UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2024: +0.95 deg. C

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

The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2024 was +0.95 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up slightly from the February, 2024 anomaly of +0.93 deg. C, and setting a new high monthly anomaly record for the 1979-2024 satellite period.

New high temperature records were also set for the Southern Hemisphere (+0.88 deg. C, exceeding +0.86 deg. C in September, 2023) and the tropics (+1.34 deg. C, exceeding +1.27 deg. C in January, 2024). We are likely seeing the last of the El Nino excess warmth of the upper tropical ocean being transferred to the troposphere.

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).

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):

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2023Jan-0.04+0.05-0.13-0.38+0.12-0.12-0.50
2023Feb+0.09+0.17+0.00-0.10+0.68-0.24-0.11
2023Mar+0.20+0.24+0.17-0.13-1.43+0.17+0.40
2023Apr+0.18+0.11+0.26-0.03-0.37+0.53+0.21
2023May+0.37+0.30+0.44+0.40+0.57+0.66-0.09
2023June+0.38+0.47+0.29+0.55-0.35+0.45+0.07
2023July+0.64+0.73+0.56+0.88+0.53+0.91+1.44
2023Aug+0.70+0.88+0.51+0.86+0.94+1.54+1.25
2023Sep+0.90+0.94+0.86+0.93+0.40+1.13+1.17
2023Oct+0.93+1.02+0.83+1.00+0.99+0.92+0.63
2023Nov+0.91+1.01+0.82+1.03+0.65+1.16+0.42
2023Dec+0.83+0.93+0.73+1.08+1.26+0.26+0.85
2024Jan+0.86+1.06+0.66+1.27-0.05+0.40+1.18
2024Feb+0.93+1.03+0.83+1.24+1.36+0.88+1.07
2024Mar+0.95+1.02+0.88+1.34+0.23+1.10+1.29

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for March, 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:

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


1,295 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2024: +0.95 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Antonin Qwerty says:

    OK … now even I am wondering – a record when the land-based records have March down to about 0.7.

    But still doesn’t go close to making up for all the underassessed anomalies.

    • Mike Roberts says:

      Perhaps those surface temperature data use a different baseline? The UAH report here uses the 1991-2020 mean as the baseline.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Look, It’s The Movie! It’s another example of carefully crafted political disinformation, as I pointed out last month.

      • Alex A says:

        Re:”The average, non-scientific viewer would swallow it hook-line-and-sinker, adding to the growing perception by the public that AGW is not a problem, indeed, a hoax manufactured to promote a one world semi-authoritarian (aka, Communist) government. Sad to say, theres no way for those of us who worry about the environment to counter such propaganda, once its out in the wild of the Internet.”

        Could you explain how AGW is a problem. Given that warming is focused in the Arctic and in winter. I just see some gentle beneficial warming with elevated CO2 levels benefitting crop growth.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        The warming is not “in winter”.

      • E. Swanson says:

        AA, To be sure, some areas with colder climates might welcome warmer temperatures during Winter. The flip side might be that the snow belts would move to the North in the NH, so those warmer nights might lead to increases in snow fall. The Arctic is known as a “snow desert” because it’s so dry that little snow falls.

        And, There’s evidence that AGW is already having an impact on the THC in the GIN seas, which might cancel some of that warming for locations which now enjoy relative mild winters, such as Northern Europe. London, UK is at ~51N latitude, Edinburgh is at 56N and Stockholm, Sweden is at 60N. Compare their winters with Chicago at ~42N, Minneapolis at ~45N and Bismark, ND at 47N. If the THC stops, who do you think will be happy?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        ”Look, Its The Movie! Its another example of carefully crafted political disinformation, as I pointed out last month.”

        Apparently so carefully crafted you have no response to it. I have been asking for the so-called ”evidence” mentioned as non-existent by Dr. Richard Lindzen at 0:05:06. So far none the government toadies in here have managed to deliver a single snippet of evidence.

        And as per Dr. Stephen Koonan at 0:04:05 he like myself ask the question ”what am I denying”. And the toadies in here have no response to that.

      • Willard says:

        Step 2 – Sammich Request

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Thanks Willard you are always so obliging as to providing a perfect response as an example of what I am talking about. Kudos to you.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter notes a comment from Stephen Koonan in which he asked the question what am I denying?. Well, he DOES have a major part in the video, which is intent on denying the scientific background for AGW and he DID write a book about the issue, (which I recently read). Basically, he (and you) are denying the known scientific facts, such as the obvious decline in Arctic sea-ice at the end of the melt season.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        What scientific background? Both Dr. William Happer; and Dr. Richard Lindzen says there is no science in the ipcc report supporting the IPCC conclusions.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy, The Movie is a great example of politically motivated disinformation. Koonin and Happer are indeed both well respected experts in their fields and both also have experience in government. Clauser is also an expert in his field, so much so that he received the Noble Prize for his work in theoretical physics. He has only recently jumped into the public fray, vocally denying AGW. But, outside their fields of expertise, they are not experts, having not worked in the field, and their conclusions are debatable. Roy Spencer does appear, discussing his contention that much of the warming in the surface record is due to the Urban Heat Island combined with population growth. Lindzen, a meteorologist, blames the public alarm on the second and third sections of the IPCC report, but appears to accept what’s presented in WG 1.

        But again, once The Movie is on the web, there’s little chance to confront them and challenge their conclusions or the presentation in the video.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Swanson your argument here boils down to ”opinions” not science cohesively documented and established. The wise man will recognize that when the experts don’t agree on the IPCC conclusions the science is not in any way settled.

      • E. Swanson says:

        So, Hunter guy must agree that when Clouser states:

        31:13 Yes I assert, that there is no connection whatsoever, between CO2 and climate change. It’s all a crock of crap in my opinion. There is no truth to the idea, that the Earth is warmer now, than it has been in the past. It’s a lie. There is no truth, that CO2 is higher than it should be.

        that his opinion actually means nothing from a scientific point of view. So, what’s he doing in the video, except to provide an aura of veracity to this whole disinformation enterprise given that he received a Nobel Prize on work he did in 1972?

      • Nate says:

        “Richard Lindzen says there is no science”

        Does he actually say that?

        Hard to believe. Given all the SCIENCE he discusses and references in his papers on the subject.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate he says there is no science that SUPPORT5 THE IPCC CONCLUSIONS. A great lie is one where 99% of the facts are true.

      • Willard says:

        > there is no science

        Step 1 – Pure Denial

      • Adam Gallon says:

        Since there’s been no change in Arctic Sea Ice minimum, since 2014, care to tell us where this Arctic Amplificationis?

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter wrote:

        A great lie is one where 99% of the facts are true.

        The video is classic propaganda and should be called that. The comment is another version of the well known quote: Repeat a lie often enough and people will eventually come to believe it.

        In this instance, it’s not just the facts which were presented, but also what is left out of the narrative. There’s no mention of the massive changes in the Arctic sea-ice cycle or the effects of volcanic eruptions during the so-called Little Ice Age. Roy Spencer speaks of their work with satellite instruments, but their graphic results only appear within a quick shot of a computer screen. The comments toward the end regarding various biases in the scientific community, particularly the IPCC, is just another effort to discredit the still evolving scientific understanding of the climate of our Earth.

      • Willard says:

        Since Artic Sea Ice has been dropping somewhat steadily since 1980:

        https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice

        could you please explain why you cherry picked 2014?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:
        ”The comments toward the end regarding various biases in the scientific community, particularly the IPCC, is just another effort to discredit the still evolving scientific understanding of the climate of our Earth.”

        Poppycock!

        When the science is honestly settled no such disagreement is seen between experts.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy wrote:

        When the science is honestly settled…

        I have trouble with that. There are so many pieces to the puzzle that there will always be some one (or group) that disagrees with the latest conclusions (call it consensus?). This is especially true as there are different interests and levels of understanding, plus there’s always new information to put into the mix. Then too, there’s the here-and-now economic reality that we are all addicted to fossil fuels which offer some small fraction of humanity vast wealth.

        Don’t forget, we are discussing a video which is clearly distorting what is known about the situation. While the individuals quoted may not intend to distort, the overall result is disinformation. It’s not about science, it’s a propaganda piece, pure and simple.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        As I said you point of view is pure propaganda and poppycock at that.

        And what the heck does this have to do with anything climate?

        Swanson says: ”Then too, theres the here-and-now economic reality that we are all addicted to fossil fuels which offer some small fraction of humanity vast wealth.”

        Obviously you are mostly concerned about the ”political climate” as you obviously are with ”political science”.

        Fact is there is no scientific evidence that supports the IPCC conclusions. . .those conclusions are political based and involves a lot of people whose livelihoods are connected directly to how politically successful they are are in selling non-science as a science. As I see it I see these people wagering on science and like any gambleholic it is more likely to do more damage to science family than it is likely to benefit that family.

      • Nate says:

        “Fact is there is no scientific evidence”

        Bill must be a newcomer here!

        This is called ‘dichotomous thinking’. Describing a continuum as if it is one thing or another.

        Deniers tend to have this mental defect.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate continues to lie by implying he has provided science that establishes the IPCC conclusions. But Nate has zero credibility. . .

        I will continue to rely on the real experts who have been in the field longer than this has been a political issue making so-called super stars out of youngsters willing to strain the science using only mathematics and models that have yet to be validated.

      • Willard says:

        Gill will continue to pretend that his gurus produced evidence and that he looked at it.

        LOL

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard makes a desperate attempt to build a strawman. . .as like Nate he has no evidence that supports the IPCC conclusions.

      • Willard says:

        Step 3 – Saying Stuff

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter wrote some stuff, including:

        Fact is there is no scientific evidence that supports the IPCC conclusions…

        To be sure, that’s what the video claims, but the video is so full of distortions that someone who has studied the science would find it difficult to agree. To be sure, there are areas if the investigations which exhibit uncertainties, which the IPCC clearly acknowledges, but that does not invalidate the overall conclusions.

        However, the video does not prove your statement. The presentations at the end repeat old claims of bias in the scientific efforts to understand the problem. The people featured in the video have long histories of disagreeing with other scientists involved with the problem, but that does not prove them right. That you present it proves you have an agenda, which has been obvious for some time.

        Any serious discussion of the video would start by identifying who wrote the script for the video, who were the advisors and who paid for it. The US in the midst of a Presidential campaign where one candidate says “Drill, Baby, Drill” and the other is promoting the transition to renewable, low carbon energy sources. Some of the speakers might be quite happy to serve in an administration of the former, so their self promotion stands out.

      • E. Swanson says:

        UPDATE: Martin Dirkin is listed as the Writer/Director in the movie’s credits. There’s no list of advisers who played a role in the writing of the script or any information regarding the source(s) of funding.

      • Nate says:

        “Nate continues to lie by implying he has provided science that establishes the IPCC conclusions.”

        Sure, all those lengthy discussions with Bill involved NO science, NONE, claims Bill.

        Proving that there is no point to discussing anything with Bill. He is unable to retain/recall any of it.

        “But Nate has zero credibility”

        Bill definitely has the dichotomous thinking mental defect.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Unvalidated models and theories aren’t science Nate. They are nothing but the imaginations of scientists. Some scientists disagree that this imaginary science supports the conclusions of the IPCC. Get over it.

      • Willard says:

        Step 1 – Pure Denial

      • Nate says:

        “Unvalidated models and theories arent science Nate.”

        FYI Bill is a retired auditor who feels empowered to knee-jerk malign science when it doesnt fit his political agenda.

        So we can all file his opinions where they belong, in the round file.

        He shamelessly ‘forgets’ that theories and models are built upon earlier observations and experiments.

        And he shamelessly ‘forgets’ all the lengthy discussion of DATA, and observations that largely agree with predictions of theory and models.

        Proving again, there is no point to discussing anything with Bill.

      • Nate says:

        “Some scientists disagree that this imaginary science supports the conclusions of the IPCC. Get over it.”

        In the mind of a dichotomous thinker like Bill, the tiny number of outlier views of the science morphs into:

        “Fact is there is no scientific evidence”

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:
        ” ”Some scientists disagree that this imaginary science supports the conclusions of the IPCC. Get over it.”

        In the mind of a dichotomous thinker like Bill, the tiny number of outlier views of the science morphs into:

        ”Fact is there is no scientific evidence”
        ———————-
        Here is a perfect example of what a liar Nate is. He has taken a quote of the eminent Dr. Richard Lindzen and morphed it into a claim I never made that ”there is no scientific evidence”.

        Fact is there is a lot of scientific evidence about climate but none of it establishes how much warming is due to human emissions. When challenged Nate merely points to computer models, garbage in garbage out, as the scientific evidence. But these models haven’t proven to be predictive.

      • Nate says:

        “a claim I never made that ‘there is no scientific evidence’.”

        You said it right here, Bill.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1660954

        Whoops!

      • Willard says:

        Looks like Gill just bugged out.

        He must have been saying stuff once again.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:
        ”You said it right here, Bill.

        Whoops!”

        Nope! I said: ”Fact is there is no scientific evidence that supports the IPCC conclusions.”

        And that was in discussion of the ”movie” where Dr. Richard Lindzen said that. . .and nobody has disputed it.

      • Nate says:

        Bill is being ridiculous as usual.

        He again shamelessly implies that I lied about his quote

        “a claim I never made that ‘there is no scientific evidence’

        So I give him the quote

        “You said it right here, Bill.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1660954

        His response:

        “Nope! I said: Fact is there is no scientific evidence that supports the IPCC conclusions.”

        As if everyone doesn’t know that we were talking about ‘evidence that supports the IPCC conclusions’.

        But prior to that he quotes me quoting him saying “Fact is there is no scientific evidence”

        Then made it clear that he KNEW what I mean by it, “Nate continues to lie by implying he has provided science that establishes the IPCC conclusions”

        So clearly I am not lying about what Bill was trying to say, and said, and I quoted him.

        But he will continue to shamelessly whine about me lying.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        But you aren’t going to take on Dr Richard Lindzen who is the source of the quote that the scientific evidence does NOT support the IPCC conclusions because you are completely and absolutely unqualified to do so.

      • Nate says:

        “But you arent going to take on Dr Richard Lindzen who is the source of the quote that the scientific evidence does NOT support the IPCC conclusions because you are completely and absolutely unqualified to do so.”

        Thats called appeal to authority Bill.

        As if he has the last word on the subject!

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate nobody has refuted him. Folks refuse to debate him. He wins by no contest.

        I have asked you to refute him and you fell flat on your face and only had models and conditional assessments of model results to show. That’s nothing. It can’t be considered scientific support. I my field we send that stuff back for more work.

      • Willard says:

        > I have asked you to refute him

        Step 2 – Sammich Request

      • Nate says:

        Bill, as a contrarian, you seem to feel that the opinions of outlier contrarian scientists should be weighted much more than all others, and they should get the last word.

        But that aint how science works.

        Lindzen’s a theorist, and his theories have been tested, and have fallen short of agreeing with observations.

        “The idea of the iris effect of cirrus clouds in trapping outgoing radiation was reasonable, but it ignored the larger compensating effect on the blocking of incoming sun’s rays, and effects of changes in altitude of clouds.[2]: 92 [3] Moreover, a number of errors were found in the papers.[4][5] For this reason, the iris effect no longer plays a role in the current scientific consensus on climate change.”

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

        But as a contrarian, you will ignore this history.

      • Bill hunter says:

        The current scientific consensus on climate change is corrupt. . .run not by scientists but by scores of billion dollar corporations who9 have unprecedented and corrupt access to government funding.

        It can be as readily discarded as you would discard the opinions of Exxon Mobil.

      • Nate says:

        “The current scientific consensus on climate change is corrupt. . .run not by scientists but by scores of billion dollar corporations who9 have unprecedented and corrupt access to government funding.”

        So not able to support the claim that ‘there is no scientific evidence to support the IPCC..”

        And not able to support the claim that one contrarian scientist views trump all others,

        we now move on to declaring that all the OTHER scientists certainly must be corrupt. Why? Because all the big bucks academic scientists are getting paid requires it?!

        Of course his hero Lindzen is one of them ($$ from Coal corporations)
        https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen#:~:text=Lindzen%20(%20b.,interests%2C%20such%20as%20Peabody%20Coal.

        But somehow his, and only his, views must be uncorruptable!

      • Nate says:

        “In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he’d be willing to bet that the earth’s climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today.”

        He was prescient, huh? Tee hee hee.

        “When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. “There isn’t much money in climate science and I’m still looking for that gold watch at retirement,” Annan says. “A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension.”[12]”

      • Bill hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”So not able to support the claim that there is no scientific evidence to support the IPCC..

        And not able to support the claim that one contrarian scientist views trump all others”
        ———————

        It trumps all others because it is up to the others to provide the science of how the GHE works. Obviously if its not there one cannot show where it is.

        You have been asked to do that and you fell flat on your face trying.

        Nate says:
        Of course his hero Lindzen is one of them ($$ from Coal corporations)

        But somehow his, and only his, views must be uncorruptable!
        ————————–
        Well I built a career on uncovering corruption. Yes anybody is corruptible and its almost always linked to employee relationship with an up and comer or vast amounts of payola and control over ones career in relationship to the reputation of the person of concern. Guy coming out of college being made into folk heroes on the back of single thesis are typically the most corrupted. Old times who have built solid reputations over many decades are the least corruptible. In any case you haven’t made any kind of case for that. Getting an expert witness fee hardly is ground for the corruption of a person with a celebrated reputation. That doesn’t mean they won’t slant their testimony somewhat on a particular day. . .but it is highly unlikely one would do so pro bono after having built a reputation over many decades. Employment were the career path is smoothed by the employer has far more control and persons new with just a few years of experience the most manipulable. Its human nature, thus one should not simply believe anybody. One needs to look at what lack of independence the person has and their lifetime of credentials which persons who have built a reputation as an expert isn’t going to sacrifice it for a fee so big as to outweigh their reputation.

        Thats why its so unimpressive that somebody may have been hired as an expert witness and that’s why they think what they think.

        Nate says:
        April 15, 2024 at 12:01 PM
        In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying hed be willing to bet that the earths climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today.

        He was prescient, huh? Tee hee hee.
        ————————-
        I am of the opinion nobody can predict the climate.

        ”When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout.”

        50 to one sounds about right. climate is complex with many drivers and feedbacks thought to last thousands of years if nothing else changes. . . but of course changes do occur regularly. . .but are any dominant? Like Dr. Akasofu he laid out two climate length cycles imposed on one another. Not bad but its probably more than two.

        Even the IPCC is gradually coming around. They don’t want to attribute more than half the warming seen to CO2 and thats probably because more than half the scientists work for institutions that profit from CO2. Of course they are under a lot of pressure when you consider the temperature record isn’t keeping up with theory.

      • Nate says:

        “It trumps all others because it is up to the others to provide the science of how the GHE works. Obviously if its not there one cannot show where it is.”

        Nah, even Lindzen understands the GHE.

        If you still don’t, after all the discussions and papers, then that’s not a problem for science to solve.

        That’s a YOU problem.

        It trumps all others only for someone like you who filters facts according to whether they support and confirm your political biases and contrarian beliefs.

      • Nate says:

        “Well I built a career on uncovering corruption.”

        Well that may be, Bill, but you cannot rest on your laurels to convict, in this case, all these scientists of corruption. You have to have real evidence to support your feelings.

        And you dont have it. You are just ranting.

      • Nate says:

        “I am of the opinion nobody can predict the climate.”

        Yes Bill, it is clear that nobody on your side of the issue seems to be able to predict the climate, without including the increasing GHE, which of course you are required to reject.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”Nah, even Lindzen understands the GHE.”

        Nope you are lying again you just claimed at 12:01pm he didn’t. You are all over the place like a soup sandwich. Totally unreliable and undisciplined in what you say as you flop from one side to the other.

        Nate says:

        ”Well that may be, Bill, but you cannot rest on your laurels to convict, in this case, all these scientists of corruption. You have to have real evidence to support your feelings. And you dont have it. You are just ranting. ”

        The point wasn’t to convict Nate. The point is if you are going to believe without understanding (as obviously you do about climate change) one should rely on an independent source. A source doesn’t lack independence because of some time in the past having accepted a modest fee for providing expert testimony. But one does lack independence when currently being employed by an interested entity. Corruption in government has always been endemic. All one can do is minimize it by not farming out work and budgeting decisions to the employees of entities that do profit from the advice. If you don’t understand why, which obviously you don’t from what you said above, you are an ignorant man.

        Nate says:
        ”Yes Bill, it is clear that nobody on your side of the issue seems to be able to predict the climate, without including the increasing GHE, which of course you are required to reject.”

        Its also obvious nobody your side can either.

      • Nate says:

        “one should rely on an independent source.”

        That sure isn’t Lindzen! As noted above (Coal funding).

        You have no basis for declaring all non-contrarian climate scientists to be corrupt. That is quite lame.

        You have no basis for saying that ONLY the opinions of contrarian scientists, like Lindzen, are correct.

        If you were being honest, you would simply admit that, politically, you prefer that AGW is wrong.

        And that’s all there is to it.

      • Nate says:

        Nah, even Lindzen understands the GHE.

        Nope you are lying again you just claimed at 12:01pm he didnt.”

        Nope. As usual you just made that up.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”one should rely on an independent source.”

        That sure isnt Lindzen! As noted above (Coal funding).
        ——————————-
        Influence is created via employment, continued funding, large sums, and future promises of employment by non-independent entities where significant revenue is contingent. Your penny-ante standard you are setting above pretty much would condemn everybody in climate science. If you want to go there then I can ask again where the science is rather than on whose authority you believe the science exists. And you will once again fall on your face.

        Nate says:

        ”You have no basis for declaring all non-contrarian climate scientists to be corrupt. That is quite lame.”

        Did I? No I did not. I am talking about the bias of non-independent institutions and how that bias motivates employees to look for ways to please the boss. . .not to talk about the gate keeping for publication revealed repetitively such as in the climategate emails. The system is about a corrupt as it can be, thats where one should rely more heavily on those not beholding to the system.

        Nate says:

        ”You have no basis for saying that ONLY the opinions of contrarian scientists, like Lindzen, are correct.”

        Strawman I never said any such thing.

        Nate says:

        ”If you were being honest, you would simply admit that, politically, you prefer that AGW is wrong.

        And thats all there is to it.”

        I prefer freedom over fiat. I prefer science over myth. You can’t say I have not sought out the science. You don’t have it. Thus yes I prefer freedom when the consequences of that freedom is unknown.

        Nate says:
        ”Nah, even Lindzen understands the GHE.

        Nope you are lying again you just claimed at 12:01pm he didnt.

        Nope. As usual you just made that up.”

        No I didn’t. You even quote the time on the 15th in this subthread when you said Lindzen’s climate predictions were wrong. How can he understand your myth, the myth be science, and Lindzen be wrong?

      • Nate says:

        “Nah, even Lindzen understands the GHE.

        Nope you are lying again you just claimed at 12:01pm he didnt.

        Nope. As usual you just made that up.

        No I didnt. You even quote the time on the 15th in this subthread when you said Lindzens climate predictions were wrong. ”

        Saying his prediction of global T over 20 y was wrong is not equivalent to or even a contradiction of his understanding the GHE!

        Do you have an ongoing mental deficiency? It certainly seems to be the case.

    • MFA says:

      I always get *my* climate views from the director of “Dr Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation.”

  2. Bellman says:

    I had really expected temperatures to start to fall this month. Will be interesting to see how this compares to the surface data sets.

    This beats the old March record, set in 2016 by 0.3C, which in turn was about 0.3C warmer than the other contenders.

    Top ten warmest March Anomalies in UAH history.

    1 2024 0.95
    2 2016 0.65
    3 2010 0.38
    4 2020 0.35
    5 1998 0.34
    6 2004 0.22
    7 2019 0.22
    8 2023 0.20
    9 2017 0.18
    10 2018 0.16

    That makes 9 months in a row that have been the record for that month.

    • Bellman says:

      My simplistic prediction for the year, based on just the first three months, has now risen to 0.69 +/- 0.20, with a 96% chance of it being a record.

      For the record, this is not something I trust, and I’m sure the temperatures will be dropping before the end of the year.

  3. Antonin Qwerty says:

    UAH by ENSO season (July-June):

    Warmest
    1. 2023-24 +0.85 (9 months)
    2. 2019-20 +0.38
    3. 2015-16 +0.34
    4. 2016-17 +0.25
    5. 2022-23 +0.218
    6. 1997-98 +0.215
    7. 2017-18 +0.21
    8. 2020-21 +0.20
    9. 2018-19 +0.173
    10. 2021-22 +0.169

    ALL of the past nine years, plus 97-98.

    .
    .
    .

    Coldest
    1. 1984-85 -0.453
    2. 1992-93 -0.452
    3. 1985-86 -0.42
    4. 1981-82 -0.34
    5. 1982-83 -0.30
    6. 1991-92 -0.2883
    7. 1983-84 -0.2875
    8. 1988-89 -0.28
    9. 1993-94 -0.26
    10. 1980-81 -0.2442 (eq)
    10. 1986-87 -0.2442 (eq)

    8 of the first ten years, plus three Pinatubo-affected years.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Linear trend over entire record: +0.148C/decade

      Linear trend over
      Last 10 years: +0.294C/decade
      Last 15 years: +0.326C/decade
      Last 20 years: +0.264C/decade
      Last 25 years: +0.197C/decade

      Quadratic acceleration over entire record: +0.18C/decade/decade

      • Antonin Querty says:

        Oops – that was the quadratic acceleration over the last 25 years.

        Over the entire record it is +0.041C/decade/decade.

        So even the acceleration has accelerated.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Antonin, please stop trolling.

  4. AaronS says:

    Wow, this is a sustained peak. It’s abnormal for El Nino in timing relative to lag with ocean pattern and this longer duration. I wonder how much it involves the Tonga eruption and water vapor influx into atmosphere, but I have not crunched numbers or followed the issue in literature closely.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Our expert-in-residence, Clint, declared his “HTE” officially over about six months ago.

      • Clint R says:

        Thanks for referencing me, Ant.

        You’re not expected to understand, but keep following me. Who knows, you might accept some reality?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Is the “HTE” over or is it not?

      • Clint R says:

        Ant, filling a bathtub with hot water results in a bathtub full of hot water. The “effect” is putting hot water in the tub. When the hot water is turned off, the “effect” is gone, but the tub remains hot for a time.

        I suspect that this residual warming might be remnants of the HTE, but we will see….

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Yeah – nice story.

        Now tell me how long the atmosphere takes to dissipate its heat once the forcing is removed. Six months? Does the summer heat stay above that hemisphere until the following winter?

      • Clint R says:

        Glad you liked it Ant.

        I like to keep my examples simple, so those with little knowledge can easily understand….

      • AaronS says:

        So can someone fill me in with a big picture overview… Is this Tonga? I’m your man for not knowing, and if not just El Nino then timing for Tonga makes me very curious.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        I see you were incapable of answering my questions, Clint.

        Your over-simple story glosses over time scales.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Antonin, please stop trolling.

  5. Jim Ross says:

    I have some reservations about relying on the Oceanic Nio Index (ONI) values (though at least it continues to be available, unlike MEI.v2) and prefer to focus simply on the sea surface temperature (SST) values in the Nio-3.4 region (i.e. measured temperatures rather than anomalies) on which the ONI values are based. These SST data show a remarkable consistency in patterns, especially between significant El Nio events and, separately, (because they are different) between significant La Nia events.

    The plot linked below compares variations in measured SST values (not anomalies) for 2023/24 in the Nio-3.4 region with HadSST4 and global UAH LT anomaly values. The plots for HadSST4 and global UAH LT anomaly values have been brought forwards by 2 months and 4 months respectively relative to the SST values for 2023/24 to reflect delays to the effect of the current El Nio. Both are (so far) tracking the SST peaks very closely. The first SST peak for the current El Nio occurred in June 2023 and the Global UAH LT anomaly peaked 4 months later in October. The second SST peak was in November, so we might well be seeing the second UAH peak right on cue in the March data, but of course it remains to be seen if it now starts to decline.
    https://i.postimg.cc/5t5XQGVP/SST-in-Nino3-4-region-vs-GAT-with-delays.jpg

    • Jim Ross says:

      Sorry about the Nino and Nina words not showing correctly. I was not aware that this site couldn’t handle the correct designations.

    • Nate says:

      “The first SST peak for the current El Nio occurred in June 2023 and the Global UAH LT anomaly peaked 4 months later in October”

      I’m not aware of such an El Nino peak in June. You might be thinking of the Atlantic oceans and other parts of the global ocean peak that obviously was not caused by the El Nino.

      • Jim Ross says:

        I was referring to the first SST peak and I was discussing SST values in the Nino-3.4 region. A double SST peak is typical of strong and very strong El Nino events, as shown here:
        https://i.postimg.cc/4dQ5tRDd/SST-in-Nino3-4-region-El-Nino-comparison-Feb-2024.jpg

        As I have noted elsewhere:
        The key difference between these [current] data and previous El Nino events is that the UAH global LT response has generally only tracked the second SST peak. So, from that perspective, the global temperature effect was normally not seen until several months later relative to the timing of the initial increase in SST for significant El Nino events.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        You’re looking at absolute temperatures instead of anomalies.

        Gee, I wonder why your maximum occurred in the NH summer, given the focus of this El Nino on the northern hemisphere.

      • Jim Ross says:

        You appear to have not studied the SST data in the Nino-3.4 region, which is situated right in the middle of the Pacific and is actually restricted to 5deg each side of the equator (and is the basis for determining ONI values). As I showed above, the highest SST values (the second peak) occurs in November, hardly the middle of the NH summer.

        Take a look at the data over the longer term:
        https://i.postimg.cc/T1kJ7qYv/SST-in-Nino3-4-region-Feb-2024.jpg

        If you do study the data, you will see that the SST values show very clearly the distinction between significant El Nino and La Nina events, and the two very strong El Nino events show much higher SSTs than average from May through to May (May is the peak of the average SST values shown in blue); the current strong El Nino looks to be following exactly the same pattern but at 0.5C lower.

        Feel free to evaluate the anomaly values for SST in the Nino-3.4 region, but keep in mind that these are not calculated from a true seasonal cycle, but from the simple average of the data. This average is clearly influenced by the La Nina cool periods reflecting the incursion of upwelling cold waters, something which is largely shut off during a significant El Nino.

      • Nate says:

        Jim,

        AQ has a point, if you look at nino 3.4 anomalies, they dont have a peak in june. They just show a monotonic rise from March to November.

        https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Data/nino34.long.anom.data

      • Jim Ross says:

        Nate,

        It is definitely my preference to use anomalies where there is a clear seasonal cycle that needs to be removed in order to isolate longer term trends. I find this particularly useful when dealing with d13C_CO2 data, for example.

        However, my problem here is that there is no seasonal cycle in the SST data for the Nino-3.4 data. It is very clear to me from the longer term SST plot I have showed, that it is not possible to determine a seasonal cycle. In any year, we could be looking at an El Nino, a La Nina, or neutral conditions, all with very different SST responses.

        This is why, when calculating ONI values, they (NOAA) use average SST values to calculate anomalies rather than a seasonal cycle (which doesn’t exist). I question this approach for reasons that I have mentioned earlier. If the data show that the SST in the Nino-3.4 region is running at 29C at the equator, for a period of almost 12 months, as against a supposed normal of (say) 27C, then that’s the info I start with. If you can show why these data need to be turned into anomalies, I look forward to your explanation as to how and why.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        There most certainly is seasonality in your data. Here are the monthly averages over the 74 years of the data set:

        https://tinyurl.com/ENSO-34

      • Nate says:

        Ross, “This is why, when calculating ONI values, they (NOAA) use average SST values to calculate anomalies rather than a seasonal cycle (which doesnt exist).”

        The absolute T at your 2 peaks last year are nearly the same. But their ONI values are very different MJJ 0.8, NDJ 2.0.

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

        So clearly the ONI is subtracting a seasonally varying baseline that is much lower in NDJ.

        As are the 3.5 monthly anomalies

      • Nate says:

        nino 3.4 anomalies

    • Bindidon says:

      Jim Ross

      No problem at all with these inoffensive El Nio resp. La Nia!

      But this here…

      ” I have some reservations about relying on the Oceanic Nio Index (ONI) values (though at least it continues to be available, unlike MEI.v2)… ”

      … sounds a bit strange to me:

      https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data

      Only Jan/Feb is missing.

      Please be patient: we are currently in a period where it might become increasingly difficult to separate ENSO effects from those (possibly) induced by Hunga Tonga.

  6. Mark Shapiro says:

    It is very likely that global warming is accelerating owing to the continued emission of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels and the recent reduction in the emission of particulates from the ocean shipping sector.

    See “Global Warming Acceleration: Hope vs Hopium”
    29 March 2024
    James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha

    • Clint R says:

      Mark, are you STILL trying to promote your cult beliefs?

      If you understood basic physics, you would be able to determine the energy in a 15μ photon.

      But we saw how you messed that up.

      Want another simple physics problem to mess up?

    • Tim S says:

      Hansen is famous for his wild theories, and this one is no different. The rule limiting sulfur in bunker fuel took effect in January 2020, but he wants you to believe there was a delay of more than 3 years before the temperature finally increased. If you really believe that, or the possibility that small incremental increases in CO2 have finally taken effect, I have a bridge in Maryland I would like to sell. I can give you a really good price. Some assembly required.

      • Nate says:

        He has noted the GW acceleration for several years. Nothing too controversial about that.

        He detrended data from previous decades then found the correlation to ENSO and could remove its contribution. The result was a roughly horizontal line.

        But in the last few years the resulting curve rises, deviating from the horizontal line. This seems to indicate an acceleration of GW.

        https://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/ElNino-LaNina/

        5th figure

      • Tim S says:

        Or, he is just charting random activity that does not have a defined cause. I have experience with statistical process control charts. There is nothing in any of climate data that can be directly attributed to anything except ENSO, which has an amazingly obvious effect. That also demonstrates how much noise there is in the data from undefined causes, since there is variation in that trend as well. Beyond that, the current increasing trend of the last many years has in theory some undefined component of increasing anthropogenic gases, along with ocean effects, and who knows what else. The current trend of the last few months is just nuts, and the best proof that climate trends are impossible to model or predict.

      • Nate says:

        ” There is nothing in any of climate data that can be directly attributed to anything except ENSO”

        Huh?? ENSO is a short-term cyclic phenomena.

        It cannot be the cause of the obvious warming trend.

      • Tim S says:

        Nate, are you pretending not to understand my carefully worded statement, or are you so caught up arguing with these other people that it just becomes a reflex. ENSO shows up in the satellite data as a clear result. Nothing else does. Everything else is vague at best.

