot, a couple plates, and an instrument to measure temperature. Thus, as an observation, it can’t have a violation of the second law."
bob, you know full well what I’m asking you. Don’t play dumb.
"Say you are sorry for being so wrong so often, leave the site, and stop responding. No need for crocodile tears for hauling the straw, not lumber."
Yawn.
DR EMPTY,
Yes I know what you are asking, but I can’t conjure up a second law violation where there is none.
Neither in the Green Plate Effect nor in the Greenhouse Effect is there a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
bob continues to play dumb.
I guess because he’s realised he cannot add to this list:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1640797
And, that shows how ridiculous their way of looking at it is.
DR EMPTY,
Like I said, you can’t conjure up a second law violation in the green plate effect because there is not one.
“1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K.
2) The GP is cooler than the BP, but still somehow emits more than the BP, thus also violating the SB Law as well as 2LoT.”
No 1, unfortunately the GP is not warmer than the BP.
No 2, unfortunately the GP is cooler that the BP, but does not emit more than the BP.
So neither one of those are violations of the second law.
“If you have any more ways, bob, just let me know.”
Well, it’s like I said, there are none, so I don’t have any sammiches.
Now I think maybe you are not playing.
DR EMPTY,
So give me a second law violation in the green plate effect.
I will continue to show you why it is not a violation of the second law.
bob…I’m asking you for an example of what you think is a 2LoT violation, in terms of radiative heat transfer. So, taking the framework of the Green Plate Effect, but changing the temperature values for the plates, what do you think would be a 2LoT violation? Do you get what I’ve been asking you yet? Or are you still just a confused old man?
DR EMPTY,
Asked and answered!
I can’t conjure one up, because one does not exist.
“Which is why he contradicted you…”
No he didn’t. He said what a violation isn’t, I said what a violation is. Keeping NET energy flow the same vector his GP is warmer, mine cooler. Our answers are mutually self-consistent.
barry: bottom line is, bob said your 2) was not a 2LoT violation, you said it was. That’s a contradiction. He hasn’t yet changed his opinion on 2) even after it’s been re-explained what you meant. If you listen to what he’s saying now, it doesn’t look like bob believes it’s even possible to violate 2LoT, radiatively. He’s certainly extremely reluctant to give me an example wrt the GPE. It’s quite funny watching you two avoiding interacting, letting me do all the work, as usual.
“Think about it DREMT, youre asking for a description of a violation of a law of physics that violates no other laws of physics.”
Good point, Barry.
If, as in the original Eli Rabbet presentation of the GPE, the basic laws of physics are applied to solve a problem, then its solution obeyed the laws of physics.
The solution has steady heat flows from hot to warm to cooler to cold.
Such a solution cannot be violating the 2LOT!
It is extremely unlikely that ‘getting to’ this final state would be impossible without violating 2LOT.
And there are several ways in which the final configuration of plates can be achieved.
For example, the two plates could have initially been side by side, both in the sunshine, and both at 244 K, both emitting 200 W/m^2 on both sides.
Then the GP could have been moved into the shade behind the BP.
It should be plainly obvious and common sensical that the GP, no longer exposed to 400 W/m^2 from the direct sunlight, but instead by 200 W/m^2 from the BP, must COOL to a lower temperature.
And then it should be plainly obvious and common sensical that since, on its backside, the BP is no longer exposed to the extreme cold of space, but is instead now exposed to the equal temperature GP, and no longer able to lose heat on that side, that it should WARM to a higher temperature.
And of course ordinary physics, the Radiative Heat Transfer law, and 1LOT, confirms this common sense reasoning.
DR EMPTY is just trying to get us to give an example with respect to the Green Plate Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
So he can claim we said the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated in the Green Plate effect.
It’s a law of nature and nothing can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
DR EMPTY is just trying to get us to give an example with respect to the Green Plate Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
So he can claim we said the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated in the Green Plate effect.
It’s a law of nature and nothing can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
So there.
As I predicted it, so he appears.
Looks like DR EMPTY is giving up because he can’t find a second law violation with respect to the Green Plate Effect.