      • Nate says:

        Sure, because it is a cyclic and short term phenomena. So correlation is a very good bet to show causation.

        Other, long term phenomena, not so.

        “Everything else is vague at best.”

        Hardly.

        We rely on multiple lines of evidence. Including physics-based model predictions from decades ago, and their accuracy of predicting the temperature rise, and its large scale spatial pattern over the subsequent decades. Ones that include natural only vs ones that include added GHG forcing.

        We have direct measurements of GHG rise, and direct measurement of the GHG forcing.

        We now have TOA satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing flux, that confirm a predicted energy and can compare to in situ measurements of heat accumulating in the ocean, that confirm the first-law-of-Thermodynamics expectation that the TOA forcing results in heating of the system.

      • Nate says:

        confirm a predicted energy imbalance, and its time variation.

      • Tim S says:

        And now Hansen says everything you know is wrong. He and his band of research fanatics claim they see evidence in the data that global warming is actually accelerating and climate change may have reach the point of no return. We have relied on his term of “Hopium” for too long. We can no longer rely on optimism and “wishful thinking”. Radical change in human behavior is required. Blah, blah, blah!

      • Nate says:

        “And now Hansen says everything you know is wrong.”

        Not quite. What we are talking about here is his analysis of the data, that seems to indicate acceleration of GW over the last few years.

        His predictions of future warming are a different issue, in that he departs from IPCC projections.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        There is no physics-based model that I’m aware of except Ed Berry’s. How does a physics-based model have dozens of different temperature “models?”

      • Nate says:

        “There is no physics-based model that Im aware of except Ed Berry”

        The usual ignorance, Stephen. The GHE is all about physics. Climate models use physics: fluid dynamics, thermodynamics.

        Weather models use similar physics, and obviously are successful.

      • Nate says:

        When you say ‘physics model’ you seem to mean: simple physics model with one easily digested equation.

        Whereas atmospheric physics aint simple, nor is ocean physics, nor are they described by one equation.

        Yet they are still physics.

        All physics that is currently at the forefront is, by definition, NOT simple.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        But thats no why they keep getting it wrong. Developing models is a process of modifying the models to match observations. Instead we are completely stuck on scientific guesses that have turned out wrong. . .and the game becomes pretending that they aren’t wrong and that there is an observed excuse for not yet producing. A football coach that does that would have been fired perhaps 10 times in the same time period.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Of course a losing football coach has big impacts on institutional revenues.

      • Willard says:

        Step 3 – Saying Stuff

        Gill’s pet step.

        ROFL

      • Nate says:

        As usual Bill chimes in to substitute in political BS for science.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        one should always call a spade a spade. what we are dealing with is a bunch of technocrats avidly feathering their personal nests at the expense of the freedom of the less fortunate. freedom pretty much across the board is in peril and this forum has far more than its share of their toadies.

      • Nate says:

        And surprisingly, still more political rants substituted for science.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Surprisingly? Obviously you are being factitious. All you do is argue a political viewpoint. You have been asked repeatedly for the evidence that cold CO2 can heat something colder than the CO2 and you have fallen flat on your face everytime. So even your current reply is political.

      • Willard says:

        Nate Makes Gill Do It

      • Nate says:

        “hat cold CO2 can heat something colder than the CO2”

        Confused.

        But never claimed that CO2 is a heat source. You obviously weren’t listening or comprehending.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Tell Swanson.

  7. Bad Andrew says:

    If my device (satellite) kept giving the same output, I would suspect something is broke.

    Andrew

  8. skeptikal says:

    I cannot believe this is real. ENSO events never have a sustained peak like this. There isn’t even enough excess heat in the oceans to feed this peak. Something is seriously wrong here.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      I wonder, would you be just as outwardly “skeptical” if the anomalies were consistently LOWER than expectation?

      Or would you merely be celebrating?

      • skeptikal says:

        You can’t challenge anything I’ve said, so you choose to question my motives instead. It might make you feel good, but it doesn’t do anything to address the issue.

      • Willard says:

        > You cant challenge anything Ive said

        You literally said nothing.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        You can’t JUSTIFY your claim that “there is something seriously wrong”.

    • barry says:

      “There isn’t even enough excess heat in the oceans to feed this peak. Something is seriously wrong here.”

      Perhaps the accumulated heat sequestered by 2.5 years of nearly uninterrupted la Nina?

      The LT is responding as if we just had a super el Nino. By ONI this el Nino event is ranked 5th for peak temperatures.

      I wouldn’t dis.count another high anomaly for April, as global T response to el Ninos can persist until April.

  9. Eben says:

    The solar cycle 25 is starting to take shape and McIntosh forecast which is Bindiclown’s favorite is slipping into oblivion

    https://i.postimg.cc/8pLspL6G/sfu-prediction.png

  10. Willard says:

    Gimme an M!
    Gimme an O!
    Gimme an N!
    Gimme a C!
    Gimme a K!
    Gimme a T!
    Gimme another O!
    Gimme another N!

    And then a P!
    And now an A!
    And also a W!
    Lastly, an S!

    What does it say?

    • bdgwx says:

      The grand Monckton Pause was the be-all-end-all proof that global warming had stopped. At it’s peak it lasted 107 months starting in 2014/06. Since 2014/06 the warming trend is +0.29 C/decade. Isn’t it strange how Monckton has disappeared? Seriously…where did he go?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Obviously in order predict changes to decadal climate change rates one must first understand how climate change occurs.

        I am not sure why you are calling it the Monckton Pause. It was pretty obvious in multiple climate records that by 2013 a major 17 year dip had occurred to the rate of global warming without any compensating dip in CO2 emissions.

        I don’t recall anybody claiming warming had stopped completely.

      • Willard says:

        > I dont recall

        Contrarians are basically Markov processes.

      • bdgwx says:

        BH, Monckton promoted the pause period and provided monthly updates of it on WUWT. In 2013 Monckton predicted the planet would cool by 0.5 C. It wasn’t just Monckton though, Andy May (a prominent WUWT author) claimed that “The planet is no longer warming” in 2019.

      • Willard says:

        Looks like Walter R. Hogle forgot to answer your question, bdgwx:

        So you do you think it is in your best interest here to blindly follow Mr. Gorman?

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-3892239

        I wonder why. Could it be because he holds that derivatives are contextual?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        ”BH, Monckton promoted the pause period and provided monthly updates of it on WUWT. In 2013 Monckton predicted the planet would cool by 0.5 C. It wasnt just Monckton though, Andy May (a prominent WUWT author) claimed that The planet is no longer warming in 2019.”

        We know ice cores show easily 2C temperature variations over hundreds of years. We know we had an unprecedented peak in solar activity that had a short term maximum in 1956 and a series of above average solar cycles that ended in 2008. We don’t know if there are differences caused by more UV hitting the surface and instantly warming the atmosphere due to convection and if less UV hits the surface but the atmosphere doesn’t cool as much as the surface because of the lack of convection. And we don’t really measure the surface temperature in a consistent way.

        The big lie has always been about unprecedented warming, which actually was probably as pronounced or more so in the first half the 20th century before massive increases in carbon emissions. All this remains ignored and unpublished as much as human possible by the technocrats that think they know better than anybody else.

        So depending upon what you want to call warming. Is it climate? Is climate at least a chunk of years amounting at least to 20? If it is 20 years we won’t know it Monckton was right in 2019 until 2039. My own opinion is that Monckton probably doesn’t know just like everybody else has proven they don’t know.

        I am of the opinion that to know those answers we probably need to better understand how Milankovitch theory actually works. After all there seems to be unanimity that Milankovitch theory is responsible for the glacial/interglacial periods that produce up to about 15c changes in northern polar temperatures and perhaps up to 5C changes in southern polar temperatures, with a whole lot less known about changes elsewhere.

      • bdgwx says:

        Willard, yeah, it’s ridiculous. WUWT is getting more and more antagonistic toward UAH and Spencer/Christy and most of that stems from the Gorman’s abuse of algebra that is so egregiously wrong that in some cases middle schoolers (if not even elementary age students) can spot it.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-3893034

      • bdgwx says:

        BH: The big lie has always been

        …that the planet stopped warming.

        BH: If it is 20 years we wont know it Monckton was right in 2019 until 2039.

        We learned that Monckton was wrong in 2020 after his 0.5 C cooling prediction failed to materialize. We learned that those making predictions that warming had stopped based on Monckton’s pause updates were wrong in 2023 when new records starting appearing again. Mark this post…0.95 C will get eclipsed…eventually. I don’t know exactly when. It might be 15 years from now or next month. But it WILL happen. I know this for certain because I accept the 1LOT and 2LOT.

        BH: I am of the opinion that to know those answers we probably need to better understand how Milankovitch theory actually works.

        We have enough understanding of Milankovitch cycles to know that they aren’t the cause of the Monckton Pauses nor the secular warming we observe today.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        ”We have enough understanding of Milankovitch cycles to know that they arent the cause of the Monckton Pauses nor the secular warming we observe today.”

        A source for that would be fantastic. Have one?

      • bdgwx says:

        Milankovitch 1920: Thorie Mathmatique des Phnomnes Thermiques Produits par la Radiation Solaire

        Berger has a really good summary in English including many citations related to the topic. It’s probably better to read that first before diving too deep into the Milankovitch cycles.

        Berger 1988: Milankovitch Theory and climate DOI: 10.1029/RG026i004p00624

      • Bill Hunter says:

        i don’t see anything in that source bdgwx that supports your claim below. please be more specific.

        ”We have enough understanding of Milankovitch cycles to know that they arent the cause of the Monckton Pauses nor the secular warming we observe today.”

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Looks like bdgwx just bugged out. We will be left with wondering if he was lying about the science.

      • bdgwx says:

        BH: i dont see anything in that source bdgwx that supports your claim below. please be more specific.

        You saw nothing? Nothing at all? Like, for example, you didn’t see the time scales that orbital perturbations operate on? You didn’t see that orbital perturbations do not effect polyatomic gas species vibrational modes or their ability to impede the transmission of infrared radiation?

      • Willard says:

        > i dont see anything

        Step 1 – Pure Denial.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        ”You saw nothing? Nothing at all? Like, for example, you didnt see the time scales that orbital perturbations operate on? You didnt see that orbital perturbations do not effect polyatomic gas species vibrational modes or their ability to impede the transmission of infrared radiation?”

        You seem to be talking about precessions. I am talking about changes in eccentricity and no I didn’t see an exclusion of more frequent perturbations that add up to only a couple of C degrees and show up in the ice core data perhaps several hundred times in the last 400,000 years.

        Since you claim to know that its there perhaps a more specific reference would be in order.

      • Nate says:

        I’ve discussed this at length with, Bill. He must have forgotten.

        There is no evidence for mini-Milankovitch cycles that can be used to explain decadal T change on Earth.

        These orbital cycles all occur over tens of thousands of years, as bdgwx tried to explain as well.

        It should be simple to understand, but for some reason, it isn’t for Bill.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        That is incoorect Nate. There are scores of scientific evidence of such cycles in the icecore data.

      • Nate says:

        The record of orbital eccentricity is out there. Does it wiggle on decadal time scales?

        Nah.

        But go find it and report back.

      • bdgwx says:

        BH: You seem to be talking about precessions. I am talking about changes in eccentricity

        I’m talking about the Milankovitch cycles. That’s what you asked about.

        Eccentricity: 100,000 years
        Precession: 26,000 years
        Obliquity: 41,000 years

        BH: no I didnt see an exclusion of more frequent perturbations that add up to only a couple of C degrees and show up in the ice core data perhaps several hundred times in the last 400,000 years.

        Deflection and Diversion. We’re talking about the blips in the UAH data. There are no orbital cycles that act on the times scales of ENSO which I keep repeatedly saying is the cause of the blips. The ENSO cycle timescale is 10 years or less. It’s not even remotely close to any of the Milankovitch cycles.

        BH: Since you claim to know that its there perhaps a more specific reference would be in order.

        It is there. I already gave you the citation.

      • bdgwx says:

        BH: That is incoorect Nate. There are scores of scientific evidence of such cycles in the icecore data.

        There is evidence of Milankovitch cycles causing ENSO in the ice core data?

      • Bill hunter says:

        Nate says:
        The record of orbital eccentricity is out there. Does it wiggle on decadal time scales?

        Nah.

        But go find it and report back.
        ——————————-

        Hmmm Nate seems to believe gravity only works part time in time with his viewpoint of Milankovitch theory. . .the viewpoint nobody can seem to fully document.

      • Bill hunter says:

        bdgwx says:
        M
        BH: You seem to be talking about precessions. I am talking about changes in eccentricity

        Im talking about the Milankovitch cycles. Thats what you asked about.

        Eccentricity: 100,000 years
        Precession: 26,000 years
        Obliquity: 41,000 years
        ————————–
        Eccentricity variation is caused by the gravitational pull of celestial objects.

        Indeed optimum points in a constantly changing variation in eccentricity may well occur every 100,000 years (revised to ~400,000 years by your translator)

        bdgwx: ”Deflection and Diversion. Were talking about the blips in the UAH data. There are no orbital cycles that act on the times scales of ENSO which I keep repeatedly saying is the cause of the blips. The ENSO cycle timescale is 10 years or less. Its not even remotely close to any of the Milankovitch cycles.”

        I am not talking about ENSO blips. They are too small to see in the icecore record. I am talking about 800-900 year cycles seen in the ice core records that also have a correlation with patterns of jupiter and saturn. It seems and I am in early investigation that the precession of the orbit (different than variation of eccentricity) may be related to the solar system dipping in and out of the spiral arm of the galaxy we are near.

        Obviously since it takes 250 to 500million years for the solar system to circle the galaxy thats not a 100,000 year eccentricity cycle.

        bdgwx: It is there. I already gave you the citation. No you gave me reference to an entire book that you are lying about your knowledge of its contents and cannot give the passages that prohibit much smaller cycles than the glacial cycles. . .because they are not there and you are lying.

        It is beyond me how you guys hear something and believe it to a point that you go out into public and start promoting it without having clue one if it is true or not. You are like a bible thumper pretending to an expert scientist.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gill guy wrote stuff, including:

        I am talking about 800-900 year cycles seen in the ice core records that also have a correlation with patterns of jupiter and saturn.

        Got any support for that assertion, like a reference maybe? BTW, HERE’s a link to a recent report about one of the Greenland ice cores. There are lots of references at the end, for you to choose from. Surely, even you could obtain the data and perform an “auditing” analysis to support your claim. Perhaps you could begin with a graph posted somewhere for all to see.

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        ”Got any support for that assertion, like a reference maybe? BTW, HEREs a link to a recent report about one of the Greenland ice cores.”

        Did you even bother reading it? If you did exactly how does this apply to anything I said at all?

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gill guy wrote:

        I am talking about 800-900 year cycles seen in the ice core records

        If you did exactly how does this apply to anything I said at all?

        There are lots of sources for ice core data. The report I pointed to describes how one such ice core has been analyzed to produce a proxy record. The claim(s) that you have presented depend on the accuracy of these sorts of data, which, in turn, depends upon the analysis of the proxy data from the core, including the date model. In addition, the report includes many references for previous work, which would add to your continuing education on the subject.

        Of course, you are continuing to divert the discussion of short term variation, especially the latest “blip” in Roy’s data.

      • Bill hunter says:

        So you admit it has nothing to do with what I was saying. You are just throwing stuff against the wall hoping something will stick.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gill guy mumbled “…it has nothing to do with what I was saying”. But, he hasn’t given any indication that he knows what he’s mumbling about, offering no supporting analysis, reference(s) or data. He can’t understand the complexities of determining the temperature at some time in the past, with proxies determined from the depth along the length of the cores and a date vs depth model to match. So sad, so much wasted effort.

      • Bill hunter says:

        So what you are claiming Swanson is there is no regular temperature variation in the ice core record? Did you look?

    • barry says:

      Hibernation for a few years then he’ll pop back up to start counting the paws from 2023/24…

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      barry, please stop trolling.

  11. Alex A says:

    “E. Swanson ”

    Re: “And, Theres evidence that AGW is already having an impact on the THC in the GIN seas, which might cancel some of that warming for locations which now enjoy relative mild winters, such as Northern Europe.”
    Sorry – can’t see a reply button to your comment.

    As I understand it the THC may be affected by increased melt in summer, which would slow it down.

    But if the THC is being driven by increased temp and salinity differences then these differences would increase in the winter period and actually increase the rate of THC in winter when there is no melting. This would be consistent as to why temperature anomalies are greater in the Northern Hemisphere, in winter.

    Combine that with the fact that CO2 is certainly greening the planet
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376821594_The_global_greening_continues_despite_increased_drought_stress_since_2000

    and I see the only reason to reduce emissions being the finite nature of fossil fuels.

    • E. Swanson says:

      AA, You must be a newby. The “reply” button only appears for the first 3 levels. After that, one can reply to the last post in a thread for which there is a button.

      As for the THC, it appears during the Winter months, when the ocean temperatures at high latitudes of the North Atlantic cool to near freezing. It has also been associated with the formation of sea-ice, which expels salt into the cold waters, further increasing the water’s density. The same is true around the Antarctic. There is no THC during the summer months nor in the North Pacific. The changes in the sea-ice cycle since the beginning of the satellite era has been stunning, as may be seen in THIS ANIMATION.

      Adding CO2 to the air around plants is well known to increase growth for some species, but to achieve that result, more water is usually required. As I recall (?), there are two main pathways plants use to capture CO2, the C3 and C4. A while back, there were comments to the effect that most of our food crops were C3, which might experience reduced productivity, while the C4 plant types benefited. As usual, “the devil is in the details”.

      • Alex A says:

        I think it’s generally accepted that more CO2 results in less water usage by plants:
        https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/168473/extra-carbon-dioxide-good-plants-water/#:~:text=As%20the%20levels%20of%20CO2,to%20use%20water%20more%20efficiently.

        “As the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere rise, the stomata partially close. This is because the plants need to take in a less air to get the same amount of CO2, with the benefit that they are then able to use water more efficiently.”

        Interesting comment about C3 carbon fixation:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3_carbon_fixation
        “C3 plants cannot grow in very hot areas at today’s atmospheric CO2 level (significantly depleted during hundreds of millions of years from above 5000 ppm) ”

        But this seems to indicate that higher CO2 levels will benefit these plants assuming the temperatures don’t spike that much (which is generally weather rather than climate related), which is why CO2 is fed into greenhouses.

        So increased CO2 still looking rather beneficial.

        The youtube link did not seem to indicate any slowing in the THC, though I note another study showing it slowing down by 4% over the last 40 years, though this may be due to natural variability.

      • Willard says:

        “But Plant Food” never gets old:

        Me: So are you worried about the climate impacts on agriculture?

        David Lobell: Yes. I think the evidence is very clear that, on net, the changes going on in the atmosphere, including all the climate changes, are a risk to a lot of major production systems and to a lot of food insecure areas. So there’s definitely a reason that we that we continue to work on how to adapt to these changes.

        https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-co2-plant-food

      • E. Swanson says:

        AA, From the Wiki page for C4 plants:

        C4 plants have a competitive advantage over plants possessing the more common C3 carbon fixation pathway under conditions of drought, high temperatures, and nitrogen or CO2 limitation.

        No large trees (above 15 m in height) use C4

        Given the advantages of C4, a group of scientists from institutions around the world are working on the C4 Rice Project to produce a strain of rice, naturally a C3 plant, that uses the C4 pathway by studying the C4 plants maize and Brachypodium. As rice is the world’s most important human foodit is the staple food for more than half the planethaving rice that is more efficient at converting sunlight into grain could have significant global benefits towards improving food security.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Rice pudding with raisins…yummy!!!

      • Alex A says:

        @Willard

        But Plant Food never gets old

        That’s because it’s true.

        There may well be challenges with a changing climate (and the climate has never not changed), but the data shows increased production year on year:

        https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-production#interactive-charts-on-agricultural-production

        Thing is farmers are supremely adaptable and can plant different crops based on weather and weather forecasts and how water retentive their soil is. What they are actively complaining about are restrictions and subsidy removal, risking food security, in the name of “saving the planet”.

        @Willard
        re: “C4 plants have a competitive advantage over plants possessing the more common C3 carbon fixation pathway under conditions of drought, high temperatures, and nitrogen or CO2 limitation.”

        Thus again showing that increased CO2 levels may well be beneficial for crop growth.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

        Photosynthesis – temperature graph
        Jiř Janouek – EBNEK, J., et al Fyziologie rostlin. 1. vyd. Praha: Sttn zemědělsk nakladatelstv, 1983. S. 169.
        CC BY 3.0
        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Photosynthesis_temperature.svg/800px-Photosynthesis_temperature.svg.png?20100127115401
        https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotosynteza

      • Alex A says:

        @Ireneusz Interesting, but not really relevant to the 3/4 of a degree rise that the tropics have experienced. The reality is that tropical crops such as Mango and Coffee – have shown year on year increases. There is no actual evidence that globally the gentle increases in temperature we have experienced are any kind of a serious threat to agriculture. Of course El Ninos and La Nina’s will contribute to local droughts, but reducing CO2 levels are not going to do anything about this.

      • Willard says:

        Dear Alex,

        It is neither true (glucose is the food) nor relevant to a warming planet that produces stuff optimized for the actual temps – see above. And if you really were serious about producing more food instead of doubling down on the silly talking point you might have found that other resource on your pet site:

        Research suggests that if everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.

        https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

        It is not the CO2 that kills crops, it is the fast changes that it brings when we dump it in the atmosphere like there is no tomorrow. And while the world will undoubtedly survive the Murican fancy to embrace fascism (it too shall pass), carbon is forever.

      • Alex A says:

        @willard: Re:”It is not the CO2 that kills crops, it is the fast changes that it brings when we dump it in the atmosphere like there is no tomorrow.”
        What a 1 degree rise in temps per century? Give me a break.

        Re: “And while the world will undoubtedly survive the Murican fancy to embrace fascism (it too shall pass), carbon is forever.”
        Totalitarian governments of whatever flavour have been all the rage since the 2020 lockdowns.

        Re: “Research suggests that if everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.”

        Whilst it is true that plants need far less land than animals to produce calories it is also true that you need manure to feed plants, so we need animals for that. Or are you happy to be dependent on the haber bosch process using (horror of horrors) methane as the feedstock? In addition much of the land where I live is too hilly and too wet for competitive plant agriculture.

        Also humans need either meat or fish to thrive.

      • Willard says:

        > Give me a break.

        Step 1 – Pure Denial.

        Once we abstract away your shadowboxing, Alex, that’s what’s left.

        Do you have anything else than head fakes?

      • Alex A says:

        @Willard

        I don’t deny the planet is warming, I don’t deny that CO2 and methane may be contributing to the warming.

        But I see no evidence that this is the terrible threat to mankind that alarmists make it out to be.

        And given that photosynthesis requires CO2 and many plants evolved at much higher levels of CO2 than we have currently, then on balance this appears to be a good thing.

      • Willard says:

        Yes, Alex. You don’t deny one thing, and then you deny almost all the others.

        Who do you think you’re kidding but yourself here?

      • Alex A says:

        @Willard

        My position is based on logic, reason and experience. Science has shown that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases so therefore an increase in them likely contribute to global temperatures, although we also need to be mindful that historically rising CO2 levels followed rising temperatures.

        We also know that plants need CO2 for photosynthesis and that many plants evolved in much lower CO2 levels, so ceteris paribus elevated CO2 levels will be good for crop growth and this is what the evidence shows – with a greening planet.

        On a personal level I grow a fair few veg and so know that the variations from one season to the next far outweigh the background trend of increasing temperatures, which predominantly affect the Northern Hemisphere and in winter too. If it’s warm enough this year I might grow some sweetcorn.

        I suggest things might be better for you if you approach the subject on evidence rather than what appears to be a religious belief

      • Willard says:

        Alex,

        Your position is based on incredulity, contrarianism, and ideology.

        I quoted a guy who studies the impact of climate change on agriculture that “the evidence is very clear that, on net, the changes going on in the atmosphere, including all the climate changes, are a risk to a lot of major production systems and to a lot of food insecure areas.”

        You are dancing around that.

        Take your time. Climateball is a long dance.

      • Alex A says:

        @Willard

        You quoted a guy. A very tenuous appeal to authority indeed.

        I will leave you with this from Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace:
        Greenpeace was hijacked by the political left when they realized there was money and power in the environmental movement. [Left-leaning] political activists in North America and Europe changed Greenpeace from a science-based organization to a political fundraising organization, Moore said.

        Moore left Greenpeace in 1986, 15 years after he co-founded the organization.

        The environmental movement has become more of a political movement than an environmental movement, he said. They are primarily focused on creating narratives, stories, that are designed to instill fear and guilt into the public so the public will send them money.

        He said they mainly operate behind closed doors with other political operatives at the U.N., World Economic Forum, and so on, all of which are primarily political in nature.

        The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] is not a science organization, he said. It is a political organization composed of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program.

        The IPCC hires scientists to provide them with information that supports the climate emergency narrative.

        Their campaigns against fossil fuels, nuclear energy, CO2, plastic, etc., are misguided and designed to make people think the world will come to an end unless we cripple our civilization and destroy our economy. They are now a negative influence on the future of both the environment and human civilization.

        Today, the left has adopted many policies that would be very destructive to civilization as they are not technically achievable. Only look at the looming energy crisis in Europe and the UK, which Putin is taking advantage of. But it is of their own making in refusing to develop their own natural gas resources, opposing nuclear energy, and adopting an impossible position on fossil fuels in general, Moore wrote.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Here’s some Food for thought:

        Some 95 percent of total green plants on earth are C3 plants, while about 5 percent are C4 plants.

        C3 crops include Wheat, Oats, Rice, Sunflower and Cot-ton.

        C4 crops include Maize, Sugarcane and Amaranth.

    • Willard says:

      > You quoted a guy.

      Actually, I quoted David Lobell, Benjamin M. Page Professor, William Wrigley Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute, at the Woods Institute for the Environment and at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

      Tell me more about yourself, Alex.

      • Alex A says:

        @Willard

        So researching into David Lobell I find this paper part authored by him illuminating:

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3510102/

        Over the next few decades, CO2 trends will likely increase global yields by roughly 1.8% per decade. At the same time, warming trends are likely to reduce global yields by roughly 1.5% per decade without effective adaptation, with a plausible range from roughly 0% to 4%.

        So even on that basis – global yields will increase. And I would argue that farmers will always effectively adapt to weather and climate changes – that is what their job is.

        The thing is you watched Climate the movie you would see that David Lobell has to stress the climate being an issue to get funding. It’s only when you start to look at the research papers you find there is actually no problem.

      • Willard says:

        Alex,

        The projection that crop yield will increase in the near future was in 2012. Its scope was 2040-2060. And this yield increase was almost all lost to climate change effects.

        You go from a silly movie to Patrick Moore to red baiting to arguing that AGW was good actually. And now you are backtracking to the stance that it should not be that bad.

        We can probe that new stance of yours if you wish:

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912414000145

        Beware of illusions.

      • Alex A says:

        @willard

        So you admit that yields are still increasing, so my assertion that rising Co2 levels are no serious threat to agriculture seems to correlate with both the theory and the evidence.

        Anyway just about to take off, pleased that my flight will be beneficial to global agricultural output.

      • Willard says:

        Alex,

        Something tells me you still haven’t read the first quote I offered you. Perhaps you do not know what “on net” means?

        Increasing yields are a red herring. Most of them aren’t caused by a warming climate. They barely compensate for the climate change loss.

        Look at you. Regurgitating “but plant food,” “but my guru” Patrick Moore, “but politics” while promoting a propaganda piece. All the while expecting to have a Very Serious exchange.

        Welcome to Climateball!

      • Alex A says:

        @willard “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

        The reality is that there is no evidence of a climate crisis or anything approaching that.

        There is good evidence of a net benefit from increasing levels of CO2, it’s just you have been exposed to so much climate propaganda you can’t accept it. If you want to see a science denier look at the mirror.

      • Willard says:

        Dear Alex,

        Incredulous platitudes from troglodytes who have so little Climateball experience that they do not realize Patrick Moore spent his career doing PR for various extractive industries are underwhelming.

        If you want to appeal to plant food, at least be able to distinguas CH3 and CH4 plants.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  12. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    In two days, another upper low will reach California with precipitation.
    https://i.ibb.co/LJvdphs/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f060.png

  13. Ken says:

    Carbon tax not working? Damn.

  14. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The surface temperature of the open ocean in the tropics never exceeds 31 C. Oceans cover 70% of the Earth’s surface.
    https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/equatpac.fc.gif
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_EQ_2024.png

  15. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Where will the stratospheric tongues reach?
    https://i.ibb.co/MhKnx7V/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f060-1.png

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      As far as the tropospheric cunnilingus clouds?
      (I think that’s how you spell those low dark clouds?)

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        It was likely written by a cunning linguist.

        Thanks to Deep Purple…Knocking At Your Back Door…

        “So we put her on the hit list
        Of a common cunning linguist
        A master of many tongues….”

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      “I can’t deny it
      With that smile on her face
      Oh it’s not the kill
      It’s the thrill of the chase”

  16. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Dr. John C. Eastman, the Founding Director of the Claremont Institutes Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute, until January 2021 served as the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University’s Dale E. Fowler School of Law, from 1996 to 1997 served as a law clerk with the Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas in the United States Supreme Court, took a position with Kirkland & Ellis in Los Angeles until 1999, taught at Chapman University where he served as dean from 2007 to 2010, founded the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in 1999 and has served as its Director since that time, served as the chairman of the Federalist Societys Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Group and as the Chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage, on the Advisory Board for the St. Thomas More Society of Orange County and St. Monicas Academy, is now disbarred:

    https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/193726

  17. Gordon Robertson says:

    More evidence that NOAA is fudging the sat data before handing it over to UAH. There is absolutely no scientific reason why the temps are stuck around 0.9C above average.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      In that case, why don’t they “fudge” their own surface records which are considerably lower?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        They have fudged them to their own satisfaction, they need UAH to be hotter so alarmists will lose confidence.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        HAHAHA – you are hilarious!

        And what exactly would be their motive in making “alarmists” to lose confidence? And lose confidence in what exactly?

        Please continue to spin this humorous little yarn …

    • ducky2 says:

      That conclusion is a bit harsh and premature.

    • Nate says:

      “There is absolutely no scientific reason why the temps are stuck around 0.9C above average.”

      Other than that’s what the T happens to be doing, you mean?

      Clearly Gordon never met data that he could find a way to deny..

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…you’re talking like this spike, all of less than a degree C, is significant. Where were you since 1998 when 21 of the past 26 years produced a flat trend?

        Do you think CO2 went dormant for 21 years and has suddenly made a comeback?

      • Nate says:

        “talking like this spike, all of less than a degree C, is significant”

        No longer sure anything is stuck then?

    • Bad Andrew says:

      If this were a monetary report with some amount of accountability, an audit would be triggered.

      Andrew

  18. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”Look, Its The Movie! Its another example of carefully crafted political disinformation…”.

    https://vimeo.com/924719370

    ***

    Swannie…the rocket scientist who thinks heat can be transferred cold to hot by its own means.

    • DMT says:

      “There is absolutely no scientific reason why the temps are stuck around 0.9C above average.”

      You are a bit slow today. It has taken you about 16 hours to come up with such a brilliant, insightful and enlightening comment on the latest data from Roy. I can’t wait for your next comment.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I was busy on the old thread, straighten out alarmists.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo wrote:

        I was busy on the old thread, straighten out alarmists.

        Actually, you were repeating your usual ignorance of physics. Proof by assertion isn’t proof of anything. Maybe this month you could try to stay on topic, instead of spreading more of that lunatic poop.

      • DMT says:

        “I was busy on the old thread, straighten out alarmists.”

        I see, you are now full time on your keyboard.
        Get a life.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Swanson, please stop trolling.

  19. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 454.2 km/sec
    density: 8.43 protons/cm3
    Daily Sun: 03 Apr 24
    https://www.spaceweather.com/

    Sunspot number: 35
    The Radio Sun
    10.7 cm flux: 113 sfu
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 19.88×10^10 W Warm
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: -4.5% Low

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Who is counting the protons, especially the 0.43 proton?

      How things down in sunny Cal, gb?

    • Nate says:

      “who counted the 0.43 proton”

      per cm^3

      Just like the birth rate last year was 1.67 babies per woman. Gordon, not the sharpest tool in the shed, would ask ‘who counted the 0.67 of a baby?’

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 446.9 km/sec
      density: 1.83 protons/cm3
      Daily Sun: 04 Apr 24
      Sunspot number: 45
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 112 sfu
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 19.83×10^10 W Warm
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -3.5% Low
      4 numbered spots.
      None are leaving or arriving

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 421.4 km/sec
        density: 6.53 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 05 Apr 24
        Sunspot number: 47
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 114 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 19.74×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -3.5% Low

        4 numbered spots. 1 is leaving. None are arriving.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 421.7 km/sec
        density: 3.96 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 06 Apr 24
        Sunspot number: 81
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 121 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 19.74×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -3.4% Low

        6 numbered spots. None are close to leaving to farside within several days, and spot coming from farside which will be numbered.
        There 3 spots grew on nearside, and could continue grow more.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 411.4 km/sec
        density: 3.69 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 07 Apr 24
        Sunspot number: 71
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 123 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 19.64×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -3.4% Low

        5 numbered spot, 1 got numbered from farside, 1 went, and others faded.

      • gbaikie says:

        Grr. None went {misremembered] just 2 of them faded/disappeared.
        And don’t see one, but there might be one coming from farside

  20. Gordon Robertson says:

    bdx….”The grand Monckton Pause was the be-all-end-all proof that global warming had stopped. At its peak it lasted 107 months starting in 2014/06. Since 2014/06 the warming trend is +0.29 C/decade”.

    ***

    The end was announced by the IPCC in 2013 when they acknowledged there had been no warming during the previous 15 years, dating back to 1998. The flat trend continued into 2015 then the 2016 major El Nino happened. For some reason, it took its time getting back to the baseline.

    Surely you don’t think this recent blip, caused by a volcano throwing millions of tons of water vapour into the stratosphere will last?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      If you add the 6 years of Monckton onto the 15 years of flat trend, that’s 21 years of unexplained non-warming. How does that fit the AGW theory?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ps. we likely had one of the coolest winters on record up here.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo, local temperatures for any season are what’s called WEATHER, not climate. Besides, have you got ANY evidence to support your contention, other than that your backside got cold when you walked the dog?

    • Nate says:

      “The end was announced by the IPCC in 2013 when they acknowledged there had been no warming during the previous 15 years, dating back to 1998. ”

      No they didn’t say that.

      Lets see the Quote?

      Nah, Gordon sez he don’t need no stinkin quotes.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Talk about denial. I have already gone through this with Barry and he had to eat his words. Care to take me on farther?

      • barry says:

        Gordon won’t cite what he is referring to because it contains information he doesn’t like.

        "Despite the robust multi-decadal warming, there exists substantial interannual to decadal variability in the rate of warming, with several periods exhibiting weaker trends (including the warming hiatus since 1998) (Figure TS.1). The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Trends for short periods are uncertain and very sensitive to the start and end years. For example, trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24] °C per decade, 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] °C per decade and 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade, respectively."

        AR5 – Technical Report

    • bdgwx says:

      GR: Surely you dont think this recent blip, caused by a volcano throwing millions of tons of water vapour into the stratosphere will last?

      First…I don’t think the volcano is the primary cause of the blip. As I’ve said repeatedly I think the primary cause is the transition from La Nina to El Nino. The fact that the blip is higher than the other blips is the result of the persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.

      Second…As I’ve said repeatedly a transient decline in temperature is expected due to the waning of El Nino. The keyword here is transient. The long term warming hasn’t stopped. 0.95 C isn’t the top. It may take awhile, but that 0.95 C mark will get surpassed…eventually.

      • Clint R says:

        bdgwx, would you agree that you are fanatical about the bogus EEI?

        It’s been explained to you several times. It’s all bogus, especially to two decimal places! That ain’t science.

        Yet you steadfastly cling to it.

        That’s just being fanatical.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        The elephant in the room is that all of this is in reference to a starting point in 1979, which is very well known to have been the very bottom of a decades long sharp cooling trend that returned temps all the way back to the values of the early 20th century.

        Haha, funny how warmistas are back to pointing at sat temps after all that denying them as being of any value for all those years of the original post-1998 pause!

        And that denial came after proclaiming that sat temps of the whole atmosphere of the whole globe was the correct way to measure GLOBAL warming of the …um…atmosphere.

        Me, I’m eyeballing that well known and warmistas certified canary in the coal mine of global roasting-us-all-alive-ness…the polar amplifiedamacated Arctic Sea Ice.

        But that’s just me.

      • barry says:

        “Haha, funny how warmistas are back to pointing at sat temps after all that denying them as being of any value for all those years of the original post-1998 pause!”

        I point to UAH trends because that is the data set attached to this blog. It’s also the data set that ‘skeptics’ give greatest credence.

        Never stopped referring to all the major data sets over the years.

        What’s funny is ‘skeptics’ jumping ship from RSS (which Monckton continually used for the 1998 ‘pause’) to UAH as soon as UAH was revised to have lower trends than any other.

        What’s also amusing is that ‘skeptics’ write off all the other data sets.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        Well, I am not intending to get into a kerfuffle on the point, but what actually happened was RSS was adjusted down.
        It was foreseen to be about to occur, and then it did, just as we were already discussing.

        I do concede the point that this is a blog about the sat temps, and I was not saying it should not be discussed or implying that, so sorry if it sounded that way.
        I was merely noting where the attention of various schools of thought has been drawn at various times, and how it has flat out shifted around.

        I think the crux of the biscuit is, that the general idea of CO2 forced global warming requires that CO2 is THE control knob,the atmospheric thermostat, and that rising concentrations of CO2 will cause, HAS TO cause, an incremental and relentless warming.

        Of course there are other major issues, many of which would be changing the subject at hand to bring up right here, but there is the hot spot “anomaly”. I known some of y’all are right fond of that word and concept, so there’s muh hat tip.
        Specifically of course, that the models predict one, but observation continue to fail to see one.

        This(the patterns we see in the UHA graph)seems more like the temp in a cooler if someone keeps closing and opening the lid.
        Sometimes warms up, but then cools all the way back to and even below where it started, then later warms up suddenly again.

        (I know, I know, you wished I used an oven door as the analogy instead of a cooler lid!)
        Like how a little over a year ago (15-18 months ago), the value of the graph as all the way back to the center reference line!

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        Dang, did I say RSS was adjusted down?
        You all know what I meant to say.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nic…”…what actually happened was RSS was adjusted down”.

        ***

        Was that before or after they got into bed with NOAA?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”I think the primary cause is the transition from La Nina to El Nino”.

        ***

        I can go along with that so long as you are not claiming it is caused by a trace gas.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        Gordon,
        I do not have all the details memorized and on the tip of my tongue after this much time, but I can and will go and find the exact time period and discussions I am above referring to.

        Soon.
        Thanks for the response.

        Separately, I am not as sure about the details or circumstances re NOAA that you are referring to. Can you give some detail and maybe an approximate year or date?

        My recollection is that the person who runs the RSS organization was coming under intensifying heat for publishing data that was not in accordance of “the narrative”.
        It simply does not do to have scientific data that directly refutes and contradicts what the climate mafia is spewing out to us all.

      • Nate says:

        “Like how a little over a year ago (15-18 months ago), the value of the graph as all the way back to the center reference line!”

        Which has been adjusted upward several times. It is meant to represent the recent average T, not the average T BEFORE the current warming period.

        The fact that T could oscillate down and touch the recent average is no surprise.

        That T has not dropped well BELOW the recent average line should be a clue that warming is continuing.

      • Nate says:

        “the very bottom of a decades long sharp cooling trend”

        Sharp cooling trend?

        I call adjective abuse on that one.

        Here is the long term record.

        https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/48/2/1850-2024

        1979 is ~ the end of a flat period. Prior to that there was warming from a persistently lower T in the 19th century.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        Altered data is not data anymore, Nate.

      • barry says:

        “Well, I am not intending to get into a kerfuffle on the point, but what actually happened was RSS was adjusted [up].”

        Which completed ‘skeptics’ abandonment of RSS for the data set with the lowest trend.

        This wasn’t based on a fair analysis of the reasons for the revisions. ‘Skeptics’ just gravitate to whatever supports their views.

        Whereas ‘warmists’ do not favour the highest trend data set and write off the rest.

        The word “cult” gets thrown around here a lot. I know which group looks more culty.

      • barry says:

        Nicholas McGinley: “Altered data is not data anymore”

        Also Nicholas McGinley: “…1979, which is very well known to have been the very bottom of a decades long sharp cooling trend that returned temps all the way back to the values of the early 20th century.”

        If Nicholas McGinley believes that altered data is no data, he should have absolutely nothing to say about changes and trends in any geological phenomena.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        ”FirstI dont think the volcano is the primary cause of the blip. As Ive said repeatedly I think the primary cause is the transition from La Nina to El Nino. The fact that the blip is higher than the other blips is the result of the persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.”

        Hmmm, if this planetary energy imbalance is persistent why didn’t it effect the previous blips?

      • bdgwx says:

        BH: Hmmm, if this planetary energy imbalance is persistent why didnt it effect the previous blips?

        It did.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Well you have 1) an extraordinary alignment of planets that is likely reaching neutrality and won’t likely be seen again for sometime; 2) early effects of feedback from a solar grandmaximum that ostensibly ended in the 1980’s; 3) a waning negative ice oscillation; 4) a waning positive ocean oscillation; 5) recent high carbon emissions; 6) a sun near maximum; 7) recent reoccurrence of a ozone depletion; 8) the warmest months of a single El Nino cycle; and 9) the biggest volcano in modern history;

        Much of the above may be interrelated but none of it has been quantified in a satisfactory manner. Bottom line is if as you say this and previous blips are a result of a ”persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.” I have ranked the most likely causes of that in a rough order above. Carbon doesn’t rise high because of the complete failure of models to reproduce the warming of the first half of the twentieth century. But I left it relatively high ranked for having spanned more than 5 decades.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:
        Here is the long term record.

        https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/48/2/1850-2024

        1979 is ~ the end of a flat period. Prior to that there was warming from a persistently lower T in the 19th century.

        ———————————
        I would disregard anything post 1970 coming from an entity that has been collecting billions of dollars a year from their doomsday predictions on all this.

        One needs independent sources but all those have been hounded out of existence.

      • Nate says:

        That’s Bill’s twisted version of Feynman’s adage

        ‘If experiment doesnt agree with your theory, it’s wrong’

        For Bill it becomes:

        ‘if the data doesnt fit your crank theory, the data is wrong…and fraudulent!’

      • bdgwx says:

        BH: Bottom line is if as you say this and previous blips are a result of a persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.

        I didn’t say that. I said something completely different. Go back and reread my post. What did I say was the primary cause of the blips?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        You said:

        ”The fact that the blip is higher than the other blips is the result of the persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.”

        and to: ”Hmmm, if this planetary energy imbalance is persistent why didnt it effect the previous blips?” you said ”It did”

        thus I concluded you effectively said: ”this and previous blips are a result of a persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.”

        How is that a wrong interpretation of what you said?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:
        ”For Bill it becomes:

        if the data doesnt fit your crank theory, the data is wrongand fraudulent! ”

        Well lets look more closely.

        1) I don’t have a theory. I am reading profusely on the topic and haven’t yet concluded anything.

        2) the data is only partly observational. Algorithms have been consistently applied by desk jockeys second guessing station managers they never interviewed and reconstructing never measured high latitude ocean temperatures using a variety of biased means of ocean temperature measurements.

        3) the surface data is not representative but spread around the globe as if it were representative.

        4) the vast amount of actual measurement data is husbanded by non-independent entities profiting hugely off having the data showing certain results.

        what kind of reliability do you think should be assigned to that?

        You didn’t see me say it was fraudulent. As far as I am concerned I consider about as reliable as some guy in a trenchcoat in an alley flashing a Rolex watch at me and offering me a great deal on it. What do you want me to do? Call the cops on the guy for trying to sell a fraudulent Rolex watch?

        You can do that if you want. I am just going to say ”no thanks” and keep walking.

      • Nate says:

        “One needs independent sources but all those have been hounded out of existence.”

        No they havent. That just popped out of your conspiratorial mind.

        The data are collected by weather services all over the world. Many different sources. Did they all get together in the early 1970s and decide to warm all their data?

        No.

        As far as analyses of global T trends, there are a dozen or more independent analyses of the available weather data.

        Then there are several Reanalysis groups calculating the global weather going way back decades.

      • bdgwx says:

        BH: thus I concluded you effectively said: this and previous blips are a result of a persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.

        How is that a wrong interpretation of what you said?

        Because it is not anything like what I said. Here is what I said.

        “I dont think the volcano is the primary cause of the blip. As Ive said repeatedly I think the primary cause is the transition from La Nina to El Nino. The fact that the blip is higher than the other blips is the result of the persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.”

        I’ll spell it out.

        Point #1…ENSO is the primary cause of blips.

        Point #2…The positive planetary energy imbalance (PPEI) is why later blips are higher than earlier blips.

        Note #1…ENSO occurs regardless of the PPEI therefore blips occur regardless of the PPEI.

        Note #2…In the absence of the PPEI blips would still occur. There just wouldn’t be a tendency for later blips to be higher than earlier blips.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:
        ”The data are collected by weather services all over the world.”

        All of whom have loyalties to governments and/or institutions collecting billions of dollars in revenues pretty much as if they were an all powerful corporation like Exxon/Mobil except that these institutions have sources of power that exxon mobil could only dream of.

        ”Many different sources. Did they all get together in the early 1970s and decide to warm all their data?”

        many different sources? this is not a competitive environment. different would be russia, china, north korea, bulgaria etc.

        yes some may be reliable but its not the case that your link was anything more diverse than the product of a crony agency of the government.

        ”Then there are several Reanalysis groups calculating the global weather going way back decades.” yes i mentioned the desk jockeys recalculating temperatures to fit to order already. i know how that works. its like paid and delivered expert testimony.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        well bdgwx i guess its a positive note that yo daddy allows to recognize enso blips. i listed 8 other items. how many does your daddy allow you to think about?

      • Nate says:

        Bill confirms that he thinks that since the 1970s, the weather data is no longer simply data on the weather reported by weather stations.

        Since the 1970s all the big $$$ the people in the weather stations were getting in many countries, except communist ones, influenced all those people to warm the data.

        Do I have your conspiracy theory about right now?

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter previously wrote:

        I dont have a theory. I am reading profusely on the topic and havent yet concluded anything.

        He previously presented a list of 9 potential influences on the latest blip, commenting:

        I have ranked the most likely causes of that in a rough order above. Carbon doesnt rise high because of the complete failure of models to reproduce the warming of the first half of the twentieth century.

        Hunter appears to have forgotten the old adage: Correlation is NOT Causation. And, he left out a potentially important influence, that of Tropospheric black carbon aerosols. Black carbon absorbs sunlight, unlike sulfate aerosols, which back scatters sunlight to space. Why is this potentially important? There were record number of large wild fires in Canada and elsewhere last summer, the smoke from which were reported as far away as Miami, FL. Cities in the North Eastern US were blanketed by seriously unhealthy clouds of smoke for days on end. Its likely that more fires also occurred in Siberia, perhaps being left to burn, potentially adding more smoke, as workers were shifted to the Ukraine War.

        Why is this important?. Hunter claimed:

        Carbon doesnt rise high because of the complete failure of models to reproduce the warming of the first half of the twentieth century.

        As noted in the video, Climate, The Movie, there were many more global wild fires between 1900 and WW II (40:02), compared with today. The technology to fight them was primitive, compared to that available today, so they tended to burn to exhaustion. The result would have been a continual source for black carbon aerosol into the Troposphere. And, during WW II, entire cities went up in flames, releasing more smoke. Of course, Hunter has no theory to provide any support for any of his claims, let alone consider the black carbon issue.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        swanson correlation isn’t causation but correlation is necessary for causation.

        thats why one should start with a comprehensive list of correlating events since it appears you are ignorant of that fact and thus you have erred. not sure if your purpose was to handwave off the list as the list is likely only the first two as the first two are the primary drivers of milankovitch theory that is horribly poorly documented. the other items in the list are either likely a form of feedback or are too shortlived to account for historic climate change.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”Bill confirms that he thinks that since the 1970s, the weather data is no longer simply data on the weather reported by weather stations.

        Since the 1970s all the big $$$ the people in the weather stations were getting in many countries, except communist ones, influenced all those people to warm the data.

        Do I have your conspiracy theory about right now?”

        nate isn’t very observant and apparently has failed to comprehend the wide differences between weather gathering sources the heat of which is rather closely related to the levels of funding received for mitigation/prediction work and the competition of political ideologies among nations. no conspiracy theory required unless you want to consider paying for results to be conspiratorial. do you think exxon mobil scientists make big bucks?

        the problem with you communists is you aren’t any different than anybody else but you completely flop and fail to see the problem of concentration of power in your own system.

      • Nate says:

        “the problem with you communists ”

        Bill you are hilariously confused and off your rocker.

        Earlier you said the communist countries were the only ones not participating in the scam!

      • Nate says:

        “do you think exxon mobil scientists make big bucks?”

        As a matter of fact, those scientists also discovered that CO2 emissions should lead to GW, and this was reported internally, but not externally. Because the management of the corporation foresaw how that could negatively impact their bottom line.

        https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

      • E. Swanson says:

        It’s always hilarious when Hunter drifts into all lower case. Is he playing with an AI program, or is his use of a language other than English results in poor translation? When he wrote:

        …the list is likely only the first two as the first two are the primary drivers of milankovitch theory that is horribly poorly documented.

        Hunter guy tosses out another red herring, suggesting that the Milankovitch math governs “the Blip”, ie, ENSO. This isn’t even a hypothesis, let alone a theory, and Hunter offers zero theoretical support and no data to back his assertion. To be sure, there have been attempts to connect planetary motions to the Sun Spot Cycle which Hunter might want to investigate. But, I think that one needs to dive much deeper into the science to make a connect between Sun Spots and ENSO.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”Bill you are hilariously confused and off your rocker.

        Earlier you said the communist countries were the only ones not participating in the scam!”

        Wrong you just can’t read with comprehension.

        I only excluded the communist countries from bribing their employees with promotions and dollars. They don’t have to do that to get the data they want to send to the West.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        ”Hunter guy tosses out another red herring, suggesting that the Milankovitch math governs the Blip, ie, ENSO.”

        Obviously you can’t read either.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Yes, Gill guy, it’s hard to comprehend the meaning of your posts when you write stuff like:

        I have ranked the most likely causes of that in a rough order above.

        not sure if your purpose was to handwave off the list as the list is likely only the first two as the first two are the primary drivers of milankovitch theory that is horribly poorly documented.

        It’s not at all clear what ranking you intended. Usually, the first in a list could be taken as the most likely, IMHO. However, one can not deduce from your multiple posts whether the top entry on the list or the bottom is the most likely. Of course, your list offers no understanding for the effects of each entry, thus it’s useless to try yo discuss it.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:
        ”not sure if your purpose was to handwave off the list as the list is likely only the first two as the first two are the primary drivers of milankovitch theory that is horribly poorly documented.

        Its not at all clear what ranking you intended. Usually, the first in a list could be taken as the most likely.
        ————————
        The likely contributions to global warming are ranked in an order of their persistence of the period in question (industrial age). Many are of too short duration. Others have been studied like CO2 and haven’t measured up over the entire period.

        At some point one needs to recognize other long period phenomena at work. What better one than Milankovitch which is attributed for up to 15C Arctic temperature natural variations? . . .especially noting that there are many drivers of Milankovitch theory that causes regular variations already estimated by Milankovitch and others, very poorly documented using the most modern scientific capabilities.

        Bottom line Swanson, the first two are the only ones not eliminated as being a single major pulse. ocean and ice oscillations are ranked above emissions because their oscillation patterns match the historic record, but CO2 theory does not.

        You can whine and moan all you wish but until these other items are properly addressed this whole thing looks like the scam that Dr. William Happer says it is. And there is no greater patriot in the debate whose credentials rise higher than Happer.

      • E Swanson says:

        Gill guy pontificates a claim, writing:

        …the first two are the only ones not eliminated as being a single major pulse.

        Gills assertions are without reference, analysis or data, yet he thinks they are important. He continues:

        ocean and ice oscillations are ranked above emissions because their oscillation patterns match the historic record, but CO2 theory does not.

        To be sure, there are “oscillations” within the climate system, particularly the ENSO, which may appear in the available data as short term variation added to the long term trend. That does not disqualify the effects of humanity’s emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere, which does not happen to exhibit “oscillations”, but which results in a steady upward trend contained within the data. And, Gill forgets that there are short term variations due to volcanic effects and the frequency of eruptions in the historical record adds variation as well.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Well you guys have been going way out on a limb trying to eliminate natural climate change like the MWP and LIA.

        Mike Mann and Al Gore took a shot at it but failed. The fact they felt they had to do that is evidence of the scam. They couldn’t do it with science so they resorted to sensationalist journalism.

        There isn’t one guy in this forum who can explain how CO2 makes warmer things hotter. Its amazing how gullible you are Swanson. Somebody just tells you something and not only do you believe it, you become an activist promoting it. . .and you don’t even know how it works.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gill guy wrote:

        Somebody just tells you something and not only do you believe it, you become an activist promoting it. . .and you dont even know how it works.

        He is so confused, he’s talking about himself. All he does is spout some silly “theory” he picked up from the ‘Net, without any supporting science. Then he blames us for his ignorance.

      • Bill hunter says:

        Swanson I am only talking about the people who are lying when they claim they know how the GHE works. That would not include me as I don’t know how it works and neither do you. But you lie that you know and you won’t provide the details. That’s why I know you are lying. You lack credibility, you are not to be trusted.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy accuses me of lying, in order to shift the discussion away from his red herring about planetary influences on climate.

        Of course, I don’t know EXACTLY how the GHE “works”, but I have spent lots of effort to understand it, including my GPE validation of Eli’s presentation about “back radiation” between two plates. I’ve also acquired several text books on the subject, which ultimately rely on models that I am unable to deal with because of the math. I’ve read much of the IPCC’s reports, acquiring the first one when it was published. I’ll admit that I’ve become lazy of late, for example, I’ve not completed reading the copy of Pierrehumbert’s book “Principles of planetary climate” which I acquired when it was published.

        That said, it’s Hunter who refuses to supply any details to support his comments, whereas I’ve tried to do so repeatedly. As a result, all he has is ad homeneum

      • Bill hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        ”Of course, I dont know EXACTLY how the GHE works, but I have spent lots of effort to understand it, including my GPE validation of Elis presentation about back radiation between two plates.”

        Heat will always take the easiest path Swanson. Stefan Boltzmann established a law of how hot an object can warm something until its in equilibrium. It also establishes the rate of cooling.

        Nothing in Stefan Boltzmann supports your twisted view of the GHE.

        Even Nate has admitted that its not an appropriate model for earth’s GHE.

        E. Swanson says:

        ”That said, its Hunter who refuses to supply any details to support his comments, whereas Ive tried to do so repeatedly. As a result, all he has is ad homeneum”

        Support what comment? I don’t have a complete answer for the gHE either and don’t pretend I do like you.

        As Dr. Syun Akasofu says to understand anthropogenic climate change you must first understand natural climate change.
        So now I complain about the lack of science in finely understanding Milankovitch study and I have a horde of people complaining about doing science on the topic claiming its well documented which quite simply is a lie.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy is still trying to walk away from his claims of long period climate variations due to planetary influence. Now, he switches to claiming that:

        Nothing in Stefan Boltzmann supports your twisted view of the GHE.

        Hunter does not say why he offers this claim. He ignores the fact that SB is commonly used in engineering to calculate radiation heat transfer between surfaces. He does not explain how my GPE results violate the SB calculations. Of course, the GHE involves gasses, not the surfaces of solid objects, but the effects are similar when integrated over the spectrum of the IR radiation involved. He apparently is unaware that the UAH products from Spencer and Christy rely on SB calculations.

        I had not previously heard of Dr. Akasofu, who claimed back in 2009 that “Natural Causes” were the source of warming recorded since about 1850. Hunter suggests that the data is not “well documented”, when we have high resolution data from ice cores to examine. For example, the well known “8200 BP Event” shows one such variation which is most certainly NOT caused by planetary influences. The report I referenced above presents high resolution ice core data which is initially sampled with time steps of less than a year.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        E. Swanson says:

        ”Hunter guy is still trying to walk away from his claims of long period climate variations due to planetary influence. Now, he switches to claiming that:

        Nothing in Stefan Boltzmann supports your twisted view of the GHE.”
        ———————
        You are so full of it Swanson. You brought up your validation of the GPE which is not an appropriate model for the earth’s GHE.
        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

        E. Swanson says:

        ”I had not previously heard of Dr. Akasofu, who claimed back in 2009 that Natural Causes were the source of warming recorded since about 1850. Hunter suggests that the data is not well documented, when we have high resolution data from ice cores to examine. For example, the well known 8200 BP Event shows one such variation which is most certainly NOT caused by planetary influences. The report I referenced above presents high resolution ice core data which is initially sampled with time steps of less than a year.”

        Ice core data displays a lot of variation including variation of up to about 2C on a multi-centennial scale. One would naturally assume we are in such a variation now as did Dr. Syun Akasofu and Dr. Don J Easterbrook yet no work has been forthcoming on the topic due to the rampant corruption.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Hunter guy continues his comments regarding natural climate variations and ice core data, yet, he still can’t provide any references with analysis of the data. Throwing out a couple of names, including Don Easterbrook, then claiming it’s impossible to publish because of bias ignores the availability of self publishing opportunities. He ignores the fact that there’s lots of data available from the Internet which even he could download and “audit”.

        Hunter is just a loudmouth, braying (as Willard would say) endless empty claims to spam the blog.

  21. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    When is the start of the growing season in the Midwest?
    https://i.ibb.co/p2Gy2tC/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-04-03-085040.png

    • Charles Best says:

      200 million years ago the average world temperature was 13 degrees warmer than today.
      There was no desert anywhere because CO2 was well over 2000 ppm.

      • Entropic man says:

        “There was no desert anywhere because CO2 was well over 2000 ppm.”

        Please explain how you made that deduction.

      • Charles Best says:

        A huge part of the southern Sahara has gone green with just a modest increase in CO2. 320 ppm to 420 ppm.

      • Bindidon says:

        Charles Best

        ” A huge part of the southern Sahara has gone green with just a modest increase in CO2. 320 ppm to 420 ppm. ”

        Some trustworthy source?

        What is better known is that the Sahara is currently expanding southwards by ~ 50 km / yr, and will inevitably swallow up the Sahel region over the long term.

      • Charles Best says:

        The NASA satellite data shows a 15% greening of the Earth since just the year 2000.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Five years ago NASA reported a 2.3% greening, not 15%.
        They also said that a large fraction of that comes from tree-planting programs and intensive crop cultivation, not CO2.

    • Mark B says:

      Frost free dates in the US upper Midwest are around the start of June. Freezing temperatures in April are a near certainty.

      Notably, the USDA revised planting date tables a few years back indicating real people with an enormous financial interest in climate norms implicitly acknowledge the warming trend.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        It has been well documented for a very long time that zones move around over various time periods.
        Northern limit of armadillos, for instance…

        Averages change a little over time…no graph of temps is a straight line at any time interval or scale.

    • Nicholas McGinley says:

      Defining when the growing season starts is a highly subjective question, asked as such. Depends on what you are growing, if you want to take a small risk, moderate risk, or no risk of a dieback after germination, requiring a replanting.
      Every crop has it’s own peculiarities regarding such parameters as hardiness (ability to withstand cold of a certain temp).

  22. M.J. Peltier says:

    What is the actual temperature value in degrees C of the zero baseline on Dr Spencer’s UAH Satellite-Based Temperature plots ?

  23. Entropic man says:

    Time runs faster on the Moon than on Earth.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68722032

    How does this affect the spinner v non-spinner debate?

    • Clint R says:

      Your BBC link is referring to the “measurement of time”, not “time”.

      And no, nonsense won’t help your Moon spinning nonsense.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Denier of relativity too, Clint. Should we add evolution, plate tectonics, the spherical earth and the moon landings to your list?

      • Clint R says:

        Your cult can’t even understand the ball-on-a-string, Ant.

        That’s why you have to result to throwing crap against the wall.

        Grow up.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        Ooh, the ball on string is another thing I was wanting to make sure I was clear on.
        If you could…does the thought experiment describe exactly how the string is held and how exactly it is spun?
        I mean, does it stipulate that the person holding the string is facing the ball with arms held out in front, turning their whole body around like they was standing on a lazy Susan, or does it say specifically if the person is holding it more like overhead and just twirling the arm just so?

        I am asking because it the second case, every time I do it, the string itself rotates a turn for every revolution, and the ball spins on an axis defined by the attachment point of the string, you see, one spin-type turn for every orbit-like revolution around me.

        You know, like the way a really long coil of rope or an extension cord gets all twisted up when you wrap it up into a coil between your palm and elbow to store it, you know?

        I used to do this certain kind of work where I had to buy 1000 spools of rope, and they always sold it on a cardboard spindle, so I sometimes had to get it all back to neat when the cardboard got wet and it all got into a mess like you would not believe!

        made my boss so mad to see me futzing with it, being that he was paying my a whole bunch more an hour that a coil of rope cost.
        Some people turn bright red when they get angry…did you know that?

        So I was wondering about that, since I want to make sure I got it right.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        Oops, that should say 1000′ spool of rope, One thousand feet long, for any metrically identifying readers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nic…you are reading too much into the ball on a string model. It was introduced only to clarify that a ball attached to a string keeps the same face pointed at the external axis but does not allow the ball to rotate about its COG. It was never intended as a model of lunar rotation, which is a unique interaction between gravity and momentum that cannot be observed naturally on the surface.

        Since the Moon also keeps the same face pointed at Earth, it is equally obvious it cannot rotate about a local axis. That property reveals curvilinear motion with no local rotation.

        Many people here, and on the Net, including NASA, are confusing the change in orientation of the near face, wrt the stars as a rotation about a local axis. However, such a rotation requires that the circumference actually rotates about the COG. That never happens on the Moon since the near face, the far face, the COG, and all points between, at any instant, are moving in parallel.

        The fact that the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth should be the clue. It’s moving in the same manner as a locomotive running around a circular track. In order to rotate the locomotive through 180 degrees, so it runs in the opposite direction, a turntable is required. Yet spinner think the fact one side of the locomotive changes orientation through 360 degrees per revolution of the track is the same as the locomotive rotating though 360 degrees about its COG.

        It’s no coincidence that those who believe that are also climate alarmists.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        aq…”Denier of relativity too, Clint. Should we add evolution, plate tectonics, the spherical earth and the moon landings to your list?”

        ***

        Anytime you have scientific proof of evolution, plate tectonics, time, the Big Bang, etc., I’d love to hear it.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        Hmm…
        Well, first thing I am thinking is, without going into the specifics of all of these details, that for me at least, I think this may be one of those subjects where people that are in one camp on one of the separate issues of CO2 alarmism, and the lack of rotation of the moon, may not overlap with each other with any certainty.
        IOW, I am pretty sure this may be more like opinions on vaccines vs political party…there are people on each side in each political camp.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        I have not reached a state of making anything of the ball and string model, because since I am unclear on key details of the exact particulars of the construct, I do not have enough evidence to form an informed opinion or a rational, objective, conclusion.
        Like how juries are instructed not to form opinions about the case until all of the evidence has been presented yada yada yada.

        But to elaborate on why I am wanting to clarify the details I inquired about, it seems to me that in the arms outstretched and standing on a turntable case, the ball is attached directly to a larger object that IS spinning about it’s COG.

        While in the hand over hand wrist flick methos of whirling the ball around, the string is actually being twisted about an axis extending through the center of the string, imparting a spin with the identical axis on the ball.
        If you just do it using an unmarked ball, or if one is not familiar with the types of motions of the hand that impart a twist to a string, one might easily not realize in this second method, the ball is spinning, but the axis of rotation is tilted 90 degrees from the from the instantaneous vector of the forward motion of the ball.

        In any case, I think I may possibly have reasoned out a line of argumentation that if followed, can resolved this disagreement to everyone’s satisfaction, thus healing this troublesome schism once and for all.
        It proceeds from considering exactly what occurs if we slowly adjust the inclation of the axis of rotation of the moon from the plane of it’s roation, in slight by continuing increments, until we arrive at a moon that at no time different substantially in motion parameters from the previous iteration, but eventually come to be rotating like the ball on the string that spinning on an axis of rotation that aligns with the string. IOW< an axis with points directly at Earth.

        Now we get into complex orbital and rotation questions before we get very far, such as, does the moon, like the Earth, undergo axial precession with regard to it's orientation, and if so, which Frame of reference is this precession relative too?

        For Earth, precession of the rotational axis is defined as the precession of the equinoxes along the plane of the ecliptic with regard to the fixed stars.

        Recall all the fun they had with accounting for the motions of the heavenly bodies back when people assumed the Earth was the center of the Universe, and everything rotated around it?
        Wheels within wheels…
        Now imagine if those same people all lived on the moon, and all observations of the motions of the planets and the Sun and the Earth had to be modeled in a way that accounted for all of these motions.

        This is of course why the inertial reference frame is in high favor with those who send rockets to other plants and such.
        For any reader who does not know what this means, the Inertial Reference Frame refers to looking at the solar system and all of the motions taking place, from the point of view of someone floating in space at some distance above the Solar System, with "above" referring to a line extended out from the center of the plane of the ecliptic at 90 degrees. IOW, from a point above the north pole of the Sun and far enough away that the entire solar system is within the field of view.
        (at least, that is how I always pictured it back in the day…it's been a while since…)

        Imagine trying to figure out where to aim your rocket if one switches reference frames when any particular body is considered in isolation?
        How do you know where some body will be if you are lifting off from the another body (Any two, pick em, space station orbiting the moon to one orbiting Ganymede) if you assume as a given that one body in particular is fixed and not rotating?

        Anyway, this is just basic details and removed very far from matters best taken on Faith or as a matter of dogma. Imagine trying to get anywhere if one notion has to stay fixed and all other ideas and discoveries and knowledge must be shaped to suit this foundational idea? Oh, wait, I mean if we just keep changing our minds as we acquire new information, or consider new scenarios?

        After all, I know very few people who could tell you what exactly each of the different months refer to, even if they just read all of the definitions an hour ago.

        Here, for reference use of the unwashed lurkers in attendance, from Wikipedia page "Month""
        "The sidereal month is defined as the Moon's orbital period in a non-rotating frame of reference (which on average is equal to its rotation period in the same frame). It is about 27.32166 days (27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11.6 seconds). It is closely equal to the time it takes the Moon to twice pass a "fixed" star (different stars give different results because all have a very small proper motion and are not really fixed in position).

        A synodic month is the most familiar lunar cycle, defined as the time interval between two consecutive occurrences of a particular phase (such as new moon or full moon) as seen by an observer on Earth. The mean length of the synodic month is 29.53059 days (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 2.8 seconds). Due to the eccentricity of the lunar orbit around Earth (and to a lesser degree, the Earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun), the length of a synodic month can vary by up to seven hours.

        The tropical month is the average time for the Moon to pass twice through the same equinox point of the sky. It is 27.32158 days, very slightly shorter than the sidereal month (27.32166) days, because of precession of the equinoxes.

        An anomalistic month is the average time the Moon takes to go from perigee to perigeethe point in the Moon's orbit when it is closest to Earth. An anomalistic month is about 27.55455 days on average.

        The draconic month, draconitic month, or nodal month is the period in which the Moon returns to the same node of its orbit; the nodes are the two points where the Moon's orbit crosses the plane of the Earth's orbit. Its duration is about 27.21222 days on average."

        Honestly, most people, the vast majority, have no idea that the word month is a cognate of the word Moon, let alone have idea notion whatsoever that there are different types of months.

        Crazy, since people thousands of years ago not only knew (at least some of) them, but measured them and calculated them accurately enough to predict the reoccurrence of Eclipses.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Gordon

        Time?? You deny time??

        If there is no time then there is no ordering of events.
        What distinguishes your birth from your current decrepitude and your death.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “… That property reveals curvilinear motion with no local rotation. …

        … the near face, the far face, the COG, and all points between, at any instant, are moving in parallel. …

        … Its moving in the same manner as a locomotive running around a circular track…”

        Wrong on all counts. A locomotive on an elliptical track (even if it sped up and slowed down appropriately) would exhibit the wrong libration. Your conclusions are refuted by the actual moon.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Actually all you are doing Tim is acting like a snob. Science defines it own terms and teaches them in classrooms.

        But in real practice after you graduate you will find they don’t always follow the definitions they taught you.

        Then when somebody notices this fact and challenges it those same teachers will start making up all sorts of nonsense stuff to try to put the genie back in the bottle. It’s actually pretty comical.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Bill, you are free to create your own definitions. You are not free to deny observed facts.