"DR EMPTY is just trying to get us to give an example with respect to the Green Plate Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
So he can claim we said the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated in the Green Plate effect."
Wrong, bob. Man, are you behind on the discussion, if what you’ve said is supposed to be taken seriously. Assuming it is…what I’m asking is for you to give an example of a hypothetical 2LoT violation in terms of radiative heat transfer. Using the familiar GPE scenario as the framework for it. Obviously 2LoT violations don’t happen in real life. That’s why I’m asking for a hypothetical example. And no, I’m not going to turn around and say, "there you go, you said the GPE violates 2LoT!"
I’m not quite as childish as you, bob.
Just give the plate temperatures and fluxes for a hypothetical 2LoT violation, as you see it. The reason I’m asking is because I don’t even think you realise how ridiculous your own position is. You need to start thinking it through.
"Looks like DR EMPTY is giving up because he can’t find a second law violation with respect to the Green Plate Effect."
No, bob, that argument’s done. I’ve found the 2LoT violation in the GPE. In fact, that was found years ago, immediately after the GPE was even created. The explanations have just got clearer in recent months.
No, this argument is more about exposing how silly your way of looking at it is.
Seems like you can’t even agree on what a radiative 2LoT violation would look like! You’ve certainly been unable to describe one within the GPE framework, so far. Only barry has attempted one, and that also violates the SB Law. You haven’t even said yet if you agree with him that it’s a 2LoT violation. It’s been like getting blood out of a stone with you, so far.
DR EMPTY
“Ive found the 2LoT violation in the GPE. In fact, that was found years ago, immediately after the GPE was even created.”
No you haven’t!
Tell me again, pull the other finger.
However there would be a second law violation if there was heat transfer from the Green Plate to the Blue plate.
But then the green plate would have to emit more than is allowed by the SB equation.
Only losers result to name calling.
Then I guess you’re a loser for calling me "DR EMPTY". And a loser for calling me a "loser"…
"However there would be a second law violation if there was heat transfer from the Green Plate to the Blue plate.
But then the green plate would have to emit more than is allowed by the SB equation."
bob’s starting to get a sense for how ridiculous his position is…
“bottom line is, bob said your 2) was not a 2LoT violation, you said it was.”
Fabrication.
bob said GP must be warmer than BP to send more energy to BP, and that this doesn’t violate 2LoT. I agree.
I said a violation would be if GP was colder than BP and sending more energy to BP.
We are not contradicting each other at all. Our statements are different answers that are mutually consistent; parallel, not contrary.
Because you have so often left the sun out of the equation, I imagine bob has done the same, as have I. Although my answer works fine as a 2LoT violation with the sun included in the scenario.
DREMT tried his hardest but failed to find a convincing 2LOT violation in the original GPE solution.
Everything else he is throwing out here is distraction from that failure.
[DREMT] bottom line is, bob said your 2) was not a 2LoT violation, you said it was.
[BARRY] Fabrication.
[BOB] If the GP emitted more radiation than the BP, it could only do that if it were at a higher temperature, so again no second law violation.
[BARRY] So the cold objects radiates more to the warm than the other way around. 2LoT violated.
Besides, shouldn’t you be arguing with bob about 1), as well…since you now think that it is a 2LoT violation, after arguing that it wasn’t? Or must I get all the grief about that as well? Will you in fact ever direct a response to bob, instead of me?
“Because you have so often left the sun out of the equation, I imagine bob has done the same, as have I.”
A false accusation, an attempt to blame me for your own mistake, and an attempt to cover for bob’s mistake all at the same time! Amazing work.
Will bob now agree that both 1) and 2) from here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1640797
are 2LoT violations, completely reversing his previous stance? Will bob and barry ever discuss their disagreement? Or will I get all the grief and abuse from all sides? Will anyone be able to add to the list or is that really the extent of their concepts of radiative 2LoT violations?
Stay tuned to find out.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1643686
Thanks for the quotes. Bob has the GP warmer, I have it cooler. energy going same way. His take is no violation, which I agree with, mine is a violation, which he doesn’t consider. No contradiction.