        A locomotive on an elliptical track will NOT move the same way as the moon. If a hypothesis disagrees with observations it must be discarded in favor of a more accurate hypothesis.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        of course it won’t tim. the moon does not go around the earth on railroad tracks! i have no idea why it should. where the heck did you get that crazy idea?

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “where the heck did you get that crazy idea?”
        Its not ‘my crazy idea’; it is Gordon’s proposed model. It’s actually a fairly reasonable, non-crazy proposal to model the shape of an orbit and the orientation of the moon as it orbits.

        This model creates libration naturally (which makes it a step up from ball-on-string which can’t model libration). The libration turns out to be not quite accurate, but it is still a useful model to guide us toward a correct understanding of libration.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Everything that rotates librates Tim.

        You have your definition and viewpoint of what a rotation is and isn’t then you cherry pick to call one kind of rotation as a non-rotation when it librates. What we are dealing here is with a an ill-informed illuminati attitude that thinks everything thing it thinks is right and what anybody else thinks is wrong.

    • Nicholas McGinley says:

      Which side are the spinners?
      Seriously, it is not at all clear which is which to me, unless it is just that someone misspoke and got it exactly backwards by mistake.

      • Clint R says:

        “Spinners” believe Moon spins.

        Earth both spins and orbits. Moon only orbits. The false concept that Moon does both started centuries ago, when astrology was considered “science”. The mistake was never corrected because it affects nothing. But it became so indoctrinated in colleges and universities that even NASA is afraid to correct the mistake. Over time, the mistake was even embellished by the violation of physics called “tidal locking”.

        All easily debunked.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        Oh, OK, that is what I had thought.
        Seems a little contrived though, and awkward.
        I am asking everyone who shares by opinion of a Lunacetric Universe on a moon that does not spin, to refer to me and my enlightened ilk as Lunatics…capital “L”.
        Please.

        Did you hear yet, Mister R, about my recent trip to the North Pole of the Moon and the results of my subsequent month long observations made from a vantage point there?

        If so, let me caution you in advance not to pay any mind to the ruffians and scoundrels who have made several soon-to-be-pointedly addressed allegations and intimations regarding my veracity and, I suspect, even my very sincerity!

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        Oh, and of course…Thank you for the reply.
        I really do appreciate it.

        The reason I asked is because I do need to get a few items of record straight, since at the present time I am unable to defend myself against the sadly accurate observation that I have not been “keeping up with the debate”.

        I confess it seems to have progressed some since I last checked in a few years or so ago on it.
        Moves ahead faster’n a 2nd semester engineering calculus night class.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        I really do like it when there is a little window of time to edit out typos in these blogs.
        Not that I need it very offen, since I almost never make any tyops.

    • Nicholas McGinley says:

      “Time runs faster on the Moon than on Earth.”

      Aw heck, that’s nuthin!
      The big issue is that the metal bar that defines the kilogram is mysteriously getting lighter!
      See here:
      https://www.npr.org/2009/08/20/112003322/this-kilogram-has-a-weight-loss-problem

      Maybe it got some Semaglutide on it?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        The kilogram hasn’t been defined by that bar for five years now.

      • Entropic man says:

        I would expect it’s weight to increase.

        My bathroom scales tell me I am getting heavier as I get older. I also find it harder to climb hills, climb stairs and lift heavy weights.

        Incontrovertible evidence that gravity is getting stronger.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Mr Pecker also seems to be spending more time in a state of minimum gravitational potential.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        “The kilogram hasnt been defined by that bar for five years now.”
        Shew!
        That’s a relief!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ent…re time running faster on Moon, this is what they claim…

      “Because of the different gravitational field strength on the Moon, time moves quicker there relative to Earth – 58.7 microseconds every day”.

      ***

      One needs to step back and examine the statement. Where is this time that runs faster? Obviously, they are referring to a clock, but a clock generates time, it does not measure it. A clock actually measures the rotational period of the Earth and is calibrated in divisions of that period. The fundamental division the second is derived by dividing the rotational period by 24 hours/day x 60 minute/day x 60 second/hour = 86,400 seconds.

      I am sure they are using an atomic clock on the Moon so lets look at how it works. It is based on the timing of electron transitions in a Cesium atom. What does that tell us about time…nada. However, it is conceivable that a lower gravitational force could affect the transition rate of the electrons.

      One argument offered by the scientifically-challenged is that taking an atomic clock on an airplane to altitude demonstrates time dilation. The inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, doubted that due to inherent errors in such an experiment. I think the apparent time dilation is likely due to flying the atomic clocks at altitude, hence a change gravitational force, albeit light.

      • Nicholas McGinley says:

        I have no idea what one is meaning to say when they state that they believe time does not exist except inside the human mind.
        Objects move, whether we observe them or not, no, or yes?
        I think I best find out is all agree on this before getting into the more nuanced details.

      • Entropic man says:

        ” A clock actually measures the rotational period of the Earth”

        Surely a clock on the Moon would measure the rotation of the Moon?

        If you need a separate system of clocks to measure time on the Moon, this is evidence that the Moon rotates.

      • Clint R says:

        Ent continues to confuse “orbiting” with “spinning”. He’s the one that believes passenger jets fly backward.

        He’s so confused.

  24. Rob Mitchell says:

    OK. We are in a warning trend. Is that anything we should all worry about?

    Less snow for ski slopes perhaps?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Not up my way in Vancouver, Canada. Winter as usual, don’t notice any warming at all. Skiing as usual, there is still snow on our local mountains. The real skiing is at Whistler, which is well inland and several degrees colder than the coast. Whistler VIllage at base of mountains is at 2215 feet (675 metres).

      I mean, we are talking about a 0.5C blip and people are talking as if it is a 5.0 warming, which would be most welcome around here in winter. If you turned up your home thermometer by 0.5C you’d never notice it.

      As Walter and I have discussed, the warming blip is a statistical anomaly based on warming in a few locales on the planet. It is by no means a representation of actual warming globally.

  25. Tim S says:

    This current situation is all the proof needed to conclude that climate is poorly understood and difficult to predict. One year ago, nobody saw this coming.

  26. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The monthly mean sunspot number (blue) and 13-month smoothed monthly sunspot number (red) for the last five cycles.
    https://i.ibb.co/1mKbyYn/wolfmms.png

  27. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…from IPCC AR5…”The rate of warming over the past 15 years (19982012; 0.05 [0.05 to +0.15] C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (19512012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade)”.

    ***

    The IPCC likes to play with the truth. What kind of an error margin is -0.05 to +0.15 C/decade? Elsewhere, they called it a hiatus and dictionary dot come defines a hiatus as…”a pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process”.

    The IPCC even refers to it openly as a pause. That means there was no significant warming between 1998 and 2012, some 15 years. It was actually about 18 years according to UAH data.

    Why would warming caused by a trace gas stop warming for 15 years? And why would CO2 produce three relatively major spikes in 1998, 2016, and 2023, then disappear for years in-between.

    As I pointed out, including the Monckton pause, there was a 21 years flat tend over the past 25 years. The reason there has been a statistical trend are mysterious spurts of warming following the 1998 and 2016 Ens. Prior to 1998, the trend had been below the baseline for 18 years.

    Suddenly, following the 1998 EN, there was a spurt of true warming (John Christy) that I estimate to have been about 0.2C. Following the 2016 EN, the global average never did return to the baseline as did the 1998 EN, albeit briefly. The same kind of spurt occurred in 1977 and lead to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So that’s at least 0.5C of unexplained warming since 1977, all of it occurring as spikes in the global average.

    If Tsonis et al are correct, recent warming could be the effect of ocean oscillations like ENSO, the AMO and the PDO working together. In a few years they might start working in opposition.

    • barry says:

      “Why would warming caused by a trace gas stop warming for 15 years?”

      The low trend doesn’t mean underlying warming stopped. There is year to year variability that can mask the long term trend if you pick your dates carefully enough. We’ve had numerous “pauses” throughout the record, but its just an artefact of starting the trend analysis at a very warm year, which 1998 was. The IPCC explains it further in the reference from the Technical Summary that you pointed at a few years ago.

      Well, you didn’t quote the full reference, – you just wanted to show that IPCC used the word ‘hiatus’. Any further context was inconvenient to your argument.

    • barry says:

      “The same kind of spurt occurred in 1977 and lead to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So thats at least 0.5C of unexplained warming since 1977, all of it occurring as spikes in the global average.”

      We also see a “step-jump” from 2016 – the year of another super el Nino.

      We may see another “step-jump” following the current el Nino temp spike.

      This doesn’t mean that el Ninos cause permanent global warming. It means that the “step-jumps” aren’t real, and the data looks that way because starting each period from a strong el Nino is bound to give you a series of plateaus overlaying an underlying warming trend.

      You can see the same “step-jump” pattern with any data that has variability and a rising trend. Roy posted an article on it here:

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

      “Why did I do this? As a couple of people already guessed, it was mostly to show how a linear trend superimposed upon a cycle can yield periods of rapid change, followed by no change, then rapid change once again. In other words, a linear trend combined with a sinusoidal cycle can lead to plateaus.”

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      If there was no warming trend (feel free to treat that as “given that” if you really must), do you believe that there would be no variability in global temperatures, and at multiple time scales?

      Although you try to claim that we ascribe only one cause to changing temperatures, it really appears that it is you who doesn’t acknowledge other causes of variability.

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        You wrote –

        “Although you try to claim that we ascribe only one cause to changing temperatures, . . . ”

        Who claims that? You refuse to say what you believe causes changing temperatures, so that you can deny having claimed anything at all!

        What do you think causes temperatures to change? Do any of your reasons have anything to do with CO2? Or a GHE which you can’t actually describe?

        All you can do is waffle, avoiding saying anything specific. Changing temperatures? Given up on “global warming”? Waffle, waffle, waffle! All implication and innuendo.

        There is no GHE – accept reality, or have the guts to do say why you reject it.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        aq…I have offered my opinion on that. I think the warming we are experiencing is due to natural variability with the variability mainly coming over the long term than the short term.

        Also, we are likely still recovering from the Little Ice Age. I base that on the views of Syun Akasofu who calculated recovery from the LIA as occurring about 0.5C/century.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Interesting how you accept the word of a denier unthinkingly and without question, yet block out everything that comes from the vast bulk of scientists.

        “Natural variability” still has causes.
        “Recovering from the Little Ice Age” still must have a cause.

        What are those causes?

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        You wrote

        “Although you try to claim that we ascribe only one cause to changing temperatures, . . . ”

        Who claims that? You refuse to say what you believe causes changing temperatures, so that you can deny having claimed anything at all!

        What do you think causes temperatures to change? Do any of your reasons have anything to do with CO2? Or a GHE which you cant actually describe?

        All you can do is waffle, avoiding saying anything specific. Changing temperatures? Given up on “global warming”? Waffle, waffle, waffle! All implication and innuendo.

        There is no GHE accept reality, or have the guts to do say why you reject it.

        Just demanding “What are those causes?” without being able to state why you are seeking an answer, achieves little – except to make you look like you are doing your best to avoid saying anything specific about anything at all.

        What an id‌iotic waste of time you are!

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo wrote:

        I base that on the views of Syun Akasofu who calculated recovery from the LIA as occurring about 0.5C/century.

        As usual, Gordo doesn’t make any attempt to provide a reference for that claim. The dates for the LIA are rather uncertain as the definition depends on the data set used. Not to forget that much of the pre-instrument data is proxy stuff, mixed with anecdotal records of the effects of local events. It’s well known that a few very large volcanoes erupted in locations far away from Europe, thus their effects tend to get lumped into the larger hearsay record.

      • barry says:

        The self-contradictory nature of the views of ‘skeptics’ is evident to anyone who follows their arguments.

        Proxies for temperature are regularly waved off as totally unreliable, including by Gordon. And those same proxies are alternately relied on, as is the case with the ‘recovery from LIA’ talking point.

      • Swenson says:

        barry,

        You wrote –

        “The self-contradictory nature of the views of skeptics is evident to anyone who follows their arguments.”

        No skeptic could possible argue with the description of the GHE which you can’t actually provide, could they?

        There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and continues to do so. Even an object on the surface cools every night.

        No argument there? Why am I not surprised? All you can do is whine and complain, but you refuse to be specific about what you believe in! Go on, tell me the role of the GHE in nightly surface cooling. Feel free to cover all nighttime lengths – from the shortest, at the solstice, to the six months of polar regions.

        How hard can it be?

      • E. Swanson says:

        Flynnson wrote:

        Go on, tell me the role of the GHE in nightly surface cooling.

        Flynnson keeps asking the same dumb question, even though he has already provided an answer to his red herring. HERE was my comment in reply

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Swanson, please stop trolling.

  28. Eben says:

    SILSO Predicted Sunspot Number has been updated to cross the red line

    https://i.postimg.cc/7L5Z7LB1/solar-cycle-progression.png

  29. Bindidon says:

    As always, Robertson is simply distorting facts about the temperatures recorded by surface stations and UAH in his region:

    ” Not up my way in Vancouver, Canada. Winter as usual, dont notice any warming at all. ”

    ” As Walter and I have discussed, the warming blip is a statistical anomaly based on warming in a few locales on the planet. It is by no means a representation of actual warming globally. ”

    *
    This is a pure lie.

    Here is the (very local) data for temperatures collected in the same 2.5 degree grid cell as that encompassing Vancouver, BC, CA:

    The center of the grid cell is at [48.75N – 123.75W], a place on Vancouver Island:

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/48%C2%B045'00.0%22N+123%C2%B045'00.0%22W/@48.7500035,-124.3106943,9z/data=!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d48.75!4d-123.75?hl=en&entry=ttu

    Surface of this tiny region (at a latitude of 48.75N): 51,201 km2.

    *
    The two graphs below show two plots:

    – the raw data average of all GHCN daily stations available in the grid cell (red);
    – the LT data collected by UAH for the grid cell.

    1. Anomaly based comparison:
    *
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1et2MVXgC7Htzc3ing1E5D3ABR60lIqyh/view

    2. For those who feel the need to doubt anomalies, the same data in absolute form:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HVI6cFMxkr6V838aPv5FVYbnhluNwE8M/view

    *
    Here are the anomaly trends:

    1979-now
    – surface: 0.20 +- 0.04
    – low trop: 0.12 +- 0.05

    2000-now
    – surface: 0.30 +- 0.10
    – low trop: 0.22 +- 0.11

    2010-now
    – surface: 0.47 +- 0.25
    – low trop: 0.56 +- 0.28

    *
    The trends for the absolute data are similar but show, due to the annual cycle, very high standard errors – as explained in 2016 by… Roy Spencer in person.

    That’s one of the reasons why UAH never shows absolute data – only anomalies.

    { For those who need it, however, the UAH team publishes, for all four observed atmospheric layers (LT, MT, TP and LS), a 2.5 degree grid climatology containing, for each of the 9,504 grid cells, the 1991-2020 average.

    Adding, cell by cell, this average allows for a correct reconstruction of absolute data. }

    *
    People like Robertson are incompetent boasters unable to technically contradict the data shown above, hence polemically discredit it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Too bad you were not here last winter to experience the cold for yourself. You would rather fudge numbers and call people liars. Such a waste of space.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Accuweather, a site run by a denier, shows one noticeable cold snap in Vancouver that lasted for about a week in January.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson

        I don’t need to be in Vancouver to see how cold it has been on Jan 12/13/14: all I have to do is to download the GHCN daily Vancouver station data newer than my last generation.

        Here is the daily output for 2024 (6 C higher than in 1968, btw):

        CA001106CL2 BC_PORT_MOODY_GLENAYRE________ 2024 1 12 -22.0 (C)
        CA001105658 BC_N_VANC_GROUSE_MTN_RESORT___ 2024 1 12 -20.0
        CA001105658 BC_N_VANC_GROUSE_MTN_RESORT___ 2024 1 13 -19.0
        CA001101708 BC_CLOVERDALE_EAST____________ 2024 1 12 -14.5
        CA001106CL2 BC_PORT_MOODY_GLENAYRE________ 2024 1 13 -14.5
        CA001108910 BC_WHITE_ROCK_CAMPBELL_SCIENTI 2024 1 12 -14.4
        CA001108395 BC_VANCOUVER_INTL_A___________ 2024 1 13 -13.7
        CA001101708 BC_CLOVERDALE_EAST____________ 2024 1 13 -13.5
        CA001106178 BC_PITT_MEADOWS_CS____________ 2024 1 13 -13.4
        CA001108395 BC_VANCOUVER_INTL_A___________ 2024 1 12 -13.4

        etc

        Grouse Mountain you can exclude anyway: it’s located above 1,000 m altitude.

        *
        And?

        Do you think that such a little cold snap can change anything to what happens since 2010?

        *
        Look at the coldest monthly averages for Vancouver’s environ since 1900:

        1950 1 -9.81 (C)
        1937 1 -6.85
        1916 1 -6.80
        1969 1 -6.68
        1907 1 -6.58
        1930 1 -5.78
        1957 1 -5.34
        1949 1 -5.21
        1936 2 -5.08
        1909 1 -4.43

        2024 1 +1.25 (position 261 in the sort)

        What the heck are you braying about, Robertson? As always, you just place your gut feeling above real data.

        *
        ” You would rather fudge numbers and call people liars. Such a waste of space. ”

        I call you indeed a liar, Robertson, especially when you talk about scientists like Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace etc etc – and laymen like… me.

      • Bindidon says:

        Dachshund Eben

        ” All that anclebiting Bindidog does is reposting old numbers everybody already has and acts like he discovered something… ”

        Show us what you exactly mean, Dachshund, instead of cowardly insinuating.

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      You wrote –

      “People like Robertson are incompetent boasters unable to technically contradict the data shown above, hence polemically discredit it.”

      Historical weather observations are a matter of record.

      Are you trying to say something useful? Does your analysis of the data reveal anything that a competent 12 year old cannot?

      I suppose you believe in something, but you seem to be keeping it secret. Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.

      • Bindidon says:

        And as always, Flynnson can’t escape his boring blah blah.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        You wrote

        “People like Robertson are incompetent boasters unable to technically contradict the data shown above, hence polemically discredit it.”

        Historical weather observations are a matter of record.

        Are you trying to say something useful? Does your analysis of the data reveal anything that a competent 12 year old cannot?

        I suppose you believe in something, but you seem to be keeping it secret. Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.

        Writing “And as always, Flynnson cant escape his boring blah blah.” just demonstrates your level of competence.

      • Eben says:

        All that anclebiting Bindidog does is reposting old numbers everybody already has and acts like he discovered something
        Only once in a great while he makes a prediction like this, that’s the posts you save to embarrass him later

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1660007

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        “Ancle”??

        Trump university?

    • Bindidon says:

      Dachshund Eben

      There is only ONE little, aggressive and impolite ankle-biting boy, and that’s YOU and nobody else.

      Your incompetence and lack of any technical skills are best show by your recent, genial outputs:

      https://postimg.cc/HcK8tPhT

      https://postimg.cc/47qCx3rp

      All stuff of absolutely outstanding quality :–)

      • Swenson says:

        “There is only ONE little, aggressive and impolite ankle-biting boy, and thats YOU and nobody else.”

        Bindidon, please stop tro‌lling.

  30. Gordon Robertson says:

    Advice from Newton…

    “Truth is the offspring of silence and meditation. I keep the subject constantly before me and wait ’till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, into a full and clear light”.

    • Bindidon says:

      This is EXACTLY what YOU never managed to do.

      Newton was a genius: EXACTLY the contrary of what YOU are.

      • Swenson says:

        “This is EXACTLY what YOU never managed to do.”

        Bindidon, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” Bindidon, please stop tro‌lling. ”

        Zu Befehl, Obersturmbannführer Flynnsohn!

      • Swenson says:

        “Zu Befehl, Obersturmbannfhrer Flynnsohn!”

        Bindidon, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Said by Binny, who has not the slightest idea what Newton was talking about.

        Einstein must have had a similar problem to Binny. Although he claimed something similar to Newton re problem solving, he completely missed the fact that time does not exist.

        Newton must have been aware of the problem of time. He built sundials and must have realized time on a sundial is totally dependent on the rotation of the Earth on it axis wrt the Sun. He even tweaked his sundials to allow for the Sun appearing to be lower in the southern sky in winter.

        In the days of Newton, clocks were few and far between and locals in smaller towns had to rely solely on the Sun to determine time of day.

        There is no doubt in my mind that Newton was a superior scientist to Einstein who dabbled mainly in thought experiments. Newtonian physics still prevails today even though Einstein groupies have anointed their authority figure as the new Newton. The truth is, we need Newtonian physics whereas Einsteinian physics has no real application. Einstein himself admitted as much.

  31. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    12,000 years ago, the Ice Age ended. The angle of the Earth’s inclination to the perpendicular to the ecliptic then increased and reached a maximum about 9 thousand years ago. Since 8 thousand years Neolithic farmers from Anatolia colonized Europe (as confirmed by genetic studies). Now the angle of inclination is decreasing and is in mid-decline. In about 8 thousand years, another ice age is inevitable. Due to the constant density of the troposphere (with spikes in water vapor during El Nino periods) and the accumulation of heat in the oceans, large global temperature changes cannot take place. A long-term decline in solar activity will cause significant changes in ozone production and distribution, which will significantly change the winter circulation due to the weakening of the polar vortex in the Northern Hemisphere.
    “Recent advances in archaeogenetics have confirmed that the spread of agriculture from the Middle East to Europe was strongly correlated with the migration of early farmers from Anatolia about 9,000 years ago, and was not just a cultural exchange.”

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Although this stuff is interesting, what is the relevance of this in relation to what is happening now?

      BTW – the other main factor in determining the onset of GLACIAL PERIODS (not ice ages) is the orbital eccentricity. It is still 5000 years from reaching its most circular orbit, which is the LEAST conducive part of its phase for cooling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      So, the Earth is like a spinning top that can vary its axis as it spins? Also, its orbit can vary. Both would certainly explain ice ages.

      It’s unlikely that would explain the more recent Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age which happened almost back to back in a relative sense. I have often wondered if there is not something more in the universe we don’t know about, like some sort of fine debris or gases, that we pass through as part of the galaxy, tat effectively reduce solar input in the short term.

    • barry says:

      “In about 8 thousand years, another ice age is inevitable.”

      Probably not.

      “Based on orbital models, the cooling trend initiated about 6,000 years ago will continue for another 23,000 years.[40] Slight changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters may, however, indicate that, even without any human contribution, there will not be another glacial period for the next 50,000 years.[41] It is possible that the current cooling trend might be interrupted by an interstadial phase (a warmer period) in about 60,000 years, with the next glacial maximum reached only in about 100,000 years.[42]”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation#Next_glacial_period

    • barry says:

      ‘It’s unlikely that would explain the more recent Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age which happened almost back to back in a relative sense. I have often wondered if there is not something more in the universe we dont know about, like some sort of fine debris or gases, that we pass through as part of the galaxy, tat effectively reduce solar input in the short term.”

      Have you ever considered using the search function on your computer to find out if anyone has investigated the causes of the MWP and LIA?

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      barry, please stop trolling.

  32. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Effects of apsidal precession on the seasons with the eccentricity and ap/peri-helion in the orbit exaggerated for ease of viewing. The seasons shown are in the northern hemisphere and the seasons will be reverse in the southern hemisphere at any given time during orbit. Some climatic effects follow chiefly due to the prevalence of more oceans in the Southern Hemisphere.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Precession_and_seasons.svg/800px-Precession_and_seasons.svg.png
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession#/media/File:Precession_and_seasons.svg

  33. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Current temperatures in Antarctica.
    https://i.ibb.co/NSwkBVn/ventusky-temperature-2m-20240405t2100.jpg

  34. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    “More than 334,500 customers are without power in Maine as a spring nor’easter dumps several inches of heavy, wet snow, knocking over trees and power lines.”

    • Bindidon says:

      Palmowski

      Have you ever been to the USA?

      Everywhere from the East Coast to the West Coast power lines look like they did in Germany in the late 1950s.

      So it’s no wonder that every really bad snowstorm slashes them down.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Is this to be taken in the same way as your claim from 12 months ago that there is no chance of an El Nino this year?

      • Swenson says:

        Antonin Qwerty, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Is this the best AQ has to offer re Ren’s comment, digging up dirt from a year ago?

      • RLH says:

        AQ: Are you saying that you agree with Ren (for this year at least)?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        RLH

        HUH?? Ren said there was no chance of an El Nino for 23/24, yet we had a strong El Nino. In what sense can that be interpreted as me agreeing with ren?

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        It was a simple question. Maybe you could try answering it.

        Or is actually providing information not in the fanatical GHE cultist playbook?

        You neither agree, nor disagree? Just whine continuously about everything?

        Keep it up – it’s good for laughs.

    • RLH says:

      AQ: Are you saying that you agree with Ren (for this year at least) for California?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Perhaps you would care to cite anything I said which would suggest that I agree with him.

      • RLH says:

        Do you agree that what he is saying for California and drought (or lack of) is indeed fact?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        I have not said that I agree or disagree.
        Now answer my question.

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        You wrote –

        “I have not said that I agree or disagree.”

        Exactly so – you never really say anything, do you? Just continually whine and complain.

        Go on, find a description of the GHE, and tell everyone that you agree with it. How hard can it be? Too hard for you, I surmise!

        Go on, scuttle away like a cockroach, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anything and everything!

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny….”I dont need to be in Vancouver to see how cold it has been on Jan 12/13/14: all I have to do is to download the GHCN daily Vancouver station data newer than my last generation”.

    ***

    This confirms your blatant ignorance. I outlined in an earlier post how much temperatures can vary in the Vancouver area over a few miles. You, like a typical bean-counter, rely on statistical analysis from fudged data, whereas I actually live here and have to endure the inordinate cold for a planet that is supposedly warming.

    Even today, in early April, it’s too cold indoors to feel comfortable without some supplementary heat. Of course, people in other parts of the world who must suffer such conditions without supplementary heat would likely find I ‘doth protest too much’.

    At sea level, where the temperatures are recorded at YVR, the thermometers are in a box, protected from the elements. I worked a night shift at the airport once when the temps were near zero. I could not warm, even though I had multiple layers of clothing and covered in waterproof gear. My job at the time was observing data points therefore the lack of activity produced cold that cut to the bone. Yet your data sheets would reveal a temperature that you think should be comfy.

    YVR is located between two arms of the Fraser River, in the delta, where the river meets the ocean. The dampness in winter offers another level of misery for those outside. That flies in the face of the alarmist theory that WV produces warming. It might help in the Tropics but at the latitude of Vancouver in winter, it has the opposite effect.

    I have done night shifts, outside, in the Alberta Tar Sands when it was -25C. I was able to dress against that cold, even when stationary, but there is something about damp air at 0C that sucks the heat right out of you, even when fully clothed in a similar manner.

    In the Vancouver vicinity, we call the Lower Mainland, elevation can vary from 600 to 1000 feet above sea level. The temperature at one of those altitudes can be several degrees lower than at sea level but that is never recorded for GHCN. The local mountain are cold enough to produce volumes of snow when it is raining at sea level.

    In essence, you can take GHCN and shove it. It has no meaning for those living locally.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson

      ” This confirms your blatant ignorance. I outlined in an earlier post how much temperatures can vary in the Vancouver area over a few miles. You, like a typical bean-counter, rely on statistical analysis from fudged data, whereas I actually live here and have to endure the inordinate cold for a planet that is supposedly warming. ”

      No data I present is fudged. You are no more than an incompetent, lying boaster.

      And I repeat: your gut feeling matters to you way more than measured data. We all have to do with colder periods, but don’t misrepresent them to doubt any warming around us like you do all the time.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson (cntnd)

      I suddenly recall your utter nonsense about only UAH data being worth mentioned and used while all surface data isn’t.

      But apparently, this is ‘by accident’ not true for your imagined Vancouver corner in which a little, one week long cold snap automatically supersedes years of warming:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HVI6cFMxkr6V838aPv5FVYbnhluNwE8M/view

      It seems to (not only) me that for people like you, UAH is only good if it shown sufficiently away from the ‘fudged’ surface data.

      Otherwise, the comparison is de facto ‘faked’.

      That’s why I name you an arrogant ignoramus, able only to polemically discredit what you not able to technically contradict.

      Never have you ever been an engineer, Robertson!

    • Matter says:

      I also live in Vancouver and you are very wrong. This was a super warm year, even the ski fields had to close for a month in the middle of winter. The snowpack is in the lowest 5% of records. Why make up a cold winter here when it’s so easy to dispute?

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    aq…”Accuweather, a site run by a denier, shows one noticeable cold snap in Vancouver that lasted for about a week in January”.

    ***

    A cold snap in Vancouver is when temps are consistently below 0C for a few days to a couple of weeks. In January we approached a record cold day that neared the record set in 1968. Of course, one must take into account the change in altitude in the Vancouver area that can reach 600 feet in the adjacent city of Burnaby. In North and West Vancouver, across the Burrard Inlet, and on the flanks of 4000 foot mountains, altitude can vary even more.

    For whatever reason, besides the cold snaps, which are produced by Arctic air descending from up-North, it was inordinately damp and cold from late October onward. We’ve had very mild winters where it barely snowed at all and I would expect in a warming climate to have more such winters. However, the opposite is happening.

    Putting that in perspective, we live in the banana belt of Canada. Warmer ocean current and wind emanating in the Tropics keep our temperatures mild compared to the interior of Canada, just like the Gulf Stream warms Europe. However, when temperatures drop to 0C or below, it gets pretty miserable around here, mainly due to the damp air. But let’s not kid ourselves, it still feels cold in the Canadian Prairies at 0C, but damp air makes it feel different, especially when it’s overcast and there is no Sun to warm oneself.

    When it drops to -15C, an otherwise mild day in some parts of Canada, it can prove seriously debilitating around here. That’s what is meant, in general, by a cold snap. We endure 0C every winter but that is not considered a cold nap.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      “For whatever reason, besides the cold snaps, which are produced by Arctic air descending from up-North, it was inordinately damp and cold from late October onward.”

      That is precisely what El Nino generally does to the North American western seaboard.

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        Precisely – yet generally?

        El Nino is just an apparent set of numbers. It “does” nothing.

        Are you one of those fanatical GHE believers who can’t even describe the GHE?

        You are a bit detached from reality, aren’t you?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        EN generally produces flooding in our neck of the woods, around November, and flooding needs warmer weather.

  37. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Willard wrote –

    “Mike Flynn,

    Vintage 2019:

    Mik.e Flynn says:
    September 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM

    Roy,

    This was supposed to go elsewhere. I assume you have banned me, but I had already typed it up.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226

    What are you braying about?”

    What a strange person Willard is!

    Posting the same bizarre comment, over and over, for no reason at all! Apart from Willard being an obsessive nutter, of course.

    It takes all sorts, I suppose.

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn,

      Speaking of posting the same bizarre comment, over and over, for no reason at all:

      Mike Flynn says:

      September 13, 2019 at 7:53 PM

      [Puffman],

      Spot on.

      [Mike Flynn, you are free to believe in what you want. But my many posts on this subject have obviously been ignored by you. Start your own blog. -Roy]

      The pseudoscientific GHE true believers deny that temperatures drop at night, or in winter…

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873

      Do you still believe that the Earth lets energy “flow” freely to space?

    • Swenson says:

      Wee Willy Wanker.

      You wrote –

      “Mike Flynn,

      Speaking of posting the same bizarre comment, over and over, for no reason at all:

      Mike Flynn says:

      September 13, 2019 at 7:53 PM

      [Puffman],

      Spot on.

      [Mike Flynn, you are free to believe in what you want. But my many posts on this subject have obviously been ignored by you. Start your own blog. -Roy]

      The pseudoscientific GHE true believers deny that temperatures drop at night, or in winter

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873

      Do you still believe that the Earth lets energy “flow” freely to space?”

      What do you mean by your silly gotcha “Do you still believe that the Earth lets energy “flow” freely to space?”?

      Possibly you don’t realise that “the Earth” has no power over the amount of energy radiated by matter as a consequence of its temperature.

      Or are you rejecting reality – claiming that the surface does not cool at night? Or maybe you refuse to believe that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and continues to do so?

      Of course, your eminently bizarre description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” gives some indication of your degree of mental impairment. I am not surprised that you are obsessed with “Mike Flynn”, although if you claim he has been “banned”, I can’t really see what you are worried about. I am obviously still commenting, so I am obviously not “Mike Flynn” ie not “banned”. If this upsets you, maybe you should contact Dr Spencer and complain bitterly. You really don’t seem to have any other option, do you?

      Some might describe you as incompetent, inept, and impotent, but not me! I wouldn’t be nearly that complimentary.

      Off you go Willard – don some sackcloth and ashes, do your teeth-gnashing exercises, poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle! Good luck!

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn,

      You say –

      “your eminently bizarre description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling””

      Here it is:

      Mike Flynn says:
      April 13, 2015 at 12:24 AM

      Tim,

      Reduce the rate at which a hot teapot loses heat by putting a tea cosy on the pot. The temperature does not rise.

      Reduce the rate at which the Earth loses heat by surrounding it with an insulating layer of gas. The temperature does not rise.

      Shine the Sun on the Earth, the temperature rises, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere. Turn the Sun off, (night), and the temperature falls, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere.

      Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me. Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly?

      I believe the Earth has cooled. I believe geophysicists agree with me. Have you any evidence to the contrary?

      Mike Flynn.

      https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe

      Do you realize that you’re making the same comments as ten years ago, silly sock puppet?

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy,

        Mike Flynn apparently wrote –

        “Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me. Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly?”

        I agree. Why you continuously appeal to the authority of Mike Flynn, when he points out that slow cooling does not result in an increase in temperature, is completely beyond me!

        Mike Flynn apparently also wrote “I believe the Earth has cooled. I believe geophysicists agree with me. Have you any evidence to the contrary?”

        Why do you quote him? Do you really agree that the Earth has cooled? You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. No mention of heating, is there?

        Are you a complete idi‌ot, or trying to achieve that status?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You still pretend not being Mike Flynn.

        Yet you still post his same bizarre comments, over and over, for no reason at all:

        Why is that?

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        Weird Wee Willy,

        You claim (for no particular reason), that I am really someone else.

        So why are you appealing to my authority, when I state categorically that the GHE does not exist? I wouldn’t be surprised if Mike Flynn has exactly the same view. How about you quote him saying that the GHE is non-existent?

        Mike Flynn apparently posed the gotcha “Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly?”, which you claim is somehow the “description” of something which is not even mentioned by Mike Flynn!

        Are you quite mad? Have you lost your grip on reality completely?

        You don’t have to answer – that was a rhetorical pair of questions.

        Go on, try and be offensive while I laugh at your pat‌hetic efforts!

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        For every single of your bizarre talking points, I can find similar examples either in this blog’s past or Judy’s.

        You repeated them over and over, for no reason at all.

        I thought you were against that.

        Tsk tsk.

        Cheers!

      • Swenson says:

        Weird Wee Willy,

        You claim (for no particular reason), that I am really someone else.

        So why are you appealing to my authority, when I state categorically that the GHE does not exist? I wouldnt be surprised if Mike Flynn has exactly the same view. How about you quote him saying that the GHE is non-existent?

        Mike Flynn apparently posed the gotcha “Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly?”, which you claim is somehow the “description” of something which is not even mentioned by Mike Flynn!

        Are you quite mad? Have you lost your grip on reality completely?

        You dont have to answer that was a rhetorical pair of questions.

        Go on, try and be offensive while I laugh at your pat‌hetic efforts!

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Speaking of bizarre talking points you keep repeating, bedouins:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1660463

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        “Speaking of bizarre talking points you keep repeating, bedouins:”

        Whose facts are you not disputing?

        Just whining “silly sock puppet” wont help you, you know!

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Why are you trying to deflect from the fact that you keep repeating the same weird talking points for more than a decade now?

        Silly sock puppet.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  38. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Antarctic temperatures near the surface.
    https://i.ibb.co/88316Nx/ventusky-temperature-5cm-20240405t0700.jpg

    • Bindidon says:

      AYM00089606 ___VOSTOK_____________________ 2019 4 5 -74.5
      AYM00089606 ___VOSTOK_____________________ 2013 4 5 -72.2
      AYM00089606 ___VOSTOK_____________________ 2009 4 5 -71.1
      AYM00089606 ___VOSTOK_____________________ 2006 4 5 -70.0
      AYM00089606 ___VOSTOK_____________________ 2014 4 5 -69.0

      It’s April now, and thus getting colder in the Antarctic; but it is a fact too that all 10 coldest April 5 happened during the last 25 years.

      This blog’s Coolistas will be happy.

  39. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…re the claim by Aksofu that we are re-warmig from the LIA at 0.5C/century…

    ***

    I don’t rely on alarmists to backup their claims with references. It is easy enough to find Akasofu’s papers on that, unless one is in such deep denial, one is too afraid to look.

    The evidence for the LIA is both proxy-based and anecdotal. If it was just one source claiming…”Cripey, it was cold in the late 1700s”, that would be one thing. However, there is a plethora of anecdotal evidence that something was afoot between 1300 and 1850.

    Anecdotal evidence has revealed that the Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps increased its extent to the point it wiped out long established farms and villages in its path. The IPCC would have us accept their pseudo-science that such an extreme growth of a glacier during the LIA was a fluke common only to Europe.

    Maybe you could explain how that could happen only in Europe and nowhere else in the world.

    There is all sorts of anecdotal evidence much of it from explorers in the Arctic between 1600 and 1850, looking for the NW Passage. Other adventurers in North America noted starvation in the same era due to crop failure.

    • E. Swanson says:

      When brought to question, Gordo waffles away from an answer again.

      To be sure, there is lots of evidence of cold periods, such as that of the 17th century, which may have been evidence of the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715 and the weaker the Dalton Minimum from about 1790 to 1830(?). And, it’s well known that the Year Without a Summer was the result of the Tambora eruption added to other big ones at about the same time . The problem is, where are such effects in 1850 and why would the temperature still be recovering after 1850?

      • Clint R says:

        “…where are such effects in 1850 and why would the temperature still be recovering after 1850?”

        E. Swanson, research the growth of the ice cream industry. As ice cream production increased, so did global temperatures. There is direct correlation between the amount of ice cream being made, and rising temperatures. You can’t deny the hockey stick curve.

        The science is settled because it is well known that ice can boil water….

        (Sarc off)

      • Bindidon says:

        And here is my usual LIA volcano eruption list, starting in 1257 with one of the heaviest ones since about 10,000 years:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bh7NjyY970aHBuPn0xD2XP9cdogzvn2E/view

        The comparison between Samalas and Tambora is interesting:

        https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.1307520110/asset/4124ff30-3cbb-426e-84d4-35874b24c454/assets/graphic/pnas.1307520110fig03.jpeg

        And between all these VEI 7-6-5 individuals, over 30 eruptions with VEI 3-4.

        *
        Ignoramuses a la Robertson ‘think’ (!!!) that the effect of such eruptions vanishes after 2 years or so… plus ignorant que lui, tu meurs.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Maunder and Dalton were peaks of low temperatures.

        According to your figures, the Maunder lasted for 70 years and Dalton 40 years. Show me evidence of any volcanic activity that has persisted more than a few years. Krakatoa was arguably the worst volcanic explosion in that era, coming in 1883, and there is no indication that it caused long-term cooling like the Maunder and Dalton minima.

        it’s true that the LIA had two major peaks but something drove the Vikings out of southern Greenland, after they had enjoyed sufficient warming in the Medieval Warm Period to farm in Greenland. It got so cold they did not fare well on the Mainland, nor did aboriginals as far south as modern day Texas and Florida.

        Theory goes that the Vikings inhabited Greenland from about 950 AD to 1450 AD. To see what they face with cooling temperatures, there was a famine in the Scottish Highland circa 1790, at the peak of the Dalton minimum. There is also evidence of famine in North America during th LIA and that would have been after 1600 AD.

        My point has been that the IPCC has stifled such information, as claimed by Akasofu, who claimed they erred by not taking into account the cooling caused by the LIA.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…why have volcanic eruptions not caused major cooling issues in the modern era? The most recent warmed the climate.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson

        ” binny… why have volcanic eruptions not caused major cooling issues in the modern era? ”

        Can’t you read the eruption list above?

        When did we see ‘in the modern era’ such an incredible sequence of VEI 5/6/7 eruptions?

        Tambora (1815) was the heaviest one in the last 3 centuries, but it was a single event, and according to ice core evaluations far weaker than Samalas (1257).

        *
        ” The most recent warmed the climate. ”

        How many underwater eruptions did we have in the last 5,000 years, compared to the ones at land surface?

        Look for the number, instead of guessing.

      • E. Swansn says:

        Gordo re-writes history, claiming that the Dalton Minimum “peaked” in 1790, when that was just the beginning of a relatively weak period for Sunspots, not a near absence, as during the Maunder Minimum. He also ignores the effects of several volcanoes, most particularly, Tambora, which contributed to cooler conditions.

        His further comments regarding the Greenland Norse ignores decades of effort to determine what happened to them. We know that there were two main settlements, the main one to the south and one on the western side of Greenland. The Western Settlement vanished some time before the Eastern one, which may have been related to the 1258 volcanic event, which had a large sulfate spike found in the ice core record. The later 1452-54 eruption had an even larger spike.

        We know that the Norse farming practices were similar to those of Iceland and Norway, focused on animals as well as crops for food. Pollen studies have revealed that over time, those practices changed in ways which indicated a reduction in trees. One can see this in photos even today, as there are almost no trees in the area of the Eastern Settlement. Given the harsh winters, without trees for fuel, what would one expect to happen? there’s also the problem of the Plague, which arrived in Iceland around 1402-04, killing perhaps 1/2 the population.

        Here’s two recent news article:
        https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/world/why-vikings-left-greenland-scn/index.html

        https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-did-the-vikings-abandon-their-most-successful-settlement-in-greenland-180979884/

    • E. Swanson says:

      Thanks for the list Bindidon. Those large eruptions surely had an impact, which, added to the effects of the Maunder Minimum, could have produced the unusual cold.

      While looking at the recent Wikipedia posts, I found that my previous understanding of the events around 1454 was likely incorrect. I had read Dr Kevin Pang’s compilation of the large eruption back then, which he claimed to be from a single event. It appears now that there may have been 2 separate events:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1452/1453_mystery_eruption
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1458_mystery_eruption

      One point to remember is that the longer term effects over several years are the result of SO2 being lofted into the stratosphere. That depends on the intensity of the eruption and the relative abundance if SO2 in the magma. HERE’s a report from 2008 which provides much detail of the understanding at that time. I only read the first few sections, down to about Figure 2, which shows the dramatic spike in the ice cores dated at 1259.

      • Bindidon says:

        Thanks in turn for the 2008 paper – I didn’t see anywhere until now.

        And I see of course that the list I compiled lacks the 1458 eruption.

        *
        The Samalas vs. Tambora comparison I found in

        https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1307520110

        *
        And what people a la Robertson always polemically discredit – of course without being in the least able to technically contradicting it:

        Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks

        Gifford H. Miller & al. (2012)

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        From your link –

        “We completed a 550-year transient experiment (11501700 AD) using Community Climate System Model 3”.

        No, that’s not an experiment. That’s an exercise in wishful thinking, based on a programs written by people who believe in a mythical GHE.

        Playing computer games might be fun, but it does not replace the scientific method.

        Keep dreaming.

      • Bindidon says:

        As always, Flynnson is tr0lling the discussion away, by superficially discrediting an article on the base of a single paragraph.

        People like Flynnson distillate doubt everywhere, instead of trying to contribute.

        How ridiculous!

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        You wrote –

        “As always, Flynnson is tr0lling the discussion away, by superficially discrediting an article on the base of a single paragraph.”

        Go on, tell me that you are silly enough to believe the rest of the article contains no errors!

        One error is enough, don’t you think?

        How many do you think I should point out for your benefit? Maybe you should actually read your references. Posting links which contain obvious errors, and hoping nobody will notice, just makes you look silly.

        Carry on.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Bindi, I periodically check in on the USGS earthquake site for the latest events. They list even small quakes for the US, but only larger ones for other areas. The fun thing is that one can often zoom in to high resolution for some locations. Try that with this satellite picture of Samalas and Tambora, One can also switch to a map or terrain displays, for finding cities, etc, and there are side bars with options which can be selected using the icons in the upper RH side of the screen. Hope this works.

    • barry says:

      “I don’t rely on alarmists to backup their claims with references.”

      The irony is a howler.

  40. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Temperatures in Maine will now drop below 0 C.
    https://i.ibb.co/7gK1VsD/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-04-05-115734.png

  41. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    While most of Europe anticipates a warm weekend, Northern Europe faces unusual cold, with temperatures up to 20 C below the early April average, dropping to -30 C this morning. See temperature anomaly map.
    https://www.ventusky.com/?p=65.2;34.3;4&l=temperature-anomaly-2m&t=20240405/03&src=link

  42. Eben says:

    A year ago I made a post the sun would go more or less sideways for the next two years , It’s one year later, How am I doing so far ?

    https://tinyurl.com/ycx739pa

  43. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    An unusually cold April low-pressure system moved across the Bay Area on Thursday, dropping snow down to 1,500 feet and hail to the coast and valleys. On Friday, the storm will continue to move south, popping thunderstorms up between San Jose and San Diego, with accumulating snow as low as 3,000 feet.

    High temperatures will be as much as 20 degrees below normal in Southern California, in the 50s at the coast and 30s in the mountains. In the Bay Area, Friday will be slightly warmer than Thursday, but highs will still be 5 to 15 degrees below normal. Lows will drop to the 30s to lower 40s in the valleys and 20s in the mountains Friday night.

    https://www.sfchronicle.com/weather-forecast/article/california-snow-thunderstorms-19385973.php

  44. Bindidon says:

    No one doubts that the current solar cycle SC 25 is ‘going sideways’.

    But… why looking at SC 25 only?

    According to Wikipedia:

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

    Sc 23 started in August 1996, SC 24 in December 2008, and SC 25 in December 2019.

    A comparison of these three solar cycles by superposing them from their respective starting month and ending at month 51 (March 2024 for SC 25), gives this:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U-bwWcbOYe8ZNbL683kZHk1bhsWISxlj/view

    • gbaikie says:

      “A comparison of these three solar cycles by superposing them from their respective starting month and ending at month 51 (March 2024 for SC 25), gives this:”
      So on graph red line is 25 and 24 is blue line. {and green is 23}.

      I guessing red line won’t cross green line {ever}. And red line could cross blue, soon. In regards to the heavier lines {average} and thinner lines [daily].

      Anyone else making any guesses?

      • gbaikie says:

        Oh, “Soon” is less than 3 months.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” I guessing red line wont cross green line {ever}. ”

        100% OK.

        *
        ” And red line could cross blue, soon. ”

        I can’t agree because I think that SC 25 could possibly behave similarly to its two predecessors:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view

        As you can see, SC 24 and SC 23 have two pikes, each around month 65 i.e. in… 14 months.

        *
        ” In regards to the heavier lines {average} and thinner lines [daily]. ”

        No. The graphs above are based on monthly data.

        Here is the daily stuff:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CQoF9NsU9LaT4V9xWBxkO5HM8K6KjTtN/view

      • gbaikie says:

        “I cant agree because I think that SC 25 could possibly behave similarly to its two predecessors:”

        You think there will be something like a double peak. And maybe also second peak which is bigger.

        Which still allows, maybe, that we are in a solar grand min.

        I guessing it’s more dramatic, and it will, definitely, mean we in solar grand min.

        It would be a favored situation, I would like to find out, quicker, whether it’s a grand min or not.
        Or I am biased.

      • gbaikie says:

        –No. The graphs above are based on monthly data.

        Here is the daily stuff:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CQoF9NsU9LaT4V9xWBxkO5HM8K6KjTtN/view–

        Whatever you want to call it. In 3 months both fat and thin line will cross, is my guess.
        Or thin red line, has crossed. And going to do it again, but fat line will also.

      • Bindidon says:

        gbaikie

        Who – apart from Zharkova – is ‘predicting’ any Grand Solar Minimum?

        Who?

      • gbaikie says:

        –Bindidon says:
        April 6, 2024 at 3:43 AM

        gbaikie

        Who apart from Zharkova is predicting any Grand Solar Minimum?

        Who?–

        Let’s do what. What is grand solar maximum? And what is grand solar minimum.

        Do we agree that in 20th century there was a solar grand maximum. And there wasn’t a solar grand min.
        And that before 20th century there were solar grand minimums?

      • gbaikie says:

        If you agree there was a solar grand maximum in 20th century, it began at some point and will end at some point.

        It seems at this point in time that one could agree that perhaps the solar grand maximum has ended and at the moment one could say we neither in a solar grand max, nor solar grand min. And it possible in next several decade we could continue in neither a solar grand max nor solar grand min. Or we can return a solar grand max, or solar grand min.
        We can’t have started a solar grand maximum already, and we could have started solar grand maximum. Cycle 23 was a weak cycle but it could be weak cycle within solar grand max, but followed by Cycle 24 which was weaker, and followed by cycle 25, which might be around a 23 or 24, is long enough pause to allow one to say the 20th century solar grand max has ended.
        If cycle 26 is as strong as any cycle in the 20th century, it might mark the beginning of new solar grand max, but it will require a few more cycles before one could say. But you could say in ended a very short solar grand min.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Who apart from Zharkova is predicting any Grand Solar Minimum?”

        I thought I would google it:
        The Approaching New Grand Solar Minimum and Little Ice Age Climate Conditions
        Nils-Axel Mrner
        Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden.
        https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=61284

        “1. Introduction

        The solar activity exhibits a fairly regular alternation between solar maxima and solar minima (e.g. [1] [2] ). The grand solar minima known as the Sprer Minimum (ca 1440-1460), the Maunder Minimum (ca 1687-1703) and the Dalton Minimum (ca 1809-1821) are all well known, not least because they correspond quite well with cold periods known as Little Ice Ages”
        And:

        –2. The Claim of Priority

        With respect to all the authors having claimed that we are approaching a solar minimum and/or a new Little Ice Age [1] [2] [5] -[31] , there is hard, even meaningless, to try to identify a paper of priority (maybe [8] ). Apparently, several authors had the same idea based on a verity of different data; heliomagnetic cyclicity, atmospheric production of radionuclides, planetary beat, history and cyclicity of various terrestrial variables.

        What we can say, however, is that paper [25] by no means is a candidate for such a priority although this was claimed by media and some blogs [40] . There are many pioneer papers before that paper.”

        And “[25]” is:
        Shepherd, S.I., Zharkov, S.I. and Zharkova, V.V. (2014) Prediction of Solar Activity from Solar Background Magnetic Field Variations in Cycles 21-23. Astrophysics Journal, 795, 46.
        http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/46

        So, it doesn’t credit Zharkova, in terms of “Claim of Priority”.

      • gbaikie says:

        But in terms of precise, I imagine, Zharkova, could or does have a claim to Claim of Priority.

        Mainly because what she is saying is specific enough to be disproved.
        And as far as I know, it hasn’t happened, …yet.

  45. Eben says:

    Bindiclown doesn’t know why some cycles have double peaks, all he does he hopes for one. he will find out in time

    • Bindidon says:

      As usual from the ankle-biting dachshund: no arguments, no contradiction, no data: only superficial, discrediting, barking blah blah.

      How boring!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Translation. Binny cannot answer Eben’s point so he resorts to ad homs and insults.

        That’s boring, but it represents the entire alarmist/spinner approach to science.

      • barry says:

        There’s no point just denigration by assumption.

      • Swenson says:

        “Theres no point just denigration by assumption.”

        barry, please stop tro‌lling.

  46. Swenson says:

    “As usual from the ankle-biting dachshund: no arguments, no contradiction, no data: only superficial, discrediting, barking blah blah.”

    Bindidon, please stop tro‌lling.

  47. Gordon Robertson says:

    words of wisdom from Mike Flynn, who has not posted here for years…

    As posted by wee willy…”Reduce the rate at which a hot teapot loses heat by putting a tea cosy on the pot. The temperature does not rise.

    Reduce the rate at which the Earth loses heat by surrounding it with an insulating layer of gas. The temperature does not rise”.

    ***

    The point Mike was making is to the point, insulation dos not produce heat. It has no ability to produce heat, only to reduce the rate at which a heated body cools.

    We now know, thanks to Shula and the Pirani gauge, that radiation is not an effective means of cooling a surface. Shula explained it as the number of heat-scavenging molecules of air far out-numbering the equivalent number of photons emitted by the surface.

    That makes sense in a way. Surface atoms rid themselves of heat by radiating it away via electron transitions. There are only so many electrons involved at any one time whereas all air molecules touching the surface (10^27/m^2) can extract heat. It is the fact that cooling radiation is far slower at dissipating heat than the heating effect of solar energy, that an energy imbalance is created. That is the same for all planets, including the Moon.

    The so-called GHE is produced, in part, by the inability of radiation to rid the planet of heat as fast as it is put into the system via solar energy. I think the fact that conduction/convection can dissipate heat within the system plays a major part.

    • Willard says:

      > who has not posted here for years

      Mr. Asshat’s lies are shining through:

      Swenson says:
      November 21, 2022 at 7:38 PM

      I disagree somewhat with Dr Spencer, but for different reasons.

      Thermal conductivity may be irrelevant silver is exceptionally conductive, but a highly polished silver teapot will keep your tea hotter than one made of pottery which will be far less conductive.

      Colour may be unimportant the study, called Why Do Bedouins Wear Black Robes in Hot Deserts?, was published in the journal Nature in 1980.

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1399111

      “Somewhat” is an interesting way to put it. He denies the greenhouse effect. Silly sock puppet!

    • Swenson says:

      Willard appeals to my authority again. What a perspicacious fellow! He wrote –

      “Swenson says:
      November 21, 2022 at 7:38 PM

      I disagree somewhat with Dr Spencer, but for different reasons.

      Thermal conductivity may be irrelevant silver is exceptionally conductive, but a highly polished silver teapot will keep your tea hotter than one made of pottery which will be far less conductive.

      Colour may be unimportant the study, called Why Do Bedouins Wear Black Robes in Hot Deserts?, was published in the journal Nature in 1980.”

      I obviously agree, don’t I – seeing as how I wrote it! Even Willard agrees – and quotes me, because he cannot find to disagree about! Once again, perspicacious fellow! Obviously, he also disagrees with Dr Spencer, but is too gutless to say so. No problem, Willard. Keep quoting me, and appealing to my authority. You obviously rate my opinions highly.

      Keep it up.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You keep using the expression “appeal to authority”:

        March 28, 2018 at 1:28 AM

        Mike Flynn says:

        “Why do Bedouins wear black robes in hot deserts?” from Nature, indicates the nature (pardon the pun) of Davids attempt to bend nature (another pun) to his will.

        It might not mean what you make it mean.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Weepy Wee Willy,

        Thanks for quoting Mike Flynn. You wrote –

        “Mike Flynn says:

        “Why do Bedouins wear black robes in hot deserts?” from Nature, indicates the nature (pardon the pun) of Davids attempt to bend nature (another pun) to his will.”

        I believe that he referred to an article in a prestigious scientific journal, with which you disagree, although you decline to say why.

        Maybe you should read the article, and explain why it doesnt mean what you think it means.

        Or just accept the reality that the GHE doesn’t exist. Nobody can even describe the mythical phenomenon! Your wit‌less attempt at a description – “not cooling, slower cooling” is ridicu‌lously laughable!

        Carry on demonstrating your obvious men‌tal impa‌irment.

        [laughing at di‌m GHE believer]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Why do you keep denying being Mike Flynn out of a sudden –

        Because even you cannot deny the overwhelming evidence anymore?

        Silly sock puppet.

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy,

        You burbled –

        “Why do you keep denying being Mike Flynn out of a sudden ”

        Learn English and accept reality if you feel like a change.

        Or just keep grinding your teeth because you can’t force me to use a pseudonym of your choosing! That shows that you are both incompetent and impotent, doesn’t it?

        Does that make you a laughing stock, or just a pat‌hetic object of derision?

        You tell me!

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “you cant force me to use a pseudonym of your choosing!”

        What are you braying about?

        You are free to keep using your most recent sock puppet, and I am free to laugh at your immature posturing!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “What are you braying about?”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

  48. Gordon Robertson says:

    ent…”Which is odd because the fudged surface data is all showing anomalies lower than UAH”.

    ***

    The meaning is clear, the fudgers have painted themselves into a corner from which they cannot extract themselves.

    I trust Roy and John from UAH. I cannot trust NOAA or GISS after the chicanery they have offered over the years. Both claimed 2014 as the hottest year ever with NOAA using a 48% likelihood they were telling the truth and GISS only a 38% likelihood. Why would any reputable agency report temperatures based o a probability it is true?

    The head of GISS, Gavin Schmidt, runs an uber-alarmist site, realclimate with his buddy Michael Mann. When Climategate revealed chicanery involving Mann, Schmidt defended him. He did not have to say anything but he posted on realcimate, defending Mann’s ‘trick’, that essentially hid declining temperatures in MBH (hockey stick).

    When the IPCC announced in 2013, that there had been no warming for 15 years from 1998 til 2012, NOAA retroactively changed the SST to show a warming.

    Why would anyone trust NOAA or GISS. And if you don’t trust UAH why are you posting here?

    • barry says:

      “Both claimed 2014 as the hottest year ever with NOAA using a 48% likelihood they were telling the truth and GISS only a 38% likelihood. Why would any reputable agency report temperatures based o a probability it is true?”

      When UAH reported that 2016 was the warmest year on record, they didn’t bother to include the fact that this was a probabilistic result. NOAA and GISS at least reported the odds.

      All the yearly averages have error bars. 2014, at the time, was the highest ranked anomaly for GISS and NOAA, and they added the probability of it being the warmest in the press release. 2014 had better odds than any other year of being the warmest – twice as likely as the next warmest year.

      I wonder why UAH didn’t report that 2016 had a 49% chance of being the warmest year, and just reported its ranking?

  49. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”Thats why I name you [GR] an arrogant ignoramus, able only to polemically discredit what you not able to technically contradict.

    ***

    Here we have a Frenchman, exiled to Germany, telling someone who lives in a location, experiencing the cold, that he is not feeling that cold, based on Binny’s analysis of fudged data.

    Christos recently reported how cold it was in Greece, near the Mediterranean. I suppose you will call him a liar too, based on your cretinous analysis of fudged data?

  50. Gordon Robertson says:

    We had Pliny the Elder, now we have Binny the Dumber.

    binny reveals his parochial views on life…

    “Palmowski

    Have you ever been to the USA?

    Everywhere from the East Coast to the West Coast power lines look like they did in Germany in the late 1950s.

    So its no wonder that every really bad snowstorm slashes them down”.

    ***

    The rest of us call Ren by his nickname, Ren, but Binny, for whatever reason, has to treat hims rudely, referring to him by his last name. Ren never bothers anyone and goes about his buisness, yet Binny the Dumber has to insult him out of principle.

    Once again, Binny has insight to the entire North American power grid from afar, in the country to which he has been exiled in Europe. He likely visited the US on a two weeks vacation and became an expert on power grids. More likely, he has never even been to the US.

    Our power lines in Canada are closer to the modern US power lines, not the antiquated power line of 1950s Germany, a country recovering from a brutal war from which they were trying desperately to recover in that era. In rural areas, that may be the case, but the average US power grid is modern and sophisticated.

    In certain parts of the country, suffering from ice storms, where the ice accumulates on power lines, the odd power line might fall. You won’t find that anywhere around the Vancouver area on the West Coast or further down the US through Washington, Portland and California. Also, ice accumulation on outdoor transformers can cause them to blow.

    Ice storms generally happen from the US Midwest eastward, and up into the eastern provinces of Canada. They are likely due to frigid Arctic air interacting with warmer air from the South. Also, rain needs to be produced in frigid temperatures and that requires warmer air mingling with frigid air.

    • Bindidon says:

      And Robertson the dumbie blathers and blathers and blathers.

      Everybody on Earth is perfectly aware of the fact that an incredible amount of the societal US infrastructure (telephone, current, train network, etc) is deprecated.

      But Robertson, as usual, invents what best fits his narrative, regardless what he writes about (Einstein, lunar spin, time, GPS etc etc etc).

      • Swenson says:

        “And Robertson the dumbie blathers and blathers and blathers.”

        Bindidon, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Let’s talk telephone systems. In the 1980’s, telecom companies in the US and Canada began moving way from relay-based Strowger switching systems. The Strowger system had a relay driven switch that could rotate and move vertically. That meant it could select 1 of 99 switch positions.

        By the 1990s, the mechanical systems had given way to electronic switching systems, (ESS), that has no moving parts. It used a semiconductor matrix to do what the 10 x 10 relay switching system did. Since then, speeds and reliability have increased due to the introduction of fibre optic systems.

        Recently, we had our TV cable box replaced and it is totally wifi operated. No cable required in homes, the signals are sent out from a central switch via wifi. The system is voice operated. Today, North America is state-of-the art

        With regard to current, what are you blethering about? You are one of those homers who sits at home and theorizes about other countries. Our power systems are also state-of-the-art.

        You dare to compare a dangerous European system based on a 240 volt residential system with a far safer 120 volt system usd i North America. We are light years ahead of Europe wrt electrical safety.

        Trains??? Who takes trains anymore? Why would you sit on a train for 3000 miles across Canada or the US when you could get there in 5 hours by plane?.

        It is unbelievable that you could become even more of an ijit than you have been.

  51. Tim S says:

    For those who missed Hansen’s latest published rant, he claims that he, and he alone, knows what is good for society. The models are wrong, the IPCC is wrong, and everyone else is wrong except him. He specifically calls out Michael Mann as being not radical enough, because he knows that “Mike” will not take it personally. He then goes on to blame Bill Clinton for killing nuclear power which he endorses as the only way to save humanity from the evil fossil fuel industry and their enablers, or something to that effect. It is all very amusing, but sad because some people will probably buy what he is selling.

    • Willard says:

      > he claims that he, and he alone, knows what is good for society

      [NARRATOR] No, he doesn’t.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      When Hansen predicted scenarios in 1988, which were catastrophic, and they failed to materialize 10 years later, he blamed his computer for the error. Jim is never wrong.

      I think it was Greta Thunberg who had predicted the end of the world by 2023. You have to wonder what drives these nitwits.

    • Nicholas McGinley says:

      Being anti-nuclear is one of the many reasons that warmistas are impossible to take seriously.

      • Willard says:

        Not double checking if their favorite Mike is anti-nuclear (he is not) is one of the reason why contrarians are an infinite source of derision.

      • Bindidon says:

        Nicholas McGinley

        1. How many nuclear plants would have been built if the companies responsible for them would have to pay total insurance for what happens to their plants upon a tsunami like in Fukushima?

        2. How many decommissioned nuclear plants have been completely dismantled worldwide, and the nuclear waste they produced during their lifetime (together with that from dismantling) was finally processed for subsequent VLTS (Very Long Time Securization)?

        3. Why are nearly everywhere on Earth all used fuel rods still stored in cooling basins, instead of being subject to final waste processing?

        4. Is it known to you that while ‘traditional’ nuclear fuel rods can be subject to final waste processing after a delay of 6-8 years, rods containing MOX (mixed oxydes, i.e. with about 8% Pu239) must be cooled during about 60 (sixty) years)?

        5. Do you too believe in the brazen fiction that 4th generation plants will ‘consume’ all the waste produced by the plants currently in use?

        6. Do you know anything about the French 4th generation plant Superphenix, which had to be abandoned due to permanent leakage problems in its primary cooling system, based on 5,500 tons of liquid sodium?

        *
        Every Coolista can name me a Warmista – no problem form me.
        But… I don’t want to live with my ‘Eyes Wide Shut’.

      • Tim S says:

        I will paraphrase a famous quote: The only thing you have to fear from nuclear power is fear itself. If just half the money spent on researching climate change was spent on breeder reactor development, we would already have it in use. People who fear radiation should not spend any time in a basement that is not well ventilated for Radon gas, and not spend too much time inside concrete structures.

        There are two basic problems. One is the need for standardized designs that are really expensive to design once, and then reasonably cost effective to build. The other problem is that breeder reactors produce weapons grade isotopes.

      • Willard says:

        I will simply quote myself:

        > Going nuclear means regulating the energy market for a long time.

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/going-nuclear/

        Freedom Fighters who pretend nukes are the solution are 25 years too late.

      • Swenson says:

        “I will simply quote myself:” says pretentious Willard.

        I will simply have a good laugh at Wee Willy Wanker, who lives in a fantasy world where he is wise, powerful and respected. Others might think differently of Willard.

      • Swenson says:

        Recent headline –

        “Michigan nuclear plant aims to be first ever to reopen in US.”

        Somebody, somewhere, seems to think spending $1.5 billion of taxpayers money is worthwhile.

        Money talks, bullshit walks?

        On the other, the Solyndra solar power loss of half a billion of taxpayer dollars has gone largely unnoticed, so three times that loss on nuclear should be fine.

        /sarc

        Who needs electricity anyway? Its production and use just ends up as waste heat, resulting in measurable anthropogenic global warming, and everybody knows how dangerous that is!

        /sarc off

        The future is unknowable.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Don’t be shy, quote properly –

        Palisades Power Plant shut down on May 20, 2022, after 50 years of generating low-carbon electricity. But the plants new owner thinks economic conditions have improved in the past few years and plans to reopen by the end of 2025.

        A successful restart would be a major milestone for the US nuclear fleet, and the reactors 800 megawatts of capacity could help inch the country closer to climate goals. But reopening isnt as simple as flipping on a light switchthere are technical, administrative, and regulatory hurdles ahead before Palisades can start operating again. Heres what it takes to reopen a nuclear power plant.

        https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/03/1090603/how-to-reopen-a-nuclear-power-plant

        800 MW may help, but it won’t solve climate change.

        There is no silver bullet.

      • Swenson says:

        Wit‌less Wee Willy,

        You seem to have become upset by me writing –

        Recent headline

        “Michigan nuclear plant aims to be first ever to reopen in US.”

        Somebody, somewhere, seems to think spending $1.5 billion of taxpayers money is worthwhile.

        Money talks, bullshit walks?

        On the other, the Solyndra solar power loss of half a billion of taxpayer dollars has gone largely unnoticed, so three times that loss on nuclear should be fine.

        /sarc

        Who needs electricity anyway? Its production and use just ends up as waste heat, resulting in measurable anthropogenic global warming, and everybody knows how dangerous that is!

        /sarc off

        The future is unknowable.

        You wrote “800 MW may help, but it wont solve climate change.”

        Are you completely brai‌nless? Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, and even a fanatical GHE cultists like you cannot deny that weather (and hence climate) never repeats – constantly changing.

        Solve climate change? About as delu‌sional as the dummies who wave placards saying “Stop Climate Change”! What a pack of reality denying nutters!

        Carry on rejecting reality.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Changing economic conditions have made continued operation too expensive to justify for many nuclear power plants, especially smaller ones. Those with a single, relatively small reactor, like Palisades, have been the most vulnerable.

        What are you braying about?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”I dont want to live with my Eyes Wide Shut”.

        ***

        Unfortunately, you are far too late.

        Re the Japanese nuclear meltdown, what kind of ijits would build a nuclear plant next to an ocean?

        The problem with nuclear waste is that we have not been around nuclear plants long enough to find a good way to dispose of them. The way we are wasting a gross amount of time pursuing pseudo-science, we’ll never get the chance to develop clean power.

        We have wasted nearly a century with nonsense science like Einstein’s relativity and an ijiotic focus on a trace gas. We are still entertaining nonsense like the Big Bang theory, black holes, and evolution theory. Rather than developing instrument to help us visualize atomic level processes, we rely on quantum theory, which has become a serious joke.

        People these days cannot understand a simple theory like the 2nd law of thermodynamics because ijits over the decades have perverted the meaning given to it by Clausius on the 1850s. The meaning should be intuitively clear to any one who has experienced heat. But then we have other ijit claiming heat does not exist as energy but is only a measure of energy transfer.

        Our governments and educational systems are out of control, and like Nero, we fiddle while Rome burns. Then we have ijits like Binny trying to prop up ridiculous theories.

      • Swenson says:

        “What are you braying about?”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • bobdroege says:

        There is a difference between the design of Fukishima and US built reactors of the same era.

        The diesel generators at the plant I worked at were surrounded by concrete walls three feet thick, not so at Fukishima.

        The tsunami would not have taken out the diesel generators if they were properly protected, such that a total loss of off-site power accident would not cause the problems that it did. Namely that the fuel cladding caught on fire and the rest of the mess.

  52. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The probability of a double solar maximum is low because a complete polarization swap has already occurred.
    https://i.ibb.co/Js7td04/Tilts.gif

    • Bindidon says:

      Where is a valuable source for your allegation? Your picture of course isn’t.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        You wrote –

        “Where is a valuable source for your allegation?”.

        Why do you want to know? If you have contradictory facts, just produce them.