You should clear up the matter with bob of the sun being included in the scenario or not. I assumed he was disregarding it.
With the sun in the picture, I can see how a warmer GP would be a 2nd Law violation, but I think it is more naturally a 1st Law violation, because GP has gotten energy from nowhere.
“Thanks for the quotes. Bob has the GP warmer, I have it cooler. energy going same way. His take is no violation, which I agree with, mine is a violation, which he doesn’t consider. No contradiction.”
…apart from the fact that you don’t now agree that having the GP warmer than the BP is not a 2LoT violation. You think it is a 2LoT violation. And a 1LoT violation.
…and, also, apart from the fact he still was referring to your 2) as not being a 2LoT violation, when you said it was. Regardless of the fact that he changed the conditions of your 2) in order to do so.
“You should clear up the matter with bob of the sun being included in the scenario or not. I assumed he was disregarding it.”
I don’t need to clear up anything, because I said to use the same scenario as the GPE, and the GPE includes the Sun. This is just your excuse to pretend bob, and you, have not made a mistake.
” Obviously 2LoT violations dont happen in real life.”
OK then!
So really there is no point in discussing it or trying to manufacture a scenario where it happens, or to keep bringing it up, as DREMT keeps doing.
Since really even he realizes it is a great big red herring.
But why stop when you have such a beautiful method for endless obfuscation?
Trolls will be trolls.
DR EMPTY,
“”However there would be a second law violation if there was heat transfer from the Green Plate to the Blue plate.”
Since there isn’t any heat transfer from the greem plate to the blue plate, there isn’t a second law violation.
DR EMPTY,
“You should clear up the matter with bob of the sun being included in the scenario or not. I assumed he was disregarding it.”
Bad assumption, the 400 W/m^2 input is from the Sun, as in the original problem.
DR EMPTY
“1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K.
2) The GP is cooler than the BP, but still somehow emits more than the BP, thus also violating the SB Law as well as 2LoT.”
Since neither of these occur
No second law violation.s
Try finding a second law violation with things that actually occur.
bob writes three comments, all addressed to me. However, in the first comment he is quoting and responding to himself, in the second comment he is quoting and responding to barry, and only in the third comment is he quoting and responding to me.
Both the first and third comments reveal that he is still not able to follow the discussion. The 2LoT violation in the GPE was found years ago. That’s not in question. It was re-discussed at the link that starts this sub-thread (March 7, 2024 at 9:00 AM), if bob wants to finally take the time to read through the entire thing. If not, he can remain ignorant. Fine with me.
This discussion is not about that. It’s about hypothetical 2LoT violations using the framework of the GPE, and how GPE proponents obviously haven’t thought through their own position. As bob and barry are nicely demonstrating, they’re not even really sure what constitutes a radiative 2LoT violation!
“The 2LoT violation in the GPE was found years ago. Thats not in question.”
Total BS.
“It was re-discussed at the link that starts this sub-thread (March 7, 2024 at 9:00 AM)”
In which DREMTs illogic was thoroughly demolished.
He has utterly failed to produce a 2LOT violation in the GPE.
“This discussion is not about that.”
Its about trying to distract from that failure to find a 2LOT violation in the GPE.
And clearly Bob is not falling for it.
Nate has real difficulty in keeping out of my discussions.
“Regardless of the fact that he changed the conditions of your 2) in order to do so….”
No, it makes all the difference.
I’ll make my position clear.
* Heat flow is determined by a temperature difference
* In radiative terms it is the NET exchange of energy
* I was asked to describe a 2LoT violation in radiative terms
* I kept the temperature difference, reversed the NET exchange
Seems logical to me.
But DREMT seems to worry that this also breaks S/B law.
It’s like being asked to describe a river flow that would be prohibited under the Laws of Gravity, and then getting complaints that this also breaks the 1st Law of Motion, the Law of Entropy and Conservation of Energy at the same time.