      • Eben says:

        Bindidork reveals I was right about how clueless he is, doesn’t even take a hint from Ren

  53. Bindidon says:

    Robertson the arrogant ignoramus wrote his Einstein discrediting trash for the umpteenth time:

    ” There is no doubt in my mind that Newton was a superior scientist to Einstein who dabbled mainly in thought experiments. Newtonian physics still prevails today even though Einstein groupies have anointed their authority figure as the new Newton. The truth is, we need Newtonian physics whereas Einsteinian physics has no real application. Einstein himself admitted as much. ”

    *
    Using Newton’s formulae, it is impossible to obtain a correct value for the precession of Mercury’s perihelion.

    There exists indeed a non-relativistic correction, but it works only for mercury and doesn’t for Venus’ and Earth’s perihelion; Einstein’s formulae give in all cases the correct value.

    *
    GPS doesn’t work without accounting for general and special relativity.

    Only dumb contrarians try to tell it doesn’t need it, e.g.

    https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/top-4-reasons-why-gps-doesnt-need-einstein-s-relativity-895cabc6e619

    Another example of contrarianism:

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gps-systems-living-proof-time-dilation-phenomenon-dieu-le

    *
    Time dilation has been proven first in 1938 by the Yves-Stilwell experiment, and with much higher accuracy by several later experiments.

    *
    Poster gallopingcamel tried long time ago to explain to Robertson that when designing a synchrotron, you have to calculate the bending applied by magnets to electron streams and would utterly fail when using Newton’s formulae instead of Einstein’s:

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-320235

    *
    Robertson not only deliberately ignores all contradictions to his nonsense; he even resorts back to them by restarting his nonsense from scratch.

    So what!

  54. Swenson says:

    “You still havent done the Pole Dance Experiment, huh?”

    Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

  55. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”Using Newtons formulae, it is impossible to obtain a correct value for the precession of Mercurys perihelion.

    There exists indeed a non-relativistic correction, but it works only for mercury and doesnt for Venus and Earths perihelion; Einsteins formulae give in all cases the correct value”.

    ***

    Any mathematician or physicist, with a lick of sense, could work out the Mercury problem using Newtonian relativity theory. The precession is an issue because it varies slightly as the orbit of Mercury rotates.

    What you have here is nothing more than basic relative motion. Einstein’s theory, by his own admission, is that same theory altered to allow time to change dimension. That is the laughing point of the theory since time has no existence.

    Einstein’s relativity theory was stolen from Lorentz, however, he failed to note that the Lorentz theory about time dilating was a faux pas derived to make the Lorentz theory work. In fact, the Einstein theory of relativity is a scam based on a thought experiment gone wrong.


    “GPS doesnt work without accounting for general and special relativity”.

    Only dumb contrarians try to tell it doesnt need it, e.g.

    ***

    Actually, the the alleged contrarian offers the excellent point that clocks running at considerable altitude are affected by a reduced gravity and air density. They only run in the order of a billionth of a second differently. Both articles reveal that design engineers do not use relativity in the design of GPS units, therefore such a change in clock operation related to gravity has nothing to do with relativity..

    Based on my own experience, I know of no electronics components or equipment that can deal with time dilation. What timebase would be used as a reference point? You can set up a computer or a digital unit to measure pulses and add them to equal a second, but that second is derived from the Earth’s rotational period, not from a mysterious source called time.

    There is nothing in a GPS unit that relies on Einsteinian relativity.


    “Posterr gallopingcamel tried long time ago to explain to Robertson that when designing a synchrotron, you have to calculate the bending applied by magnets to electron streams and would utterly fail when using Newtons formulae instead of Einsteins:”

    ***

    Binny cherry-picks Cam’s reply. Anyone interested should read on at the said link.

    Cam was a good guy and a skeptic. Here’s what he said…

    “While building the Duke FEL (Free Electron Laser) in 1995 we used 40 bending magnets to create a closed orbit for 1 GeV electrons. If we believed Newtons F = ma the magnets would have been set at 5 Gauss.

    In order for our synchrotron to work the magnets were set to 10,000 Gauss as predicted by Einsteins General Theory of Relativity. How does one explain the need for magnets to be 2,000 times more powerful than Newtonian mechanics predicted?”

    ***

    For one, no one would use f = ma with an electron mass. However, my reply to Cam asked him if his experiment could possibly have reached an incorrect conclusion, where something else was acting to give the appearance of time dilation. I am not talking about something esoteric or unknwon. Eitein made the mistake of thinking ti is a real phenomenon. I think it is likely in Cam’s experiment that they mistook what they measured as fitting Einstein’s theory.

    He did nor reply to that directly and I will address what he said in another post. Clint tends to get frantic when I use too much of Roy’s blog space.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Here’s a later reply from Cam…

      “Einsteins GTR is really weird but it is simple compared to the QED (Quantum Electro-Dynamics) and the QFT (Quantum Field Theory) that apply at atomic scales. Let me have another crack at this.

      Imagine that the electron in orbit inside a circular synchrotron tube is a spaceship and you are a passenger on that spaceship. Lets assume you weigh 100 kgaccording to the people in the laboratory your mass is 200 tonnes.

      Meanwhile inside the spaceship everything is normal. Your weight still appears to be 100 kg so you can walk around as exactly as you could when the spaceship was at rest. Newtons F = ma appears to work in the spaceship reference frame.

      Back in the laboratory we can see you moving around without any problems except you are moving 2,000 times slower than we expect. Thus time has slowed down by a factor of 2,000 so that F = ma also seems to work in the laboratory reference frame”.

      ***

      This is not a shot at Cam, I liked him and he was a good representative for skepticism. As I recall, he got his nym ‘gallopingcamel’ from his rugby days when team mates reckoned he ran like a galloping camel. However, his reply above is an example of modern physics where some of it s based on equations and indirect science like quantum theory. It cannot be confirmed by experiment and any eperiments designed to prove it have either failed or had other explanation for them.

      Obviously, if I was on a spaceship and moving freely, and had a weight of 100 kg, my mass would need to be influenced by a force close to the gravitational force of Earth. However, if viewers on a lab back at Earth thought I was moving 2000 times too slowly compared to what they expected, there is something egregiously wrong with their minds.

      That is the problem with Einsteinian relativity, it has the problem of a distorted mind as observer. For one, Einstein believed time is the ‘hands on a clock’. That is seriously dumb, a clock is a machine that has nothing to do with time. All a clock does is reveal the position of the Earth relative to the Sun, and on its dial, it reveals what humans told it to reveal.

      Then Cam goes on…

      “I cant intuitively comprehend this any better than you can but the equations predict things that keep getting confirmed by observations”.

      ***

      So, the question I left with Cam is this, is it possible the observations have been interpreted incorrectly? He never answered that question.


      Then Cam wrapped it up…

      “There are doubts about Einsteins GRT. For example the precession of the perihelion of Mercury is not exactly what the GTR says it should be. Einstein himself was working on a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) and there are plenty of others following in his footsteps.

      All this stuff is real science because it can be reproduced and the results compared to theory. When you apply this approach to Climate Science you find that very little of it can properly be called Science. Dr. Roys work excepted of course!”

      ***

      Cam confirms that Binny’s opening statement re Mercury is bs.

    • RLH says:

      “Using Newtons formulae, it is impossible to obtain a correct value for the precession of Mercurys perihelion.”

      Does gravity travel at the speed of light? That alters what Newton calculated.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Apparently gravity travels faster than the speed of light. At least, as a field, it acts instantly. It takes 8 minutes for light to reach Earth from the Sun, but if there was such a delay in gravity, we’d be in trouble. One could also regard light as a field emanating from a mass, so is there really much difference re speeds?

        Besides, I am not defending Newton re Mercury, I have simply noted what Cam said about Einstein’s relativity not being able to predict it accurately either.

        The thing to me seems to be the unpredictable nature of the rotation of Mercury’s orbit. If the orbit is rotating as a plane, then precession seems to represent any wobble about the planar axis. I still think if it was predictable that Newton should be able to work it out.

        I don’t know if something has been added to the debate but when I studied the vagaries of the Mercury orbit in an astronomy class, the problem was strictly one of relative motion. Because we are moving in an orbital path relative to Mercury, there are times in its orbit when it ‘APPEARS’ to move backwards.

        I don’t see what is in Einstein’s theory that makes it so special in that respect. It merely compares the velocity of a mass to the speed of light, and using that ratio, it claims a change in time.

        Well gollee!! The related forumla is S = vt where s = distance traveled at a velocity, v, over a time, t. To make it work wrt to the speed of light, Lorentz and Einstein redefined time based on a ratio of mass velocity to light velocity.

        Bit of chicanery I’d say. I still don’t see what that has to do with Mercury’s orbit.

      • RLH says:

        “Apparently gravity travels faster than the speed of light. At least, as a field, it acts instantly.”

        Wrong!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…Richard thinks it is wrong that gravity acts faster than the speed of light but he seems lost for words. He offers one of his trite comments, as if anyone is listening.

        A gravitational field acts instantly but an EM field (light) takes 8 minutes from the time it is emitted from the Sun till it acts at the distance of Earth.

        No one knows what causes gravity and although we have a basic understanding of how light is produced, Richard seems to think he understands both. However, he is keeping it secret, likely afraid of making a fuhl of himself.

        The solution to that is simple, drop the dependence on images. If you have an image that you are important, an inordinate amount of time is spent defending that image.

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        You wrote –

        “Wrong!”

        Are you just appealing to your own dubious authority, or intentionally trying to hide your knowledge?

        Maybe you could flesh out your answer a bit, and help to educate others?

      • RLH says:

        “Richard thinks it is wrong that gravity acts faster than the speed of light”

        It is. the speed of gravity is well established as being at the speed of light. Where do gravity waves which have been measured come from?

      • Swenson says:

        “Where do gravity waves which have been measured come from?”

        There seem to be differences of opinion whether gravity waves have even been detected or not. Your belief that gravity waves exist, have been measured, and their speed determined, might be more wishful thinking than fact.

        Time will no doubt tell.

  56. gbaikie says:

    Musk outlines plans to increase Starship launch rate and performance
    Jeff Foust April 6, 2024
    https://spacenews.com/musk-outlines-plans-to-increase-starship-launch-rate-and-performance/

    200,000 kg to LEO. 200 tons to Mars surface. Ice Mining. Nuclear power on Mars. $2,000,000 cost to launch 200,000 kg to LEO

    • gbaikie says:

      I have thought of shipping nuclear waste to our Moon. But I haven’t thought of shipping nuclear waste to Mars.

      I was thinking of shipping nuclear waste to the Moon for $100 per kg.
      Basically impact the waste in some lunar crater.
      That’s outdated.
      One could land nuclear waste on the Mars surface for less than $50 per kg.
      So Mars would want nuclear waste which can generate heat- without processing it and with processing it. Obviously without needing to process it, makes it more valuable on Mars.

      • gbaikie says:

        So, fresh spent nuclear fuel which needs to stored for years in cooling ponds, costs $50 per kg, to be sent off world. And less useful nuclear waste cost $100 per kg [or more] to be shipped off world.
        This should lower the cost of nuclear power on Earth.

      • TechnoCaveman says:

        gbaikie, shipping nuclear waste to the moon made for a good BBC TV series “Space: 1999”
        However people could use nuclear waste down here for breeder reactors. Yes France shut down most of their plants. The plan may be to just let the stuff pile up.
        As for Mars, the waste would make for a good space heater to warm the mars base from a distance using circulating water.

      • Clint R says:

        When rockets are reliable enough, nuclear waste can be sent to Sun. Sending it to Mars or Moon is just stoopid.

        Sun knows how to handle it….

      • jim2 says:

        France intends to build more nuclear reactors including SMRs. They are fixing and bringing back online the existing ones.

        French nuclear generation dropped to its lowest levels since the late 1980s in 2022 to 279 terrawatt hours (TWh) due to the corrosion problems that took a large chunk of its reactor fleet offline, coming just as several conventional maintenance operations were also scheduled.

        EDF’s output started picking up in 2023, at a level of 320 TWh.

        “I hope we’ll do better, obviously, in 2024, and that we’ll reach 350 TWh in 2025”, the executive said.

        In February, EDF confirmed its French nuclear production targets, ranging from 315 to 345 TWh in 2024 and 335 to 365 TWh in 2025 and 2026.

        https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/frances-edf-aims-fix-reactor-corrosion-issues-by-end-2025-executive-says-2024-04-04/

      • gbaikie says:

        “As for Mars, the waste would make for a good space heater to warm the mars base from a distance using circulating water.”

        I have thought that for Mars to be habitable planet, it needed “mineable water” which would water which costs at most $1000 per ton or $1 per kg, with idea that given few decades mars water could be a cheap as Earth water {less than $1 per ton}.
        I had thought only way to do this, is to get water from Mars water wells {or you would be pump liquid water from depths which because of lower gravity could be about 3 times deeper than we do on Earth].

        But Musk is talking about ice mining, and problem with that is getting the heat to melt the ice.
        Mars is better than Earth to get electrical power from solar energy, but it’s not better than Earth to get solar thermal energy as compared to Earth. So, Musk was also talking about using nuclear power on Mars. Or if had a nuclear reactor one could get lots of thermal heat.
        But nuclear waste can make some heat. So with nuclear waste one melt the ice.
        Also by reprocessing nuclear waste, one also make nuclear reactors- as France did.
        So if do a lot ice mining it’s way to get thermal heat. So it’s stored whereever one is mining the ice, and as a liquid it can be piped to settlements.

      • gbaikie says:

        –Clint R says:
        April 7, 2024 at 12:17 PM

        When rockets are reliable enough, nuclear waste can be sent to Sun. Sending it to Mars or Moon is just stoopid.

        Sun knows how to handle it.–

        In near term, less than decade, perhaps less than 5 years, Starship could carrying crew [or more than 100 passengers]. With just lunar program we talking more than 20 starship launches. And this year going have about 6 Starship launches {FAA allowing} then 10 to 20 per year, then 50, then 100 per year. Or before doing 100 per year, it will be launching crew from Earth to orbit- and will as reliable as falcon 9 rocket, which is safest rocket which has ever launched- far safer than Space Shuttle proved to be.

        As I have mentioned, hitting the Sun requires a lot delta-v. Hitting lunar surface is the least delta-v. Landing on Mars requires less delta-v than landing on the Moon {because Mars atmosphere can be used to slow down}.
        But crashing lunar waste on the Moon is not particularly useful in the near term, for any Lunatic whereas landing nuclear waste on Mars it could useful in near term for Martians.
        So not just nuclear waste but the metal of Starship [and engines and etc of Starship].

      • gbaikie says:

        Also, ocean settlements on Earth.
        Mars settlements will cause ocean settlements on Earth.
        Mars exploration {before mars settlements] could cause ocean settlements.
        Ocean settlement require electrical power and freshwater.
        And garbage and sewer services, and etc.
        And one has surfing areas and beaches, ferry service, airport, and again, etc.
        Ocean settlement could get electrical power from nuclear power plant floating in a freshwater lake within the ocean.
        And nuclear waste can shipped to launch site in ocean {and sent to Mars]

      • Nate says:

        Sending thousands of tons of radioactive material to the sun! Wow that will make nuclear power affordable! Not.

        And good thing there are never any rocket failures that could spill it all over creation..Not

      • gbaikie says:

        –Nate says:
        April 7, 2024 at 2:01 PM

        Sending thousands of tons of radioactive material to the sun! Wow that will make nuclear power affordable! Not.

        And good thing there are never any rocket failures that could spill it all over creation..Not–

        hitting sun it too hard. Parker Solar Probe is the closest we have ever gotten to the Sun. It was was a mission which require one of the most energetic launches and used and is using gravity assists from Venus to get closer:
        https://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
        You could do something similar, spend more the decade and use a lot gravity assists, but the moon is faster and a lot less delta-v.
        But just reaching Venus for a gravity assist is shorter time, and slightly less delta-v than going to Mars, but Parker Solar Probe took a faster way to get closer to sun, and has traveling more than 4 years, and it will bounce closer in another year or so.

        Anyhow, we have shipped radioactive material into space. And crazies want nuclear powered rocket {which I don’t like nor think is needed].
        And all these past launches were on rockets no where near as safe as Falcon-9 has already been “proven” to be.

      • gbaikie says:

        One example:
        “Kosmos 954 (Russian: Космос 954) was a reconnaissance satellite launched by the Soviet Union in 1977. A malfunction prevented safe separation of its onboard nuclear reactor; when the satellite reentered the Earth’s atmosphere the following year, it scattered radioactive debris over northern Canada, some of the debris landing in the Great Slave Lake next to Fort Resolution, NWT.

        This prompted an extensive multiyear cleanup operation known as Operation Morning Light. The Canadian government billed the Soviet Union for over 6 million Canadian dollars under the terms of the Outer Space Treaty, which obligates states for damages caused by their space objects. The USSR eventually paid 3 million Canadian dollars in compensation.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954
        More recent:
        https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/19/24104979/nuclear-weapons-space-russia-putin-satellite-debris-orbit

      • bobdroege says:

        Remember what Tom Wolfe said:

        “Our rockets always blow up”

        Putting nuclear waste on a rocket is about the dumbest thing you could do with it.

      • gbaikie says:

        –bobdroege says:
        April 10, 2024 at 10:58 AM

        Remember what Tom Wolfe said:

        Our rockets always blow up

        Putting nuclear waste on a rocket is about the dumbest thing you could do with it.–

        Few out of many dozens of types of rockets have be launched more than 100 times.
        When rockets are first developed their is a good chance they will fail, but a rocket which has been flown more than 100 times is a proven rocket if doesn’t fail.

        The idea is starship will fly enough so the will be safe enough to launch hundreds of passengers to fly across the world. That has to very proven rocket, for that to be allowed.

        The most proven rocket ever, is falcon-9 rocket, the idea is that Starship will be more proven than the falcon-9 rocket.
        Or Starship will be flown more than thousand times. No rocket has been flown 500 times.
        Or in couple decades, we could be looking at something quite different. We not going have Mars settlement in less than couple decades.Though we might start having settlement in about two decades-
        but this, we probably will flown more than 10,000 people flying suborbital- getting anywhere on Earth in less than 1 hour.

      • bobdroege says:

        gbaikie,

        135 Space Shuttle missions, 2 total losses.

        Not a good track record for dispersal of radioactive waste.

        Storing it forever is the better option.

      • gbaikie says:

        Google search:
        “Rockets from the Falcon 9 family have been launched 327 times over 14 years, resulting in 325 full successes (99.4%), one in-flight failure (SpaceX CRS-7), and one partial success (SpaceX CRS-1 delivered its cargo to the International Space Station (ISS), but a secondary payload was stranded in a lower-than-planned …”

        And different way of saying it:
        “The active version, Falcon 9 Block 5, has flown 266 missions, all full successes. In 2022 Falcon 9 set a new record of 60 launches (all successful) by the same launch vehicle type in a calendar year. The previous record was held by Soyuz-U, which had 47 launches (45 successful) in 1979.”

        Soyuz used to be the most successful rocket {and it gas been flying a long time}.
        Google Soyuz:
        “The production of Soyuz launchers reached a peak of 60 per year in the early 1980s. It has become the world’s most used space launcher, flying over 1700 times, far more than any other rocket.”

        “Over its operational lifetime, the Soyuz-U variant flew a total of 786 missions, another world record. Soyuz-U has also been one of the most reliable launchers, with a success rate of 97.3%.”

        Back to falcon 9:
        “2023. SpaceX launched vehicles of the Falcon family 96 times (91 Falcon 9 and 5 Falcon Heavy launches) in 2023. SpaceX CEO, Elon Musk, and SpaceX President, Gwynne Shotwell, had stated in late 2022 and early 2023 respectively, that the company would attempt up to 100 Falcon launches in 2023.”
        All were successful.
        Reuseably in theory should more reliable {until you reach some unknown limit of how many times it can be reused]. There are few first stages which have used 19 times, and somewhere around +20 is thought to be the limit. But it will be tested {but not with crewed launches].

  57. Willard says:

    > Apparently gravity travels faster than the speed of light.

    That one is a keeper.

    • Swenson says:

      “That one is a keeper.”

      Maybe you could back up your statements? That would be too helpful, would it?

      Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      wee willy, who has barely enough sense to stay alive, took a shot at my statement that gravity acts faster than light. My use of ‘travels’ was a poor choice of words, not that I choose my words, unless my g/f is mad at me. ‘Acts’ is a better word. Gravity acts faster than light.

      The source of gravity is obviously the mass with the gravitational field. However, gravitational force is claimed to act from the the COM of the body. That means it acts in all directions from the COM outward to whatever distance it can reach based on the inverse square law. It appears to act instantaneously whereas light has a time factor.

      No one knows what gravity is, not even Einstein knew what it is. Einstein did not even know what light, as electromagnetic energy was in 1905 when he produced his theory, yet he claimed nothing is faster than light. The basis of that belief is based on his relativity theory which Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, wrote off as a thought experiment. If anything was faster than light then his relativity theory would not work. Einstein defined light as a basis of speed in the universe, and re-defined time to make his theory work.

      It is brutally obvious that gravity produces a force that acts instantaneously at any distance from the mass. There is no apparent delay, otherwise no physics would work for calculating orbits.

      Why? Why does a force created by a mass work at any distance, albeit less intense with distance, yet light requires 8 minutes to move 90 millions miles.

      A basic reason is that gravity and light appear to operate differently. The source of light is electron transitions in atoms but no one knows what the source of gravity may be. All we know is that it operates like a field that can accelerate masses toward its centre. In other words, it produces a force on a mass that accelerates the mass. But how?

      It seems to me that the speed of light is limited by the rate at which electrons emit it. Obviously, gravity does not have such limitations. It would appear that gravity has little or nothing to do with electrons or atoms in the sense we currently understand physics. Therefore, whatever is producing it is likely unknown.

      If it was produced by electrons it would have an electric and a magnetic magnetic field associated with it. It doesn’t, and light does. That is obviously why it is bent by the Sun, which is a boiling cauldron of electrically-charged particles producing a massive electromagnetic field. The fact that so many scientists buy into the nonsense it is solar gravity bending light, as proposed by Einstein, shows us we are still mired to an extent in the Dark Ages.

      Einstein was wrong about relativity, as he redefined it, and time dilation, and about the speed of light being the fastest entity in the Universe.

      • Willard says:

        > Gravity acts faster than light.

        🤌

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • RLH says:

        “Gravity acts faster than light.”

        Wrong also. What speed do gravity waves travel at?

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        You posed a silly go‌tcha “What speed do gravity waves travel at?”.

        OK, Ill bite. You tell me. You do know, don’t you?

      • RLH says:

        Gravity travels at the speed of light. Not known by Newton.

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        You wrote “Gravity travels at the speed of light.”

        Why were you asking “What speed do gravity waves travel at?”, then?

        Just trying to make someone look stu‌pid? Nobody understands gravity. As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

        Nobody has measured the speed of a gravity wave. Nobody has managed to generate a gravity wave. Researchers disagree about the existence of gravity waves, and claims of their detection.

        Your statement that “Gravity travels at the speed of light” may be correct – or it may not. At the moment, just speculation.

        Nobody really knows.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You ask –

        “Why were you asking What speed do gravity waves travel at?, then?”

        Because Mr. Asshat pretends that gravity moves faster than light!

        Do you ever read the threads in which you comment?

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        Whining Wee Willy,

        “Why were you asking “What speed do gravity waves travel at?”, then? ”

        Posing a gon‌tcha purely to make someone look stu‌pid, is tro‌lling, you nitwit.

        According to RLH’s link, gravity waves do not mean what you think they mean. Your excuse “Because Mr. Asshat pretends that gravity moves faster than light”, is just more tro‌lling.

        There is no “Mr Asshat”, is there? You are just trying to be gratuitously offensive for no reason at all! Feel free to correct me, if I am wrong.

        You seem to be losing the plot, and just lashing out because the GHE fantasy is losing appeal for many. Everyone is entitled to freedom of thought, in my view. If someone wants to believe in phlogiston, caloric, luminiferous ether, or the GHE, they are perfectly entitled to do so. Don’t you agree?

        If I believe differently, and I can provide facts to support my opinion, people can make up their own minds whether to support my beliefs – or not. If you don’t agree, bad luck for you. You have precisely no power to force me to accept your bizarre fantasies as fact.

        So off you go, Willard, keep avoiding any mention of the GHE. You’re definitely learning.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “Just trying to make someone look st‌pid?”

        You can do that all by yourself, silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner perfects the art of thread necromancy.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Doxer, please stop trolling.

  58. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim s…”Adults use a concept called hyperbole to exaggerate when emphasis is required. You should look that up”.

    ***

    Is that like saying, ‘exactly the same’?

  59. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim s…” If just half the money spent on researching climate change was spent on breeder reactor development, we would already have it in use”.

    ***

    Good point. Rather than tackle the problem of radiation head on, we ran for the hill after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

    An article on the number of deaths and injuries from car collisions in the US each year…

    “There are thousands of car accidents in the United States every day. As a result, there are tens of thousands of deaths annually. Personal injury from a car accident comprises most personal injury claims every year. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that there were 33,244 fatal car crashes in the United States in 2019, where 36,096 people died”.

    https://arashlaw.com/how-many-car-accidents-are-there-in-the-usa-per-day/

    We don’t even think we could die or be injured when we get into our cars each day, yet we have developed a morbid fear of nuclear radiation. At one time, in the 1940s, the US Army did not even thing nuclear radiation was important. It was Linus Pauling who brought the danger to the awareness of the US public and his initial thanks was a visit from the FBI, investigating him as a Communist.

    It is simply not clear how much radiation is dangerous and exactly what it can do to the human body. People seem to confuse the atomic bombs dropped in Japan during WW II with nuclear radiation, however, it was not the radiation that killed so many people. Most people who died were directly exposed to the initial blast of extremely high intensity EM energy as well as the tremndous concussion.. People standing a few feet away but shielded from the blast, lived a long and healthy life.

    There was a problem with cancer induced by residual contamination but I don’t think that was ever researched properly. Even after the blasts, radiation was regarded as unimportant. So, we don’t really know, even today, what the issue may be.

    So, why can we not design nuclear plants to be safe, even during a melt down? My opinion is thrift and stoopidity. Just as the same mentality designs aircraft to fly across oceans with only two motors instead of 4, the designers of nuclear plants are more interested in cost saving than life saving. Then there are private contractors who cut corners to increase their profits. Entire high rises have collapsed due to contractor cost cutting.

    • Willard says:

      > It is simply not clear how much radiation is dangerous and exactly what it can do to the human body.

      Mr. Asshat is a gift that keeps on giving!

      • Swenson says:

        “Mr. Asshat is a gift that keeps on giving!”

        Maybe you could educate readers – how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what does it do to the human body?

        Bear in mind that radiation, or light, covers wavelengths from zero to infinity. Go on now, demonstrate your knowledge! Only joking, you are an ignorant cultist.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Save you ijit remarks for people who were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and who lived a full life. We have essentially zero research on the effect of radiation on humans since it would be unethical to performs such research. I am sure they have killed innocent animals in that pursuit but they could never replicate the actual conditions of being exposed to radiation.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “Maybe you could educate readers”

        About what – the 500 rem limit?

        That certainly wouldn’t educate you, silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        Maybe you could educate readers how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what does it do to the human body?

        Bear in mind that radiation, or light, covers wavelengths from zero to infinity. Go on now, demonstrate your knowledge! Only joking, you are an ignorant cul‌tist.

        Saying something really stu‌pid, like “the 500 rem limit”, does not help anybody at all in understanding how much “radiation” is dangerous, nor how “radiation” affects the human body.

        Willard, please stop tro‌‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Maybe commenting under your real Climateball name would inform readers that you are repeating talking points you repeated more than fifteen years ago?

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        Maybe you could educate readers how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what does it do to the human body?

        Bear in mind that radiation, or light, covers wavelengths from zero to infinity. Go on now, demonstrate your knowledge! Only joking, you are an ignorant cul‌tist.

        Saying something really stu‌pid, like the 500 rem limit, does not help anybody at all in understanding how much radiation is dangerous, nor how radiation affects the human body.

        Willard, please stop tro‌‌‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Maybe your copypastas do not inform readers?

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        Maybe you could educate readers how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what does it do to the human body?

        Bear in mind that radiation, or light, covers wavelengths from zero to infinity. Go on now, demonstrate your knowledge! Only joking, you are an ignorant cul‌tist.

        Saying something really stu‌pid, like the 500 rem limit, does not help anybody at all in understanding how much radiation is dangerous, nor how radiation affects the human body.

        Willard, please stop tro‌‌‌‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What are you braying about?

      • Swenson says:

        Maybe you could educate readers how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what does it do to the human body?

        Bear in mind that radiation, or light, covers wavelengths from zero to infinity. Go on now, demonstrate your knowledge! Only joking, you are an ignorant cul‌tist.

        Saying something really stu‌pid, like “the 500 rem limit”, does not help anybody at all in understanding how much radiation is dangerous, nor how radiation affects the human body.

        Willard, please stop tro‌‌‌‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Maybe you could help readers by clarifying what you are braying about.

        Silly sock puppet!

      • bobdroege says:

        “Bear in mind that radiation, or light, covers wavelengths from zero to infinity. Go on now, demonstrate your knowledge! Only joking, you are an ignorant cultist.”

        Bear in mind that all radiation is not light.

        Gamma radiation is light, but at much shorter wavelengths than visible light.

        But there is also beta, alpha, and neutron radiation, and even more exotic kinds.

        But then, Swenson, you don’t know what you don’t know.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      Stay in your lane.

      “Good point. Rather than tackle the problem of radiation head on, we ran for the hill after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.”

      No we didn’t, after TMI, all US nuclear plants underwent numerous design changes to make the nuclear plants safer.

      The plant I worked at was initially supposed to cost 1 billion dollars, but went on line after more than 4 billion was spent, and then was sold for 450 million.

      Not a very wise investment.

      People like to champion nuclear power, but it is just too expensive these days.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  60. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    In the relativistic sense, the “speed of gravity” refers to the speed of a gravitational wave, which, as predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger, is equal to the speed of light (c).

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

    • Swenson says:

      As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

      I am unaware of any reproducible experiments to support Einstein’s conjectures about the nature of gravity. His conjectures about the impossibility of quantum entanglement have been disproved by experiment, as has his refusal to accept the uncertainty principle.

      Have you considered just quoting irrelevant stuff, hoping somebody even dimmer than you will think you are wise?

      Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      More tommyrot from Einstein. Gravity and light have nothing in common, why should they conveniently move at the same speed? Besides, a gravity wave is a theoretical concept based on Einstein’s nonsense. No such thing.

      In Einstein’s relativity theory, it works only if certain things are hypothesized. One of those ‘things’ is time having a reality, so it can change its length as mass gets faster and approaches the speed of light. Ergo, Einstein redefined time to fit his theory.

      How wonderfully convenient. If theory makes no sense, simply invent and redefine reality to make it work. That concept is used liberally in the GHE theory as well as climate change theory in general.

      • Willard says:

        > Gravity and light have nothing in common

        🤌🤌🤌

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • RLH says:

        “In fluid dynamics, gravity waves are waves generated in a fluid medium or at the interface between two media when the force of gravity or buoyancy tries to restore equilibrium. An example of such an interface is that between the atmosphere and the ocean, which gives rise to wind waves.”

        “Gravitational waves are waves of the intensity of gravity that are generated by the accelerated masses of binary stars and other motions of gravitating masses, and propagate as waves outward from their source at the speed of light. They were first proposed by Oliver Heaviside in 1893 and then later by Henri Poincar in 1905 as the gravitational equivalent of electromagnetic waves. Gravitational waves are sometimes called gravity waves, but gravity waves typically refer to displacement waves in fluids”

  61. gbaikie says:

    –People also ask
    What is the orbital period of the Sun’s barycenter?
    (mainly) 19.86-year periodic motion of the Sun around the barycenter of the solar system.Feb 10, 2023–

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I would venture that the solar barycentre is as much a myth physically as is the Earth’s barycentre due to the lunar orbit. A barycentre is more a mathematical calculation of a theorized centre of mass than it is a practical measure of solar deviation from a centre.

      I am sure Richard (RLH) will be along with a one-words refutation of my point.

      Theoretically, the planets pull on the Sun and the Sun must pull back on the planets in an equal and opposite direction. However, Newton’s 3rd law is not meant to measure such vanishingly small forces as are experienced between the planets and the Sun. The force exerted by the Moon on the Earth, is enough to raise the oceans by one metre at peak deviation but not nearly enough to move the entire Earth from its orbital path.

      But how does one calculate that direction, or deviation, when the planets are in different parts of their orbits at different times? At times, the planets are all aligned in a row, which should theoretically pull the Sun to an extreme. That should be true when the largest planets Jupiter and Saturn are in a row. However, Earth, Venus and Mars, being closer to the Sun should have a considerable effect as well. However, there is no significant, measurable effect re barycentres.

      I argued this in the past on Roy’s blog. Based on the relative masses of the Earth and the Moon, the calculated Earth barycentre should move the Earth in a loop with a diameter of about 2000 km. The only motion of that kind ever measured is related to a wobble in the Earth’s axis of about a 4 foot deviation per Earth rotation.

      There is no evidence of a physical barycentre in the Earth-Moon interaction and I seriously doubt that one exists in the solar barycentre.

      • Swenson says:

        Gordon,

        You wrote –

        “However, Newtons 3rd law is not meant to measure such vanishingly small forces as are experienced between the planets and the Sun. The force exerted by the Moon on the Earth, is enough to raise the oceans by one metre at peak deviation but not nearly enough to move the entire Earth from its orbital path.”

        The forces involved are obviously great enough to stop the Earth from continuing in a straight line, vanishing into the great beyond, and likewise the Moon.

        Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. The strong nuclear force is about 10^40 times stronger. Imagine the gravitational force of a single photon exerted on another photon on the other side of the universe – vanishingly small.

        Do photons exert gravitational force? Yes, according to “The gravitational field created by a single photon is determined by taking into account the relativistic mass of the photon as source of gravitational interaction.”

        However, even this virtually non-existent gravitation force between two photons at opposite ends of the universe is theoretically sufficient to cause completely unpredictable effects on the chaotic system that is the universe. Another “big bang”, perhaps?

        All a bit of a mystery to me, so I’ll just keep on hoping for a quiet life. Others may have differing opinions, of course.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        That’s one of the amazing things about gravity, that a relatively weak force at the altitude of the Moon can keep such a huge mass in orbit. Although the force near the surface is strong enough to accelerate a mass at 9.8 m/s^2, at the altitude of the Moon, the accelerating force is only a tiny fraction of the force at the surface.

        Gravitational force at the altitude of the Moon is not enough to accelerate it as in f = ma but it is enough to divert the Moon about 5 metres out of its linear path every 8000 metres. That on-going diversion is enough to hold the Moon in an orbit that follows the curvature of the Earth.