These laws aren’t commandments, they are descriptions of how things work. Any imaginary scenario violating these laws is likely to violate other physical laws. It might even be inevitable.
This requirement that a *good* description of a 2LoT violation should break no other laws is ill-considered and arbitrary.
barry, you have responded to me again, for some reason.
Here is what you said, about (but not to) bob:
“You should clear up the matter with bob of the sun being included in the scenario or not. I assumed he was disregarding it”
Here is what bob said, about (but not to) you:
“Bad assumption, the 400 W/m^2 input is from the Sun, as in the original problem.”
What do you have to say to bob, in response? You disagree with each other about 1). Go.
“These laws arent commandments, they are descriptions of how things work. Any imaginary scenario violating these laws is likely to violate other physical laws. It might even be inevitable.”
Absolutely. And conversely, that the GPE solution satisfies all other laws of physics means that it satisfies 2LOT also.
This is transparently about DREMT, as usual, trying to manufacture a ‘fight’ between his opponents, as a distraction from his failure in the GPE argument.
With the debunking of the GPE re-explained on the other thread for at least the twentieth time, it’s fun to watch barry and bob avoid discussing their disagreement on what they think constitutes a radiative 2LoT violation. bob has said that the following is not a 2LoT violation:
"1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K."
barry is now saying that he thinks it is a 2LoT violation. I think most people would agree that if two people hold diametrically opposing views, that constitutes a disagreement. Will they discuss their disagreement? Probably not. That’s part of their "team tactics", after all.
Great to see that the GPE proponents have never really thought their position through.
“This is transparently about DREMT, as usual, trying to manufacture a ‘fight’ between his opponents, as a distraction from his failure in the GPE argument.”
Good point. GPE is NOT debunked since DREMT’s solution is ruled out by 2LOT because it fails to increase universe entropy as required for all real processes:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
Another unwelcome intrusion into the discussion. The debunking of the 262 K…220 K solution does not involve the alternative 244 K…244 K solution at all. So, Ball4 is wrong again.
No intrusion, this thread devolves from my earlier answer to Clint R. DREMT now rightfully abandons his calculated solution but for word salad?
Word salad can never debunk Eli’s GPE solution using 1LOT and consistent with 2LOT showing universe entropy increased.
No, this sub-thread has nothing to do with your earlier intrusion. I’ve abandoned nothing, and no, there’s no word salad. You are dismissed.
DREMT previously wrote: “The debunking … does not involve the alternative 244 K … 244 K solution at all.” Good, so despite claims to the contrary, DREMT has abandoned his earlier failed debunking to now resort to word salad discussing an imaginary concept “heat” which can mean anything the writer can imagine after James Prescott Joule’s experiments proved “heat” does not physically exist in an object.
For the correct GPE solution, better to use experimentally confirmed 1LOT consistent with 2LOT like Eli correctly showed years ago.
Vintage 2017:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268429
I wonder who that GW could have been.
Little Willy and Ball4, please stop trolling.
“With the debunking of the GPE re-explained on the other thread for at least the twentieth time”
Clearly not what is happening over there.
Currently DREMT is having a hissy fit because Barry is refusing to bend-the-knee to DREMTs twisted, ill-logical way of thinking.
They tend to get a little upset every time their religion is falsified.
Anyway, we await the argument between barry and bob.
DREMT means the imaginary “heat” comments. Only proper experiments count for winning science arguments. Eli’s solution is based on experimentally confirmed 1LOT and 2LOT. DREMT has never had anything but imagination in comments.
See what I mean? More than a little upset.
We await the argument between barry and bob.
Upset that DREMT continues to post physically incorrect comments for years. I haven’t noticed bob and barry disagreeing with Eli’s GPE solution so there really is no argument on that except with DREMT’s faulty imagination.
Ball4 reveals he has not followed the discussion on this sub-thread, and clearly has just been triggered by the mention of the GPE being debunked. Perhaps he should read through the comments in this sub-thread before commenting.