        The tremendous momentum of the Moon is also a contributing factor. Gravity simply cannot divert it enough from its linear momentum to cause an acceleration toward Earth.

        Re photons, I don’t accept that such a massless entity exists never mind it having a gravitational field. Whereas I appreciate your comment on them, I think much of the theory is largely bs.

        It seems obvious that electrons emit a quantum of energy that someone has rebranded as a photon. However, that quantum has a frequency and an indeterminate size. Somehow, bazzillions of those quanta have to form into a cohesive wavefront and that has never been explained. When we talk of a photon of light, when the light is comprised of bazillions of frequencies, how is that explained on the basis of photons, which have only one frequency?

        To take a quantum of energy, where it is comprised of en electric and magnetic field, and give it magical gravitational properties is a bit too much for me.

      • gbaikie says:

        -I would venture that the solar barycentre is as much a myth physically as is the Earths barycentre due to the lunar orbit.–

        “How do barycenters help us find other planets?

        If a star has planets, the star orbits around a barycenter that is not at its very center. This causes the star to look like its wobbling.”
        https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/

        Do you think stars with planets can cause stars to wobble?

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “that a relatively weak force …”
        I would not call 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 N a weak force.

        “not enough to accelerate it “
        The moon moves in a (roughly) circular path. Circular motion is accelerated motion. a = v^2/r. It is trivial to plug in the moon’s speed and distance from earth to get the acceleration.

        “That on-going diversion is …” acceleration!

  62. bohous says:

    If you make a linear regression of the trend (I used the linear fit of the red line, for simplicity), then the vertical distance of the uppermost blue points from this line is now practically the same as in 1998. It is approximately 0.7C above the trend line.

  63. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    The relationship between light and gravity is a fascinating one, and it’s all about bending! Here’s the breakdown:

    – Light bends around gravity: According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, gravity isn’t a force pulling on objects, but rather a warping of spacetime itself. Massive objects like stars and planets cause dips in this fabric, and light, traveling along this curved path, bends as a result.

    – Light has no mass, but it’s affected: Though light itself doesn’t have mass, it carries energy, and according to E=mc, energy and mass are equivalent. So, even though there’s no physical attraction, gravity’s influence on spacetime affects how light travels.

    This bending of light has been observed during solar eclipses, where starlight is slightly deflected by the sun’s gravity. This effect is more pronounced for very massive objects, like black holes.

    Here are some resources for further exploration:

    – PBS Space Time video on “How Does Gravity Affect Light?” (https://www.pbs.org/video/how-does-gravity-affect-light-zx47ji/)

    – Explanation on how gravity alters the trajectory of light https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/04/26/this-is-why-einstein-knew-that-gravity-must-bend-light/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      wee willy…”According to Einsteins theory of general relativity, gravity isnt a force pulling on objects, but rather a warping of spacetime itself…”

      ***

      One of the most stoopid theories ever developed in physics. When Einstein developed this theory in 1905, nothing was known about electromagnetic energy and its relation to electrons in atoms. We now know clearly that EM is comprised of an electric field and a magnetic field and neither are affected by gravity. However, the Sun has an immense electromagnetic field that can bend the EM field of light.

      It is apparent that Einstein chose to ignore the new theory of EM by Bohr in 1914 and carried on stubbornly with his dumb thought-experiment. Had he listened to Bohr, he could not possibly have missed the fact that it is EM in the Sun that bends light and not gravity.

      If gravity bent EM it would have an effect on all communications signals, which are also EM. Laser beams would be bent off course enough to realize an external force was affecting them. If we shone a flashlight close to the surface of the Earth, it should bend in an arc toward the surface.

      The entire notion of space-time is ludicrous. Both space and time in that context are inventions of the human mind. Space becomes a 3-D field in which the coordinate are human inventions. Time is clearly a human invention based on the rotational speed of the Earth. According to Einstein, then, there is no such force as gravity and masses are affected by two imaginary concepts acting in tandem.

      I just wish we had Newton here today to straight out this mess.

      • Willard says:

        > One of the most stoopid theories [General relativity] ever developed in physics.

        🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “However, the Sun has an immense electromagnetic field that can bend the EM field of light.”

        F = qE + qvxB

        Light has no charge. Therefore the ‘immense electromagnetic field’ has no effect on uncharged light.

        And Einstein’s predictions accurately predicted the gravitational bending around the sun. And since then, relativity has accurately predicted gravitational bending by innumerable other objects.

        Your hypothesis fails but theoretical and experimental tests.

  64. Gordon Robertson says:

    wee willy, the contrarian trohl, albeit a harmless trohl, objects to my claim that not enough is known about nuclear radiation to fear nuclear power plants. I became curious about the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and found some studies.

    The moral to my story, in advance, is this: there is no comparison between the effect of a failed nuclear reactors and an atomic bomb. A sub-moral is this: the overall effect of nuclear radiation is unknown. We know it can be dangerous in certain situations but we cannot account for all situations.

    I want to be clear that I don’t take lightly what those poor souls endured in the name of an arrogant emperor and equally arrogant armed forces. Japan was surrounded at war’s end and they knew there was no way out without dying for their stoopid and ignorant cause (Bushido code), that lead them to murder innocents all over Asia. They had decided to take the innocent population with them and Truman had no option, other than millions of allied troops possibly dying in a futile cause, and he dropped an A-bomb on Hiroshimo. When the arrogant emperor of Japan still refused to concede, Truman ordered another bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

    I have no legitimate justification to offer for these actions or any other bombings in Europe, war is war, and it makes absolutely no sense. Let’s be clear, there is no way to justify the horrors of war but there are times, like WWII, where failing to engage in war leads to life that is just as intolerable. There are so many ijits today who, never having experience war, think you can avert it simply by talking about it, or waving the ‘V’ sign.

    However, I am surprised at the number of people who survived that horror in Nagasaki and Hiroshimo.

    A uranium bomb as dropped on Hiroshimo and a plutonium bomb as dropped on Nagasaki, stirs up clouds of radioactive dust and debris that can drift for miles, sometimes hundreds of miles. That would affect far more people than a localized disaster like a nuclear plant going out of control. Radiation from such an event could be easily limited whereas a nuclear bomb debris would affect everyone in an area.

    According to one article I read, there are people who were exposed to radiation in Hiroshimo who out-lived people who were not exposed.

    http://www.crpr-su.se/literature/Hiroshima%20and%20Nagasaki%20-%20longetivity%20Cologne%20Lancet%202000.pdf

    In the following link can be found this quote with reference to the number of survivors of Hiroshimo/Nagasaki. …

    “As of the end of March 2007, the total is 251,834.”

    https://www.hiroshimapeacemedia.jp/hiroshima-koku/en/exploration/index_20071022.html

    250,000 people still live some 60 years after suffering nuclear radiation. Good for them, they are a testament to the hardiness of the human body and soul.

    • Willard says:

      > According to one article I read

      🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        There’s no single, definitive answer to “safe” when it comes to radiation exposure. It depends on a few factors:

        Type of radiation: There are two main types: ionizing and non-ionizing. Ionizing radiation (X-rays, gamma rays) is more dangerous because it has enough energy to directly damage cells, while non-ionizing radiation (radio waves, visible light) generally doesn’t.

        Dose of radiation: This refers to the amount of radiation absorbed by the body. It’s measured in units called millisieverts (mSv) or Sieverts (Sv). Here’s a general breakdown of effects based on dose:

        Low dose (less than 100 mSv): This range typically has no immediate health effects. It includes background radiation we encounter daily and some medical procedures like X-rays.

        Moderate dose (100 mSv – 1 Sv): This can cause mild radiation sickness with symptoms like fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. Recovery is usually expected.

        High dose (1 Sv – 5 Sv): This can cause more severe radiation sickness, with increased risk of infection, hair loss, and internal bleeding. There’s a chance of death depending on the exact dose.

        Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        We are talking about nuclear reactors and any danger they present to the public. There is no doubt that prolonged doses of radiation beyond a certain level can have lethal consequences. So can xrays, but they are used regularly in medicine and dentistry.

        The question is, if a nuclear plant gors into meltdown, are the public i significant danger, specially with modern technology, which rules out Chernobyl. Furthermore, can meltdown be contained? We need a way to shut down a nuclear chain-reaction and there is evidence that can be done.

      • Willard says:

        Yes, a nuclear reactor meltdown poses a significant danger to the public, though the severity depends on several factors. Here’s why:

        Radiation Release: During a meltdown, the reactor core heats up excessively, damaging the containment structure and potentially releasing radioactive materials into the surrounding environment. This radioactive cloud can travel long distances depending on weather conditions, contaminating air, water, and soil.

        Health Risks: Exposure to radiation can cause a range of health problems, including:

        Acute Radiation Sickness: This can occur at high exposure levels, causing symptoms like nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and hair loss. In severe cases, it can be fatal.

        Increased Cancer Risk: Radiation exposure increases the risk of developing various cancers over time.

        Genetic Damage: Radiation can damage DNA, potentially leading to birth defects in future generations.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        When I asked – “Maybe you could educate readers how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what does it do to the human body?”, you responded “Theres no single, definitive answer to safe when it comes to radiation exposure. It depends on a few factors:”.

        Earlier, of course, when someone included in a comment “It is simply not clear how much radiation is dangerous and exactly what it can do to the human body.”, you responded “Mr. Asshat is a gift that keeps on giving!”, demonstrating your juvenile GHE cultist mentality.

        At least you have copied some more or less relevant radiation, which is vague enough to be useless. In other words, you cannot justify your trol‌ling of someone who said “it is simply not clear how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what it can do to the human body”, and your sarcasm just makes you look stu‌pid.

        Some radiation is harmful to some people in some cases, depending on circumstances.

        I suggest the asshat is you.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “When I asked”

        Should anyone care about what you ask?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “Should anyone care about what you ask?”

        You obviously did.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “You obviously did”

        What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

  65. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”[GR]Gravity acts faster than light.

    [Richard]Wrong also. What speed do gravity waves travel at?

    ***

    Explain a gravity wave.

    There is no such thing in Newtonian mechanics as a gravity wave, it is a super-dumb concept based on the odd notion that the universe is comprised of a 4-D fabric made up of a 3-D space with a 4th dimension, time, attached to it.

    If you swallow that propaganda, Richard, there is no hope for you. It is reasonable to presume a 3-D universe for scientific calculation but it needs to be understood that the human mind imposed those dimensions on a dimensionless space. Axes, and units of kilometres and seconds do not exist in the real universe. All of them were invented by the human mind to keep tract of observed phenomena.

    To attach an imaginary 4th dimension of time to a 3-D conceptual space, and project it as a reality is utter nonsense. One of the problems with higher education is becoming prone to accepting what one is taught as absolute truth. Universities tend to resist original thought when it contrasts with what they are teaching. We are seeing that today where universities try to impose inanities like gender identity and race equality on the faculty, firing anyone who protest.

    I spoke to an EE prof about the way current flow is presented as flowing positive to negative. In my textbooks, they are careful to point out that electron flow is from negative to positive, but they fail to explain what it is that flows positive to negative. The prof was non-committal but he replied that it doesn’t matter which way current flows with calculations as long as one keeps tract of the signs of voltage drops.

    Whereas that is true it is also a cop-out since he is perpetuating a lie that is an anachronism dating back to the 1920s. At the time, current flow was based on an imaginary positive test charge that has no existence in a real conductor. There are no positive charges with mass like the electron, only imaginary holes left behind when an electron leaves the valence band of an atom, leaving behind a relative positive charge that has no mass and no existence other than in a relative sense as a charge.

    Therefore it is a lie when electrical current is taught as flowing positive to negative. It is also a lie when the universe is described as a fabric of space and time, in lieu of actual forces crated by gravity.

    I am surprised that you have become so imbued with Einstein’s nonsense that you cannot even question it.

      • Clint R says:

        RLH finds something on the Internet that he believes in. He doesn’t understand the physics involved, but it sounds “sciency”, so he believes in it. He can’t even find the obvious mistake in the text, “The amplitude of a spherical wave falls off as the inverse of the distance from the source.”. It sounds “sciency”, but it’s WRONG.

        To make it worse, RLH can’t learn.

      • RLH says:

        So now the inverse square law doesn’t exist?

      • Clint R says:

        What doesn’t exist is your ability to understand any of this.

        “…falls off as the inverse of the distance from the source.”

        “…is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity.”

        See if you can learn….

      • RLH says:

        So the square is not an inverse?

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “The amplitude of a spherical wave falls off as the inverse of the distance from the source.. It sounds sciency, but its WRONG.”

        Actually, that is correct!

        The POWER of a wave falls off as the inverse square of the distance.
        The AMPLITUDE of a wave falls off simply as the inverse of the distance.

        Exactly as stated.

        Anyone who has studied waves will have learned this simple fact at one point. The energy in a wave is proportional to the SQUARE of the amplitude.

      • Clint R says:

        This is a perfect example of the cult at work.

        RLH refuses being corrected. He now confuses “inverse” with “square”. And Folkerts jumps in to add to the confusion.

        This is why they can’t learn.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “And Folkerts jumps in to add to the confusion.”

        It’s not my fault correct science confuses you, clint.

      • Clint R says:

        It’s your fraud that confuses the children, Folkerts

        Got a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, yet?

      • Tim S says:

        I have a short comment. Detection of a gravity wave on earth, that has travel a long distance in space and time, is just an observation of that effect. It is just one part of the wave circumference. It is reasonable to expect gravity waves to behave the way other waves behave because the wave is spreading out as it moves, but I have not seen any evidence in the science that humans have observed the whole wave.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “It’s your fraud that confuses the children, Folkerts”

        There is no fraud that wave amplitude falls off inversely with distance.

        Here there is only your confusion about about amplitude and power. And your deflection to try to mask your error.

      • Clint R says:

        This perfect example of the cult at work continues.

        They got caught, and now attempt to twist and spin their way out.

        Expect they will get some needed help soon….

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        You wrote –

        “So the square is not an inverse?”

        Of course not, else it would have been called an inverse.

        If you accept that the field falls off as the inverse cube of distance, as expected from a system with a magnetic dipole moment, in relation to a magnetic field, would you accept that the cube is an inverse?

        This might lead one to ask “So the square is not a cube?”.

        Of course not, else it would have been called a cube.

        Silly semantic games don’t make you look particularly wise – in my opinion, at least. Others may look at you in awe.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Addition is the inverse of subtraction.

        Yet it’s not called “an inverse.”

        What exactly are you trying to prove with your imbecility?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “Addition is the inverse of subtraction.”

        Gee, who knew?

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        No, Clint, you are the one who got caught. We all see it.

        The amplitude of a spherical wave DOES fall off as the inverse of the distance from the source.

        So you keep trying to divert. But you can’t erase what you wrote.

      • Clint R says:

        Next Folkerts will try to re-define “spherical” or “wave”. Semantics is just one of his tricks.

        Remember, this is the guy that came up with the nonsense that leads to ice cubes boiling water!

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Just admit you were wrong, Clint. What you claimed was an “obvious mistake” that sounded “sciency” but was “WRONG” was in fact correct. Spherical waves DO fall off in amplitude inversely with distance.

      • Clint R says:

        Wow Folkerts, you’re really desperate to try to pull this one out. But, you can’t fight reality. You should have learned that by now.

        You’re pretty sure you’re right here. Are you as sure as you were with ice cubes boiling water, or your “frictionless axle”?

        You’ve been soooo wrong soooo many times….

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        “It is well-known that there is no spherical/topologically spherical gravitational waves in vacuum space in general relativity”

        I assume you know this, and are trying to muddy the waters with semantics.

        How is your description of the GHE going? Any improvement on “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”

        Given that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature over the last four and a half billion years, your GHE claim is just plain nonsense, isn’t it?

        Maybe you could appeal to your own authority, and describe the GHE. Feel free to use your knowledge of gravity, and Einstein’s theory of general relativity, where relevant. You’re right, I’m just having a laugh at your expense. Nobody can describe the GHE in any way that agrees with reality – because the GHE is a cultist fantasy!

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Youre pretty sure youre right here.” Because I am. My answer agrees with the physics found in textbooks on the subject.

        You were ALSO pretty sure you were right. Arrogantly sure, in fact. You belittled an “obvious mistake” that was not a mistake after all. Providing correct answer seems like “confusion” to you.

        Why should anyone think you are correct on anything when accurate, basic physics is “obvious mistakes” to you?

      • Clint R says:

        You actually have a “physics” book, Folkerts?

        You sure it’s not a “psychics” book? That’s where you might find “voodoo” stuff like ice cubes can boil water and passenger jets fly backward.

        You need to find a REAL physics book.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        To paraphrase ….

        To make it worse, Clint cant learn.
        Clint refuses being corrected.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry Folkerts, but paraphrasing ain’t physics.

        You need to find a REAL physics book. Try a library. Get an adult to help you.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Sorry, Clint, but paraphrasing was not meant to be physics. Just like your original comments were not physics. My paraphrasing was meant to highlight that you have the same problems with comprehension that you accuse others of.

        Physics textbooks are very clear about orbits and rotations and angular momentum and adding fluxes. You just look silly when you tell people to ‘learn some physics’ when physics texts so clearly disagree with so much of what you write.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Tim, please stop trolling.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner always ends up PSTering.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  66. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Explain a gravity wave.

    Gravity waves are ripples in the fabric of spacetime itself, caused by accelerating masses. Imagine dropping a pebble in a calm pond. The pebble disrupts the smooth surface, creating ripples that travel outward. Gravity waves work in a similar way, but instead of spreading through water, they travel through the very fabric of space and time.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Gravity waves travel through the very fabric of space and time.

      A duh!!! and a Homer Simpson, Doh!!!

      Has anyone with half a brain even thought of this seriously? What is their in space and/or time to create waves? When a pebble is dropped in water, it displaces real water molecules…a mass interacting with a mass. What is there is space or time to ripple?

      Come on…please!!! Some brain power.

      • Willard says:

        Mr. Asshat soldiers on:

        Gravitational waves are fundamentally different from other waves like light or sound. They don’t travel through a medium like air or water. Instead, they are ripples in spacetime itself.

        Imagine spacetime as a fabric. When massive objects move around or accelerate in a very dramatic way, like colliding black holes or neutron stars, they distort this fabric. These distortions travel outward as waves, kind of like ripples on a pond when you throw a stone in.

        So, for gravitational waves, the “there” in space and time becomes spacetime itself. The intense motions of massive objects create these ripples in the very fabric of space and time, which propagate outward at the speed of light.

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Imagine spacetime as a fabric.”. Typical admonition from someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.

        Rather like a fanatical GHE cultist saying “imagine the GHE as a stack of blankets . . .”, or describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.

        Imagination is one thing, reality quite often another. You have no idea about the space-time continuum, do you?

        Feel free to ask me for help. I’ll just laugh at you, of course. Why should I help someone like you?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        TL:DR

        What are you braying about?

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy,

        You wrote

        “Imagine spacetime as a fabric.”. Typical admonition from someone who doesnt know what they are talking about.

        Rather like a fanatical GHE cultist saying “imagine the GHE as a stack of blankets . . .”, or describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.

        Imagination is one thing, reality quite often another. You have no idea about the space-time continuum, do you?

        Feel free to ask me for help. Ill just laugh at you, of course. Why should I help someone like you?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        TL;DR

        What were you braying about?

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy,

        You wrote

        “Imagine spacetime as a fabric.”. Typical admonition from someone who doesnt know what they are talking about.

        Rather like a fanatical GHE cultist saying “imagine the GHE as a stack of blankets . . .”, or describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.

        Imagination is one thing, reality quite often another. You have no idea about the space-time continuum, do you?

        Feel free to ask me for help. Ill just laugh at you, of course. Why should I help someone like you?

        Your response – “Mike Flynn,

        TL;DR

        What were you braying about?” provides sufficient information for others to make their own assessments of the extent of your obvious mental impairment.

        Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You brayed –

        Something.

        But what?

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

  67. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Snow has fallen overnight in Australia’s mainland ski resorts and continues to tumble down on Tuesday morning as a cold front sweeps across southeast Australia.

    qCzM4Qy2pzBc6hHHxy3dGe_LtyDfQKglCM5M_aem_AfY0ak0cOP0muMRLGicFG0rJpu413XLf1AjUlj_fQfwShv60mic0salffyyOo7bG6lzbY4fCyVQ6uA9HxR0C1OU9

  68. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Tropical cyclone Olga attacks in northwestern Australia.
    https://i.ibb.co/X7YFyMb/himawari9-ir-21-S-202404091210.gif

  69. Just how rapidly do you expect the accumulation of solar enegy by rotating bodies to increase ?

    Simple:

    (Tsat.planet.1)/(Tsat.planet.2) =[(N1*cp1)/(N2*cp2)]^1/16
    Where:
    N rotations/day, is the planets axial spin.
    cp cal/gr*oC, is the planets average surface specific heat.
    **********************
    Example: Planet 2 rotates twice as fast as Planet 1.
    (N2) = 2*(N1) everything else equals,
    (T2) = (2)^1/16 *(T1) = 1,0443*(T1)

    If (T1) = 250K, (T2) = 1,0443*250K = 261K
    (T2) = 261K

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  70. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Most forecast models suggest that El Nio will officially end in the next few months, with the Pacific Ocean expected to return to a neutral ENSO state (neither El Nio nor La Nia) by May.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202404.gif

  71. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 457.0 km/sec
    density: 9.90 protons/cm3
    Daily Sun: 09 Apr 24
    Sunspot number: 79
    https://www.spaceweather.com/
    The Radio Sun
    10.7 cm flux: 125 sfu
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 19.37×10^10 W Warm
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: -4.3% Low
    6 numbered sunspots.
    April so far, has had low sunspot numbers, and in first 1/2 of month it should a low average. And again, there a pretty good chance of crossing the red curved line. And the blue line [average] will drop significantly. And for my guess {fat line and thin line to both crossing cycle 24 numbers] the blue line in next couple months has to drop significantly.

    “Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
    08 April – 04 May 2024

    Solar activity is expected to be at low to moderate levels
    throughout the outlook period, with C-class flare activity expected
    and a varying chance for M-class flare activity.

    No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.”
    https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 443.7 km/sec
      density: 8.57 protons/cm3
      Daily Sun: 10 Apr 24
      Sunspot number: 64
      The Radio Sun
      10.7 cm flux: 124 sfu
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 19.25×10*10 W Warm
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: -3.8% Low

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 462.8 km/sec
        density: 8.05 protons/cm3
        Sunspot number: 54
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 131 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 19.18×10^10 W Warm\
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -3.7% Low

        4 numbered spots, with moderate size spot coming from farside {which will be numbered}. No spot is within a few days of going to the farside.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 405.5 km/sec
        density: 3.93 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 12 Apr 24
        Sunspot number: 81
        The Radio Sun
        10.7 cm flux: 144 sfu
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 19.18×10^10 W Warm
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: -3.7% Low

        5 numbered sunspots. None are leaving, and I don’t see a spot coming from farside, yet.

        If month was 81 sunspot, it crashes thru red line and blue line drops a lot. And reasonable guess is 90 to 100, which would cross red line.
        But could be less than 80 and could even get a spotless day, but we guessing the big spot is coming back.

  72. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Today’s temperatures in Australia.
    https://i.ibb.co/tLZ7cMx/ventusky-temperature-5cm-20240409t2000-1.jpg

  73. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim f …”that a relatively weak force
    I would not call 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 N a weak force.

    not enough to accelerate it
    The moon moves in a (roughly) circular path. Circular motion is accelerated motion. a = v^2/r. It is trivial to plug in the moons speed and distance from earth to get the acceleration.

    That on-going diversion is acceleration!”

    ***

    You are playing with numbers, Tim, and presenting them in a devious manner. At Earth’s surface, the force exerted by gravity is 9.8 newtons per kilogram. By the time that force is reduced by the inverse square law, at the Moon’s surface it is only a tiny fraction of 9.8 N/m^2.

    If the Moon was sitting still, then your large number would apply. The Moon would begin moving along a radial line toward us and as it got closer, the force applied by Earth’s gravity would increase with lowering altitude. Then we would have true acceleration.

    As I stipulated in my post, the Moon’s tremendous linear momentum has a huge influence on how far the Moon can move vertically and as it turns out Earth’s gravity is jut enough to move it 5 metres off its tangential path for every 8000 metres of tangential motion. That motion is just enough to keep it in a near circular orbit that suits the Earth’s curvature.

    With a = v^2/r, why should there be a straight exponential relationship between a and v? And since acceleration, by definition, is a constantly changing velocity, meaning distance moved per second is increasing exponentially, why is the distance moved through deviation of the Moon from its straight line path a linear function?

    I don’t call that motion an acceleration and applying a= v^2/r is simply wrong. The derivation of that formula comes from the assumption that acceleration can be derived in vector form from the change in direction of a vector alone.

    If the Moon has a constant velocity, and it has a constant tangential velocity, it can have no acceleration. Newton knew that back in the 1600s and specified it in Principia. He declared that the Moon moves with a linear motion that is bent into a curvilinear motion by gravity. He said nothing about it being accelerated.

    Therefore, the deviation of the lunar tangential velocity vector by Earth’s gravitational field is just that, a linear deviation, and not an acceleration.

    By definition, an acceleration requires a change in velocity per second. It is measured in m/s^2. If the Moon’s vertical deviation is to be measured in m/s^2 it has to mean that the distance deviated changes with time. It doesn’t, the deviation is a simple linear change in distance per unit time, which translates to a linear deviation in m/s.

    Someone erred grossly when they claimed a change in vector direction is an acceleration. I took a semester course in vector calculus, preceded by a semester course in linear algebra, and I remember clearly how vectors are added and multiplied.

    If you take a vector in 3-D, it will have components in the x, y, and z directions. Each component will have a direction and a scalar quantity to indicate the vector magnitude. The directions are indicated by unit vectors, marked i,j, and k, each with value 1. Therefore the magnitude of each vector is that unit vector multiplied by the scalar quantity.

    It is the scalars that are added or multiplied, not the unit vectors that indicate direction,

    If you want to multiply the vectors, you apply the scalar quantities in a matrix, which preserve the x,y, and z component directions. The point to understand is that the direction vectors, i,j, and K with value one, do not influence the final vector scalar value, only give it a new direction. Of course, the resultant vector will change direction but only because the scalars are different.

    If we look at a mass in a circular orbit, moving with a constant velocity, why should there be an acceleration? With the Moon moving in an orbit with a constant tangential velocity, there can be no acceleration factor. What people are calling an acceleration, or a constant falling motion, is in fact a deviation produced by a gravitational field.

    Of course, people who apply equations and don’t understand the underlying vector theory, will try to apply equations blindly and presume an acceleration.

    Can anyone show me a practical application of a = v^2/r. This is not a gotcha, I mean it sincerely. I am curious. With linear motion, we can see the effect of acceleration if it is pronounced but how would you see the acceleration represented by a = v^2/r?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      wee willy…”Gravitational waves are fundamentally different from other waves like light or sound. They dont travel through a medium like air or water. Instead, they are ripples in spacetime itself.

      Imagine spacetime as a fabric. When massive objects move around or accelerate in a very dramatic way, like colliding black holes or neutron stars, they distort this fabric. These distortions travel outward as waves, kind of like ripples on a pond when you throw a stone in”.

      ***

      Only a complete blithering ijit would think like this. There is no such thig as spacetime and you won’t find a proof of it anywhere. All you can do is imagine spacetime as a fabric since there is nothing about it that is real.

      This type of thinking is a product of someone who cannot grasp reality and is mislead by gobbeldy gook he was taught at a university comprised of blithering ijits.

      There are actually people teaching this nonsense at universities, who clearly cannot think for themselves. I was lucky enough to have a physics prof who could think for himself. When the notion of the non-existence of time was forming in my mind and I asked this prof outright if time existed, he did not hesitate. He stated that time was invented by humans to keep tract of change.

      That is blatant obvious to me now but here we are in a forum based on science with posters arguing that time does exist as a real phenomenon. Where is it? If it exists as a real phenomenon, point it out. All I get in reply to such a request is allegations about an arrow of time and/or the change of position of physical objects, which require a force, not time.

      Why is it that a normal, down to earth prof at a Canadian university understood that about time, yet people like Einstein and his groupies failed to understand it? What Einstein has done is undo all the great work of Newton and set us back at least a 100 years in physics. At last he did that for his groupies but for me, Newton is still the man.

      I predict that in the not too distant future, Einstein will be regarded as a fuhl and all those who blindly followed his heresy will be regarded as even bigger fuhls

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “If the Moon was sitting still, then your large number would apply.”
      Are you suggesting gravity doesn’t apply to moving objects?

      “With a = v^2/r, why should there be a straight exponential relationship between a and v? ”
      This is not an exponential relationship. 2^v is exponential; v^2 is quadratic. And 1/r is an inverse relationship.

      “Someone erred grossly when they claimed a change in vector direction is an acceleration. ”
      No. You erred grossly. This is EXACTLY what acceleration has always been. Circular motion has a force toward the center and an acceleration toward the center.

      “Therefore the magnitude of each vector is that unit vector multiplied by the scalar quantity.”
      Not quite. The magnitude of each vector COMPONENT is that unit vector multiplied by the scalar quantity.

      Every physics textbook says exactly this. If this is not what you believe, then you are not doing physics.

      “Can anyone show me a practical application of a = v^2/r.”
      EVERY SINGLE OBJECT MOVING IN A CIRCLE.
      Or in a parabola. Or pretty much any non-straight motion.
      Any time there is a force on an object, there in an acceleration.
      Any time that force is not straight forward or straight backwards, there is an acceleration sideways.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…”No. You erred grossly. This is EXACTLY what acceleration has always been. Circular motion has a force toward the center and an acceleration toward the center”.

        ***

        You are confusing linear acceleration with curvilinear acceleration. If you have a vector representing a mass orbiting in a circle, and the mass velocity is constant, then its acceleration must be zero.

        if you have a mass moving along a straight line, with a constant velocity, the acceleration is zero. Why should it be any different for a mass moving along an orbital path with a constant velocity?

        Conversely, if you have a mass at rest, or performing constant velocity along a straight line, and you apply a force, the position of the mass changes exponentially with time. Can you say that is true for the Moon at any point in its orbit?

        Acceleration implies an exponential change in motion per unit time. That’s why I claim the deviation of the Moon from its instantaneous linear motion is not acceleration but only a gradual constant motion. After all, if you have a vector representing constant velocity, and you break it into its component parts of tangential and radial elements, those elements are still velocity vectors and not acceleration vectors.

        “Any time there is a force on an object, there in an acceleration”.

        ***

        Not true. I can apply all the force I want using my own physical strength to a concrete wall and there will be zero acceleration. When Newton proposed f = ma he did so with an important stipulation. He said, “IF a force can move a mass…then f = ma”. There is an added stipulation that f is the sum of the forces. So, if I apply a force to a mass and get it moving, I can apply an opposite force to limit its motion so it cannot accelerate.

        Anyone who has pushed a car to move it or get it started knows full well there is a limit to the velocity that can be attained. A some point, the carry will stop accelerating and run with a constant velocity no matter how much force we apply with our muscles.

        It’s the same with the Moon. given the limited gravitational force at the Moon’s altitude.

        Inertia plays a major role in acceleration, as witnessed by anyone trying to get a car moving. We can call the initial movement an acceleration of sorts but it soon becomes clear that no matter how much muscular force we apply, the car will simply go no faster. In other words, it has a constant velocity with force applied. That is a violation of f = ma, because if we remove the force, the car’s motion stops immediately, unless we are pushing it downhill.

        I am claiming the same for the Moon. I regard it as a huge mass that gravity is trying to pull toward Earth, like a group of humans in a tug of war. However, at the altitude of the Moon, Earth’s gravity is not strong enough to accelerate a mass the size of the Moon, but merely divert it from its linear motion at a rate of about 5 metres per 8000 metres of lunar motion.

        Such a rate of change is linear and cannot meet the definition of acceleration. Therefore a = v^2/r fails.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “I can apply all the force I want using my own physical strength to a concrete wall and there will be zero acceleration. ”

        Yes, I should have specified NET force. Any time a NET force is applied, there is an acceleration.
        There is no net force on the wall; it doesn’t accelerate. [The floor and/or other walls apply a force equal and opposite to my force.
        The earth applies a net force on the moon; the moon accelerates.

        “it has a constant velocity with force applied.”
        Now you are making the same mistake. There is no NET force with a constant velocity. The various forms of friction equal your applied force.

        You really need to pick up any freshman physics text and look somewhere around chapter 5 for circular motion. To deny acceleration for circular motion is to deny basically all of classical mechanics. You can throw out one part with of the whole of classical mechanics coming undone.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        I can’t find a description of the GHE in any physics text at all.

        Do you think this is because such a description doesn’t exist? Or maybe because to disclose it would be a threat to national security?

        Only joking, I know you are trying to divert attention away from the non-existent GHE by talking nonsense about anything and everything. Mind you, you have to get things right from time to time, by pure accident!

        Even a broken clock is absolutely correct twice a day, which means on a 12 hour face, the hour will be correct 8.3% of the time. That’s about as ridiculous as many of the probabilities presented by GHE cultists. Numerically correct, and completely useless! As silly as adding fluxes from objects with different temperatures.

        You don’t do anything like that, do you?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “I cant find a description of the GHE in any physics text at all.”

        Which texts have you read?

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        Whinnying Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Which texts have you read?”

        Why do you want to know? Why should I tell you? What sort of impotent and incompetent fo‌ol are you, anyway?

        [laughing at dim-witted tro‌ll]

      • RLH says:

        “a mass orbiting in a circle”

        would be very unusual.

        They are normally orbiting in a ellipse. (See Kepler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_orbit). Almost never in a circle.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You ask –

        Why do you want to know?

        Because you are most probably lying.

        What else should we expect from a silly sock puppet?

        Cheers.

      • bobdroege says:

        Gordon,

        To answer your question,

        “if you have a mass moving along a straight line, with a constant velocity, the acceleration is zero. Why should it be any different for a mass moving along an orbital path with a constant velocity?”

        Try Newton’s first law.

        An object at rest or in motion will remain in that state unless a force is acting on it.

        And remember, velocity contains a direction vector.

        Something following an orbital path cannot have a constant velocity.

        You are tripping over basic first year physics.

    • Swenson says:

      Gordon,

      The Moon is falling towards the COG of the Earth, at a rate of about 0.00272 m/s2.

      This seems about right, because the acceleration due to gravity on the Earth’s surface is about 9.8 m/s2, and the Moon is about 60 times further away from the Earth’s COG than the Earth’s surface. This would make the force of gravity affecting the Moon about 1/3600 th of the amount at the Earth’s surface, or 9.8 / 3600. Yea! About 0.00272!