I did read this thread comments; some are humorous imaginary entertainment. I noted no response to my comment. DREMT is just imagining science with word salad. DREMT doesn’t understand how to correctly use the 1LOT and 2LOT as did Eli a few years ago or DREMT would do so.
If you had read the comments, you would be aware that bob and barry disagree, and would be quietly awaiting their argument. Instead, you are simply trolling. Please stop.
Another sperglords handbag fight.
Things are how they should be.
bob and barry…when you’re ready…begin your debate.
No science debate necessary between those two DREMT, they both agree with Eli’s 1LOT work which increases universe entropy.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
“bob and barrywhen youre readybegin your debate.”
Boy, are you confused DREMPTY.
I made one statement Barry made another in ways there could be a second law violation.
I said if the Green Plate was transferring heat to the Blue plate, but that could only happen if the Green Plate was hotter than the blue plate, and if it was, it would not be a violation.
Barry said if the Green plate was emitting more radiation than the Blue plate, but that would be a SB law violation as well.
Nothing contradictory there as we are changing two different things.
Again as we told you your debunking is wrong and your 244 244 solution is wrong.
That’s just where the system starts when the plates are separated.
Upon separation there is no heat transfer from BP to GP because they are at the same temperature and the heat transfer equation give 0 as the heat transfer, same temperature.
Then the GP cools as it is not getting as much radiation as it recieves.
And the BP warms because it is now getting radiation from the GP, not heat.
Never any heat transfer from the GP to the BP.
It’s been explained too many times.
We can make this discussion about anything we want to, DREMPTY, your are not the moderator.
Poor bob is confused again, so I will make it really simple for him.
You said it would not be a 2LoT violation if:
“1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K.”
barry is now saying it would be.
So, you disagree.
Summary of the sad saga:
Under the influence of an ignorant-tro.ll, Joe Postma, several years ago, DREMT adopted the insane position that an object in the sun should warm to the same temperature as an identical object in the shade.
And ever since he has adopted multitudinous different nutty non-physical scenarios to defend this indefensible position.
The latest being a total logical failure. One that as Barry points out is best described as
” your process of elimination to eliminate everything but what I want to see.”
As applied:
“With the heater on, the warm room leaks its heat loss to the cold environment, but the temperature remains the same.
Turn off the heat, and now the room cools.
By a process of elimination, I see that the only thing has changed is the heater was turned off.
The room was already leaking heat to the environment, and that hasnt changed. So we eliminate that possibility.
The cooling room is not cooling to the environment.
It must be cooling to the heater.”
To be fair, DREMT was talking about the GPE, but it was the same process of elimination ill-logic:
“The GP is not cooling to space on separation (from the BP), because it was already emitting the exact same amount to space, before separation. The difference is that its now emitting to the BP, and thus, thats where it must be cooling to, since you propose it cools on separation.”
A long post from Nate is usually a misrepresentation. A short post is usually an insult. That’s my experience from back when I used to read or respond to his comments.
Anyway…bob? barry? Your disagreement?
In his ‘process of elimination’ he has eliminated the emission from the BP to the GP, which is still present and as large as the emission from the GP to BP, and THUS the heat input to the GP is now ZERO.
With zero heat flow input and still heat flow to space, the GP must COOL.
Simple logic.
Anyway…bob? barry? Your disagreement?
And important to note:
With zero heat flow input and still heat flow output to space, the GP must COOL….to space.
Just as the room, with zero heat input, cooled to its cold environment.
The process of elimination illogic failed for both cases.
bob obviously realises his mistake. Whoops! I guess he hopes going silent will help.
The GP: “With zero heat flow input and still heat flow output to space”
And DREMT has now agreed with these two conditions.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1646331
Then we all can agree:
“the GP must COOL.to space”
But NO, not DREMT.
Because he is leaking brain fluid, or something.
From the recent flurry of posts it appears Nate may be having another meltdown. I bet he’s just going on about what’s happening in the other thread, where barry’s “heater switch off” analogy was exposed as a misrepresentation that failed to achieve what he intended. Meanwhile, on this thread, barry and bob have demonstrated their confusion about radiative 2LoT violations. No wonder none of them are capable of understanding how the GPE violates 2LoT!
Based on his desperation to try to distract, DREMT appears to know that there is no logical option other than to agree:
The GP must COOL…to space, not the BP.
No wonder none of them are capable of understanding how the GPE violates 2LoT!
… no wonder because their capability is higher than DREMT’s since they know Eli’s solution to GPE years ago increases universe entropy thus conforms to 2LOT:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
Obviously their capability is not higher, Ball4, since they’ve demonstrated on this permanent internet record that they cannot correctly identify a radiative 2LoT violation. bob said of the following:
"1) The GP is warmer than the BP, e.g. BP = 220 K, GP = 262 K"
That it wasn’t a 2LoT violation! barry first said it was, then changed his mind to say it wasn’t, then finally now is saying that it is again.
Ball4 contributes nothing, because he’s a…well, we all know what he is.
Doesn’t matter DREMT 1:36 pm, their word salad is irrelevant since both bob and barry agree with Eli’s years ago 1LOT GPE solution because they are more capable than DREMT to understand that GPE solution is consistent with 2LOT:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
"their word salad is irrelevant…"
It’s not "word salad", Ball4, it’s just saying whether or not a specific scenario violates 2LoT. The scenario we are discussing has the BP receiving 400 W/m^2 from the Sun, and the BP settles at a temperature of 220 K whilst the GP settles at a temperature of 262 K. The exact reverse of Eli’s proposed 262 K…220 K solution. Surely you can just weigh in on if you think that’s a 2LoT violation or not? Perhaps you can waffle on about entropy, which you regularly do since you know that no layman will understand what you’re talking about, so you can pull the wool over people’s eyes quite easily…
… then remove the wool & find both bob and barry agree with Eli’s years ago 1LOT GPE solution because they are more capable than DREMT to understand that GPE solution is consistent with 2LOT as stated.
DREMT (and anyone else) is welcome & even expected to accomplish formal education in thermodynamics to better understand entropy which is taught in a first course of study in the field; it’s not even complicated but the pre-req.s must be in hand.
Can’t or won’t give an answer, Ball4?
Sure, you’re very repetitive, and offensively condescending in an attempt to deliberately irritate, but can’t you just answer a simple question rather than being an obnoxious, hated, argument-losing failure? Make a positive contribution for the first time in your worthless existence…
The answer is already known, DREMT.
… the BP settles at a temperature of 220 K whilst the GP settles at a temperature of 262 K is not an equilibrium state solution. From those system temperatures, as Eli shows, GP cools in the shade and BP warms in the sun both processes in accord with 2LOT:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum
"…the BP settles at a temperature of 220 K whilst the GP settles at a temperature of 262 K is not an equilibrium state solution."
Obviously not, Ball4, but the question is, would it have to violate 2LoT in order for it to be an "equilibrium state solution"? Ball4’s next dodge of the question in three, two, one…
"…GP cools in the shade and BP warms in the sun…"
Not a lot of meaningful "shade" from an ultra-thin, perfectly-conducting blackbody plate, Ball4.
The BP is opaque, DREMT. As such, BP provides shade from the sun for the GP. There will be no 2LOT violation as the BP,GP system temperatures change to long term equilibrium as calculated by Eli years ago from any BP,GP initial temperature setting.
"The BP is opaque, DREMT. As such, BP provides shade from the sun for the GP."
Sure, but from the point of view of its effect on the GP temperature, it may as well be transparent. Besides, push the GP up against the BP. Your "shade" argument goes "poof".
"There will be no 2LOT violation as the BP, GP system temperatures change…"
That’s the closest Ball4 will get to admitting that bob was wrong – the situation with the BP at 220 K and the GP at 262 K does violate 2LoT. Thanks, Ball4. You’re dismissed.
“it may as well be transparent.”
But it’s not. Push them together, GP is still in the shade of the BP. No poof.
DREMT left out an important word: the situation with the BP at 220 K and the GP at 262 K does NOT violate 2LoT; that state is just an initial or temporary condition that coul