      So Newton was right, after all. Initially, Newton thought he was wrong, but his assumptions about the radius of the Earth were incorrect. The Frenchman, Jean Picard, did a bit of accurate triangulation, coming up with a figure very close to modern measurements (error of less than 0.5 %).

      So each second, the Moon falls 0.00135 m or so, (s=1/2at^2), but travels about 1000 m (in a straight line, if your time measurement is a second), so it is now just as far above the Earth’s curved surface as it was a second ago! It has accelerated from rest (its previous position), but is no closer to the surface. Obviously, the Moon doesn’t move in jerky little one second segments, so Newton thought in terms of “infinitesimals”, tiny weeny miniscule segments, leading to “fluxions” and “fluents”.

      The result was a smooth, non-jerky elliptical trajectory, which wobbles, jiggles, changes here and there in a chaotic manner, but does so smoothly! An infinitesimal amount, but infinitely often, so to speak.

      All very interesting, but completely irrelevant in most ways. The Moon is what it is.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        “The Moon is falling towards the COG of the Earth, at a rate of about 0.00272 m/s2”.

        I agree in principle but not technically. If that was the case, the Moon could never recover the lost distance and would eventually spiral into the Earth. Acceleration in this case requires a finite change in vertical distance of a motion and that has to mean a change in orbital radius.

        I have seen the lunar motion analyzed using equations like a = v^2/r, but I think it is wrong to apply such analysis to the lunar motion.

        I prefer the word deviation to acceleration. A deviation in the case of an orbit can suggest a constant value and that is the case with the Moon. It’s deviation from its linear path is a constant value of about 5 vertical metres for every 8000 horizontal metres. An acceleration cannot be constant, by definition it represents an exponential change of distance covered per unit time.

        A parameter we cannot ignore in this analysis is the Moon’s linear momentum. That’s what keeps the Moon in orbit. If it increases, the Moon moves to a higher altitude orbit and possibly out of orbit with enough momentum. If the Moon loses momentum it spirals into Earth.

        We need that momentum to remain constant to prevent either of the cases above. That means the velocity must remain constant and a constant velocity implies zero acceleration.

        People have argued that the Moon’s tangential velocity changes over an orbit but I don’t think it does. What changes to produce the slight eccentricity in the orbit is Earth’s gravitational force component. If you follow the gravitational force components around the orbit you can see the vector components change. I am theorizing that as the components change, momentum becomes more pronounced in certain parts of the orbit and carries the Moon farther in a given time.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “I am theorizing that …”

        No need to theorize! Newton figured this out 400 years ago. Classical mechanics explains the moon’s orbit and agrees with observations to a ridiculous degree of accuracy.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Newton’s f = G.m1.m2/r^2 cannot explain the reason why the Moon remains in orbit. Neither can f = ma. Neither equations addresses the Moon’s linear momentum, the main reason the Moon remains in orbit. a = v^2/r certainly cannot explain it.

        What Newton did was miraculous enough, explaining what Kepler could not do. Kepler had taken scads of data from astronomer Tycho Brahe and applied math to the data to get a relationship that explained orbiting bodies. However, he knew nothing about gravitational force, which Newton deduced.

        f = G.m1.m2/r^2 only explains the relationship between masses in relation to gravitational force but it does not explain why the Moon remains in orbit. His cannon ball thought experiment was a lot closer and I think he elaborated on that in detail. I am sure that studying Principia in detail will reveal Newtons calculations on the matter but they are hardly mainstream classical mechanics.

        a = v^2/r explains nothing. If you want to get into this, you need vector quantities to produce a resultant. However, the only vectors you have are linear velocity and and a radial acceleration which cannot really be classified as a true acceleration.

        I have proposed a solution in the past. We can calculate a radial force on the Moon from Earth, but we need a tangential force to get a resultant. Since the Moon’s linear momentum represents a potential force if the Moon crashed head on with a significant object, we could convert the linear momentum into a potential force. That should present an on-going resultant force pointing in the direction of an instantaneous tangential force.

        I prefer the more simplistic solution based on the curvature of the Earth. Since its curvature features a 5 metre vertical change per 8000 metres horizontal change, any body moving at a speed that allows gravity to bend it over that ratio will remain in orbit, just like Newton’s cannon ball.

      • Nate says:

        “I have proposed a solution in the past. We can calculate a radial force on the Moon from Earth, but we need a tangential force to get a resultant.”

        Why? No you don’t.

        The radial acceleration adds a slight radial increment of velocity to the tangential velocity, vectorially, every second.

        So imagine a very long tangential vector with a very tiny radial vector added to it. The resultant has a slight change in direction, each second!

        These increments accumulate over time and curve the Moon’s velocity vector around the Earth.

        No tangential force needed!

        And consequently there is negligible torque due to gravity on the Moon (during a single orbit). And negligible effect on the Moon’s rotation during an orbit.

  74. Gordon Robertson says:

    post one y GR…rlh[GR]Gravity acts faster than light.

    [Richard]Wrong also. What speed do gravity waves travel at?

    reply by RLH…Explain a gravity wave.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1660939

    ***

    If you want to be flippant, that’s up to you. I am sure you don’t give a hoot what I think of you but I used to respect your analytical abilities related to statistics, I respected you in general. Now you are presenting a side of yourself that belies the abilities I came to respect.

    In my post, I was comparing the speed at which gravity acts wrt to light and I referenced gravity waves in that context. A gravity wave is generally intended as a reference to a motion in a spacetime fabric, whatever that means, and it is intended to downplay gravitational force as a reality.

    Ocean waves are not gravity waves per se, since gravity is only one factor in the types of waves produced. It is certainly a factor but does not help when referencing wave action that is produced by wind or the wave action produced when an oceanic river collides with a low continental shelf. The latter produces the immense waves used by surfers at competition.

    If you have a mid-ocean condition, where the surface is placid with at best low-altitude wave action, and a strong wind appear, suddenly the ocean is whipped into a frenzy of waves. Gravity does not cause those waves, which can reach 100 metres in the worst case, it is another force causing them. So, calling them gravity waves is just plain stoopid.

    Yes…gravity plays a role by attracting water molecules to a mass, but in all the time I studied this in geology courses, I never once heard those waves referred to as gravity waves.

    We were discussing a reference to waves in spacetime which is an utter fabrication. They are a product of Einstein’s imagination presented in thought experiments with absolutely no evidence that spacetime exists as a real, material phenomenon.

    • Willard says:

      > in all the time I studied this in geology courses, I never once heard those waves referred to as gravity waves.

      🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌
      🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        From your link –

        “Gravity waves aren’t gravitational waves.”

        True, which makes Willard’s “Gravity waves are ripples in the fabric of spacetime itself, . . .” look pretty silly, doesn’t it?

        Just more semantics, giving GHE cultists the excuse “I really meant the other one, unless I didn’t.” Ask a fanatical GHE cultist to actually describe their GHE, and you’ll see them quickly find a reason to talk about something else!

        At least if someone can describe something clearly, it generally shows that there is a chance they are prepared to defend their description, and propose some testable hypothesis.

        But alas, no description of the GHE is to be found anywhere. Maybe you would like to try?

      • RLH says:

        Please distinguish between gravity waves and gravitational waves.

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        You wrote –

        “Please distinguish between gravity waves and gravitational waves.”

        Don’t you read the authorities you appeal to? Jeez, that’s a bit rude – providing a link and then asking me to explain it to you!

        Don’t blame me if you can’t be bothered to read the things to which you link!

        Carry on.

      • RLH says:

        “gravity waves and gravitational waves” are 2 different things (though they sound similar). I read what I wrote. Don’t you?

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        You wrote –

        “Here is one definition.”, and provided a link, which you don’t appear to have read.

        I quoted from your link “Gravity waves arent gravitational waves.”. You can look up the difference – from your own link!

        You also wrote –

        “Please distinguish between gravity waves and gravitational waves.”

        Go on, tell me you don’t know the difference!

        Trol‌ling much?

      • RLH says:

        “Gravity waves aren’t gravitational waves”

        “Please distinguish between gravity waves and gravitational waves.”

        Don’t read much do you?

      • RLH says:

        “Here is one definition” of gravity waves.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        richard…thanks for the clarification. These days we are being inundated with modern re-definitions that make little sense, as the article notes.

        I don’t know if this is global but here in Canada we are suddenly being drowned in ‘atmospheric rivers’. I had never heard that term till recently, after the climate change propaganda got into gear. Prior to that on the West Coast of Canada we had a friendlier term, ‘Pineapple Express’.

        We used to laugh off the super rainstorms and endured them as part of the normal climate. Now they are propagandized as climate change, hence the more sinister atmospheric river term, a dumb metaphor.

        If we can’t laugh at natural variability, taking it in stride, and need to become hysterical about natural forces, we are lost as a species.

        Alarmists try to tell us here that such rainstorms are due to climate change. I remember as a child playing soccer, following and during such a storm, in fields covered with so much water that more of the field was covered with an inch or more of water than was not. When you kicked a ball, it would stall in a small lake and we all rushed into the water with glee to boot it out.

        Kudos to the referees and coaches who would come out to allow us to play. These days, they close the park down during December and January to save the parks, they claim. Load of wusses.

        There were no parents waiting for us in warm cars following the match. We either walked home soaking wet, or took the bus. Same with paper routes. We went out in the elements, alone, rain or snow, with out bikes loaded with newspapers, in the dark, at 5am.

    • RLH says:

      “I {incorrectly} referenced gravity waves in that context.”

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        You wrote –

        “Gravity waves arent gravitational waves

        Please distinguish between gravity waves and gravitational waves.

        Dont read much do you?”

        You are making no sense at all. Please stop tro‌lling.

      • RLH says:

        Do you think that gravity waves are gravitational waves?

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        You ask a particularly stup‌id go‌tcha –

        “Do you think that gravity waves are gravitational waves”

        Why do you ask? Are you appealing to my authority? Are you annoyed because I pointed out that you didn’t appear to have read the link you posted – trying to appear clever?

        Do you really care what I think, or are you just trying to save face?

        Questions, questions. You don’t have any good answers, do you?

        By the way, how are you going with describing the non-existent GHE?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        richard…moot point, neither are caused by gravity. If push comes to shove I’ll take ocean waves as gravity waves but the spacetime kind don’t exist.

        I think it is supreme arrogance for physicists to replace gravity as a force, due to mass, with a cockamamey theory that gravity is not a force but a spacetime anomaly. The gravity waves, or gravitational, if you like, is a purely fictitious force that comes from the minds of demented scientists.

      • RLH says:

        I simply asked if you think that gravity waves are gravitational waves?

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        You ask a particularly stup‌‌id go‌‌tcha

        “Do you think that gravity waves are gravitational waves”

        Why do you ask? Are you appealing to my authority? Are you annoyed because I pointed out that you didnt appear to have read the link you posted trying to appear clever?

        Do you really care what I think, or are you just trying to save face?

        Questions, questions. You dont have any good answers, do you?

        By the way, how are you going with describing the non-existent GHE?

        Just asking the same pointless question again makes you look stu‌pid.

        Ask again, if you are a really slow learner.

      • RLH says:

        “Why do you ask?”

        Because I want to know what you believe in.

      • Swenson says:

        “Because I want to know what you believe in.”

        Why should I care about your wants? Do you care about mine?

        I get the distinct impression that all you want is an argument, and an opportunity to indulge in some pointless tro‌lling.

        Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

      • RLH says:

        “Because I want to know what you believe in.”

        Asking for your beliefs is somehow wrong!

  75. gbaikie says:

    Elon Musks Latest Mars Pitch Has Potential
    SpaceX has made significant progress toward what once seemed an unattainable goal.
    https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-mars-spacex-update/

    Plans can change.
    If Moon has billions of tons of mineable water {and CO2}.
    And I think Venus orbit is the most habitable place.
    In terms of Mars plans, if use Venus orbit, instead of going to Mars every 2.1 years, one go to Mars on average about once a year. Or double earth launches to Mars. And double Mars launches to Earth.
    And Martians could sell Mars water to Venus orbit.

    But both Mars and Venus orbit needs artificial gravity, and we haven’t done that, yet.
    If artificial gravity, doesn’t “work”, then Venus planetary surface could be only habitable planet.
    And if you have to live in sky of Venus, than going to need to use Nuclear Orions.

  76. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    It was a cold morning across southeastern Australia as you’d expect after the passage of an autumn cold front, with subzero readings in three states.

    https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news-thumbnail/2954713

  77. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Several tens of centimeters of fresh snow in the Alps.
    https://www.skiinfo.pl/valais/saas-fee/kamerki

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Greenland, at nearly -50C, where the ice is allegedly melting fast. Pretty soon we’ll be able to farm and sun-bathe in Greenland in April. [/Sarc off]

  78. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Meltwater from the Ural Mountains has spread the dykes in the upper reaches of the Ural River.

  79. Swenson says:

    Willard, trol‌ling as usual, posed a got‌cha. I asked why he wanted to know. Here’s his response –

    “Mike Flynn,

    You ask

    “Why do you want to know?”

    Because you are most probably lying.

    What else should we expect from a silly sock puppet?

    Cheers.”

    Well, Willard, how stu‌pid would you be if you expected a liar to tell you the truth? Do you often appeal to the authority of liars? Why would you assume that a liar would tell you the truth, after lying the first time?

    Are you quite mad?

  80. Gordon Robertson says:

    wee willy…”Gravitational waves are fundamentally different from other waves like light or sound. They dont travel through a medium like air or water. Instead, they are ripples in spacetime itself.

    Imagine spacetime as a fabric. When massive objects move around or accelerate in a very dramatic way, like colliding black holes or neutron stars, they distort this fabric. These distortions travel outward as waves, kind of like ripples on a pond when you throw a stone in”.

    ***

    Proof that wee willy will accept any garbage thrown his way as science. Perhaps ww could offer an explanation for this fabric made of space and time?

    Consider ww going down to the local fabric shop and asking for a bag of space and a container of time and some knitting needles so he can knit himself a spacetime fabric.

    About the same as ww going to a local CO2 distributor and asking for exactly 0.04% CO2 for his translucent container, which he plans to install in his home to heat it.

  81. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Has anyone calculated where temps should be had the pause not happened? If temps had paced aco2 emissions instead of natural variability.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      darwin…that presumes there was a pause. The notion of a pause is that temperatures keep rising due to anthropogenic forces. It was the IPCC who branded the flat tend from 1998 – 2012 as a pause. I disagree, there is no evidence that a trace gas is warming the atmosphere.

      Syun Akasofu calculated that the planet should be warming at about 0.5C/century from the little Ice Age but I doubt that will help your calculations.

    • walterrh03 says:

      That’s impossible to answer, Darwin.

  82. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Tim Folkerts wrote –

    “Light has no charge. Therefore the ‘immense electromagnetic field’ has no effect on uncharged light.”

    Not quite correct. EM distorts spacetime, as it turns out. Distortions of spacetime cause gravity. Gravity affects light, which has no rest mass at all, but is still affected by gravity, as Einstein predicted. Mind you, the Theory of General Relativity is still a theory, and may be incomplete or wrong.

    So EM seems to affect light (and everything else). I’m not the first to say that everything affects everything else, and no doubt won’t be the last.

    As Richard Feynman said “I’m not going to simplify it, I’m going to tell you what it really is like, and I hope you accept nature as she is – ABSURD.

    You don’t like it? Go find another Universe!”

    The presence of CO2 makes nothing hotter in and of itself. There is no GHE. Not in this universe, anyway.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      I was describing classical EM theory. There, F = qE + qvxB is correct and EM fields have no effect on chargeless EM waves (ie photons).

      The point was that relativity is required to understand the bending of light. The bending is primarily due to mass, although — yes — energy in the form of photons could have a minor impact.

      • Swenson says:

        Tim,

        Classical EM theory is all well and good, it’s just wrong, that’s all.

        As you say “The point was that relativity is required to understand the bending of light. The bending is primarily due to mass, although yes energy in the form of photons could have a minor impact.”

        Classical EM theory is non-relativistic, so I cannot quite understand why you stick with it when you admit it doesnt work.

        As to the energy from photons having a “minor impact”, this is a common thought expressed by people who don’t want to accept the chaotic nature of the universe. There is no minimum change to initial conditions which may result in unpredictable outcomes of a fully deterministic chaotic system.

        For example, the atmosphere. The indeterminate position and momentum of a single photon determines the future precisely. You just cannot predict what that future is, because the approximate present does not determine the approximate future, no matter how fervently we wish it to be so. Einstein refused to accept the uncertainty principle, believing that “God does not play at dice.”

        Still no GHE, no matter what anybody prays for. You can’t even describe the GHE in any meaningful way, can you?

  83. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Another upper low over California with a patch of cold and Arctic air in the northeastern US.
    https://i.ibb.co/0Z26mm2/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f072.png

  84. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Tell me you’re not an engineer without saying you’re not an engineer.

    “I took a semester course in vector calculus, preceded by a semester course in linear algebra, and I remember clearly how vectors are added and multiplied.”

    Vector calculus is concerned with the study of vector-valued functions, which are functions that map a set of real numbers (usually representing coordinates) to vectors in a vector space. It encompasses various mathematical operations and concepts applied to vector fields, such as differentiation, integration, and theorems like the divergence theorem, Stokes’ theorem, and Green’s theorem. These tools are extensively used in physics, engineering, and other fields to describe quantities with both magnitude and direction, such as force fields, fluid flow, and electromagnetic fields.

    The basic operations of vector addition and multiplication are typically introduced at a lower level than vector calculus. These fundamental operations are commonly taught in introductory courses; on the other hand, vector calculus is a more advanced branch of mathematics that builds upon these basic concepts to study the behavior of vector-valued functions and their derivatives and integrals in multiple dimensions.

    • Clint R says:

      Yes Ark, vector analysis is one of the ways we know radiative fluxes do not simply add. And that means the GHE is bogus, including the bogus “EEI”. We also know Moon does not spin.

      Consequently, we shouldn’t expect anymore nonsense from your cult.

      Except your cult can’t learn….

    • Swenson says:

      A,

      You wrote –

      “vector calculus is a more advanced branch of mathematics that builds upon these basic concepts to study the behavior of vector-valued functions and their derivatives and integrals in multiple dimensions.”

      Awesome. Do you have a point, or are you just trying to appear intelligent?

      You see, you cannot even describe the GHE, so you have to resort to diversions to obscure the fact that fanatical GHE cultists make stu‌pid assumptions like “energy out must equal energy in”.

      The fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years makes a mockery of that particular inane statement. Thinking that radiative fluxes from objects of different temperatures can be meaningfully added, subtracted, and so on, is about as silly as saying that temperatures can be added!

      And yet, “climate scientists” do it all the time! For example, claiming an “energy imbalance” measured in W/m2 equates to temperature in degrees Celsius! Even you would agree with the silliness of something like that, which would make you smarter than the World Meteorological Organisation, or some fanatical GHE cultist who writes nonsense for them!

      Go on, try and use vector calculus to prove me wrong, if you think it relevant.

    • Bindidon says:

      I never will a post of Robertson some years ago, starting with:

      ” As I took a year in astronomy, … ”

      OMG.

      • Bindidon says:

        Should read:

        ” I never will forget a post … “

      • Swenson says:

        Bindidon, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        In the study of engineering at my university, anyway, you are offered electives to take on top of core courses. There is normally an Arts elective and Science elective. For the science elective I selected courses like geology and astronomy, which also helped me become a rock star.

        I get the drift of Binny’s sarcasm but the course I took in astronomy was a good course for understanding basic astronomy. It helped kill my illusions about space, being nothing like the sci-fi programs about space. It also supplied humour in the early stages hen far too many students showed up for the first class, most of them Arts fairies who thought it was a course in astrology.

        I recall studying black hole theory in which black holes are posited as being one end-result of a star burning out, so to speak. When the star depletes its fuel, it can blow up as a supernova, collapse into a neutron star, or continue to collapse into a black hole of super dense something or other.

        I was too busy to challenge the theory at the time but since, it has come to me that neutrons left over from helium depletion would hardly join together in a mass. Why should they? And if they did, why would they collapse further into a super dense mass?

        These days, for no apparent reason, or with no evidence to support the theory, black holes have somehow become related to Einstein’s nonsense about spacetime. The theory was ludicrous in the first place and now it is even more ludicrous, as being related to an ijiotic theory re spacetime.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ark…”Vector calculus is concerned with the study of vector-valued functions, which are functions that map a set of real numbers (usually representing coordinates) to vectors in a vector space”.

      ***

      Trust a mathematician to obfuscate a simple definition. I already told you what vector calculus is about, adding and multiplying vector quantities.

      The bit about mapping real numbers to vectors in a vector space takes the obfuscation to a new level. They throw in the phrase “usually representing coordinates” but mathematicians would take such a sensible statement and deem it far too simple and straightforward. They can’t help themselves, they need to complicate a definition to the point even they cannot explain it.

      Mapping a real number is nothing more than taking a real number on the x axis and associating with a number along the y-axis. The y number is called a function of x. So, for a parabola centred about the y-axis, with the u-shape up the way, the function f(x) = y = x^2.

      We can tell immediately that when x = 0, y = 0. Also, since x is squared, for each value of x, positive and negative, there is a corresponding value of y. As x increases, the function, y, creates a parabolic shape either side of the y axis.

      So, they are telling us vector calculus is about points in the x,y plane that have magnitude and direction. Naturally, those points can also be moving with variable velocity and acceleration, therefore the scalar quantities associated with the vectors can be differential quantities.

      That’s all it is about from an engineering perspective. If you have a field that can be represented by vectors, and the field has some kind of order that can be described by a continuous function, vector calculus lays down rules about manipulating the vectors re addition and multiplication, even if the scalars are differentials.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Gordon Robertson, welcome to my seminar. The first lesson is free.

        Vector arithmetic primarily deals with basic operations involving vectors, such as addition, subtraction, scalar multiplication, and finding the magnitude and direction of vectors.

        Vector calculus, also known as vector analysis, extends the concepts of calculus to vector fields, which are functions. It deals with operations on vector fields, such as differentiation (gradient, divergence, curl) and integration (line integrals, surface integrals, volume integrals).

      • Swenson says:

        “Gordon Robertson, welcome to my seminar. The first lesson is free.”

        Arkady, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        There is no course at any university called vector arithmetic. It is called vector calculus, and is nothing more than a means of adding and multiplying vectors.

        The semester course I took before it was called linear algebra. About 2/3rds the way through the course, a bleary eyed engineer at the front of the class shot up his hand. The prof, a great guy who made up a set of immaculate lecture notes for each lecture, asked what he wanted. The engineer had a simple question, “what are we doing”? The prof asked what he meant, at that particular moment or in the entire course. The guy said, ‘the entire course’. The prof smiled and asked if anyone else felt the same way. We all shot up our hands.

        So, the prof patiently explained that we were were not supposed to understand what was going on, that all we needed to do was learn the rules of solving multiple equations. He assured us that, as we went along, it would all be revealed to us.

        Not once in the course, or in our text book, was the word vector mentioned. Britannica, once a pearl of wisdom, has sunk so low these days that they cannot even explain linear algebra. They claim it’s about vectors, which is bs. Some people insist on called any set of numbers a vector if it can be created in 3-space. However, as an engineer I object to such malarkey. If it doesn’t have an arrow, and a tail, and represent something real like a force, it’s not a vector.

        Turns out that linear algebra was about learning the rules related to solving simultaneous equations. Anyone who studied high school math knows how to solve basic simultaneous equations using cancellation of like terms. However, things begin to get hairy when the number of equations and the number of elements in an equation increase significantly. Equations are not limited to 2- and 3-space, they can extend to n-space.

        You want to know if the equations have a common solution. That’s part of what you learn in linear algebra, if the equations have a solution at all.

        I think it is the same for vector calculus. The word ‘calculus’ suggests that we are applying calculus to vector addition and multiplication, and that’s what we did eventually, Rather than using simple scalars with vectors, we began using differentials so we had to learn how to add and multiply differentials.

        If you have a vector, or a vector field, that is constantly changing its scalars and directions, you need to use differential calculus. But you can’t just add differentials pell mell. There are rules and we were learning the rules.

        If you have a differential like dx/dx, you know it equals 1. There are similar identities you can use when the differential is accompanied by scalar quantities like a number, an exponential or a trig value like cos or sin.

        I am not arguing that you can’t call the simpler vector addition and multiplication arithmetic, all I know is that I left arithmetic behind in high school and encountered only calculus at university. Another thing, by the time I left 2nd year calculus (triple integrals), I considered myself an expert in arithmetic, geometry, and trig. You use them all so much and so regularly in calculus you can do them in your sleep.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson

        You are simply way, way, way too dumb, too ignorant and too inexperienced to understand what Warmista Ivanovich told you.

        I have explained many times on this blog that you never have been an engineer in any identifiable discipline.

        And your lengthy, stoopid, utterly superficial posts above are the umpteenth proof of my explanations.

        Here is what any REAL engineer understands under ‘vector calculus’:

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

        This has nothing in common with the trivial stuff you are telling about.

        Your butt-kissing friend-in-denial Flynnson is by the way exactly as ignorant as you are.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        You wrote –

        “Your butt-kissing friend-in-denial Flynnson is by the way exactly as ignorant as you are.”

        Very erudite of you, I’m sure. A grand demonstration of your vast intellect, do you think?

        Have you managed a non-nonsensical description of the GHE, yet? You might recollect that you referred to your initial description as “nonsense” (I agree, of course), but you haven’t managed a better GHE description since then, have you?

        Your tro‌lling attempts have not improved, either. Maybe others hold different opinions, and consider you a tro‌ll par excellence. What do you think?

        Carry on.

  85. TechnoCaveman says:

    Not sure where else to post this.
    News story saying ‘30% of NOAA temperature stations are ghost stations that no longer exists.”

    Source: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hidden-behind-climate-policies-data-nonexistent-temperature-stations

    Is NOAA faking it? One would assume NOAA and U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) would add more data points for better data. While “interpellation” is a high school subject, even a high schooler knows not to take a temperature reading in New York and one from California to “Interrelate” the temperature in Kansas. Yes that is a wild example. However when measuring stations are hundreds of miles away from “the measured spot” then faith wains in the reading’s validity. It might be good to add stations – on in the city and one 15 miles away in a rural section.

    What is embarrassing is “Weather Underground” has an order of magnitude more stations – though they are not calibrated and may be in bad spots like near the HVAC machinery.

    Just know the story came out. People are asking questions.

    • Entropic man says:

      “One would assume NOAA and U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) would add more data points for better data. ”

      More data points improve the uncertainty in the averages, but only up to a certain point.

      There is also an uncertainty due to random variation in the data.

      As you increase sample size the uncertainty in the averages decreases until it matches the uncertainty due to random variation.

      Beyond that point increasing the sample size does not improve the uncertainty, so there’s no point adding extra stations.

      If you do the maths, you can get a global average to the best achievable uncertainty of +/- 0.6C using 1500 stations.

      • Entropic man says:

        Sorry, 0.06C.

      • walterrh03 says:

        “As you increase sample size the uncertainty in the averages decreases until it matches the uncertainty due to random variation.”

        When you average measurements in science, you are doing so on the premise of comparable and repeatable measurements. However, they are not; we know the USHCN is, for the most part, an unstandardized network, and we know several adjustments have been attempted the “well-known” biases.

        What happens when you average two measurements together: one where the temperature was recorded at a time when a colony of wasps started to construct its nest, and another measurement where the wasp nest was fully constructed? Both processes took place close to the sensor where air temperature is recorded.

      • walterrh03 says:

        *The process took*

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ent…I guess you don’t study much logic in biology. How can anyone determine the temperature of an area when there is only 1 thermometer to cover 100,000 km^2? I know you have a penchant for dealing in trivia but this is taking it way too far.

        NOAA has only 4 thermometers to cover California, all of them near the ocean and none in the Sierras. There is only one thermometer covering the entire Canadian Arctic and it is located in the warmest part of that area at Eureka.

        Binny will be along shortly, with his brother in denial Barry, with a long list of GHCN station, but in his immense denial he refuses to accept what NOAA has revealed, that they have chopped over 90% of GHCN station data since 1990. They use less than 1500 stations globally.

        Gavin Schmidt, now head of NASA GISS offered a clue as to why. He revealed a while back that GISS lacks the resources to go through 100,000 stations monthly.

        I see it another way. NOAA and GISS are blatant climate alarmists sanctioned by the US government to create fake news about climate change. They have no interest in offering an accurate global temperature database, only in propping up the GHE and anthropogenic lie.

        I mean, no reputable outfits would claim 2014 as the hottest year ever while carefully hiding in the small print that what they are claiming is referring to a 48% likelihood they are telling the truth. That makes GISS bigger liars since they offered only a 38% likelihood they were telling the truth.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      techno…there is no doubt that NOAA and NASA GISS have been fudging surface temperatures for a long time. Tony Heller has revealed that in detail and here is your proof re the data points…

      https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

      “Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?

      The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time”.

      Alarmists go ballistic when I post this info, wallowing in their denial.

      NOAA have been using fake stations, synthesized using climate models, in which they interpolate station temperatures up to 1200 km apart to synthesize fake stations. Then they homogenize the data, including fake station, to produce temperature data for larger areas. Almost the entire ocean is fudged data.

      If you want a full analysis of the debauchery, look here…

      https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

      This is just gisstemp…look carefully through the site and he covers it all. Also, look up articles and videos by Tony Heller.

      • walterrh03 says:

        CRN is the pristine site capable of delivering very accurate in-suite measurements, but nClimDiv is still being updated and displayed monthly.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Maybe so, but the link to which I posted by NOAA claims they use less than 1500 stations to get their global averages.

        Binny has called them liars because the link dates back to 2015 or so.

      • walterrh03 says:

        The CRN anomalies are calculated from the same baseline as the old network is. Because of this, uncertainty from the old network is propagated into the anomalies. The number of stations dropped from the USHCN have estimated data from their neighbor stations through the pairwise homogenization algorithm, which is really propagating uncertainty from that station’s record into the new estimated record. So, as the number of stations with estimated data increases, the more fake the anomalies get. You are right to call it fraud.

      • Willard says:

        [WALTER R. HOGLE] You are right to call it fraud.

        [ALSO WALTER R. HOGLE] I don’t, by any means, claim to be an expert.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        You need to be wary of “experts”.

        As Feynman said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”. I agree – smart fellow, Feynman.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • walterrh03 says:

        You don’t need to be an expert to understand this.

        You’re taking measurements over a series of time, expecting to smooth out variations with long-term averaging. For that to happen, the conditions of consistency and repeatability must be maintained.

        If, during a time interval, a tree falls near the station, it systematically no longer provides the shade variations it did prior to the fall. The distribution of measured parameters has changed, and more sunlight now regularly warms the microclimate where the station continues to record. There are other trees nearby to provide some level of shade, but the total amount isn’t as much.

        When you average the measurements from this time interval with the previous time interval, the noise is amplified rather than the variations being smoothed. This uncertainty is propagated to a neighboring station during the pairwise homogenization process, and the grid in which the corrected station is located now spreads that uncertainty to the overall grid average.

        The pairwise homogenization process turned a cooling trend in the raw USHCN data with warmer 1930s and 1940s into a warming trend with a colder Dust Bowl than the present.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You’re a silly sock puppet who denies the greenhouse effect. Puffman also denies the greenhouse effect. Mr. Asshat denies the greenhouse effect. Graham D. Warner denies the greenhouse effect.

        Do you believe that Walter R. Hogle denies the greenhouse effect?

        Cheers.

      • walterrh03 says:

        *the corrected station in the grid*

      • Willard says:

        > The pairwise homogenization process turned a cooling trend in the raw USHCN data with warmer 1930s

        False:

        [T]he NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies urban‐correction procedure has essentially no impact on USHCN version 2 trends since 1930, but effectively removes the residual urban‐rural temperature trend differences for years before 1930 according to all
        four urban proxy classifications.

        https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/hausfather-etal2013.pdf

        Walter R. Hogle is a whiny bitch.

      • walterrh03 says:

        That’s not an issue related to the scenario I described.

        They don’t know how those specific conditions have affected the measurements over time. Urban and rural areas have changed populations, and likely infrastructure has changed with them. Uncertainty will propagate in a similar way to what I described with my example.

      • walterrh03 says:

        The overall homogenization process was a large contributor to the ending result, which was a cooling of the past and a warming of the present.

      • Willard says:

        Step 3 – Saying Stuff

        Walter R. Hogle is a natural.

      • walterrh03 says:

        That’s not just saying stuff. You don’t even know what you’re trying to challenge.

      • Willard says:

        Walter R. Hogle is indeed just saying stuff.

        Ignorance is infinite, and his appeals to it doubly so.

      • Swenson says:

        “Step 3 Saying Stuff.”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Bindidon says:

      TechnoCaveman

      If USHCN is as bad as Mr Shewchuck claims: why then did UAH’s John Chrsity use USHCN data to produce this US statistics at the end of 2020?

      https://web.archive.org/web/20210112005636/https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf

      *
      USHCN still exists but isn’t used since years anymore.

      It has been replaced by

      – USCRN, the Climate Reference Network, with nearly 140 pristine stations in the US
      – GHCN V4 which is derived out of GHCN daily, has over 27,000 stations worldwide and is used by NOAA, GISS and… recently by Roy Spencer and John Christy for their UHI statistics, which they presented last year on this blog.

      *
      Feel free to replicate doubts of others if you like; but what about asking Spencer and Christy why they used USHCN and GHCN V4, if both sources are that bad?

      Maybe these two might inform you better?

    • Bindidon says:

      TechnoCaveman

      Who credulously believes Robertson’s lies about weather stations 100% deserves them.

      I’m sad of replying to such endless lies all the time he posts them.

  86. gbaikie says:

    Monty Python’s John Cleese: Cancel the censors!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfDBTpAzV4U

  87. 1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
    Tmean.earth

    R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
    Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
    Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47

    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
    N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.

    cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
    We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.

    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
    So = 1.361 W/m^2 (So is the Solar constant)

    Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:

    Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)^1/4 /4σ ]^1/4

    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150*1*1)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
    Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )^1/4 =

    Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
    And we compare it with the
    Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.

    These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.

    ****
    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Nate says:

      We’ve been over the flaws in this analysis before, Christos.

      You have that the abs.orbed solar is 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2. Then to average over the whole globe, day and night, we divide by 4. That gives

      0,47(1-0,306)1.361/4 W/m^2 = 111 W/m^2

      But this obviously cannot be correct since the outgoing LW radiation is measured to be 240 W/m^2 on average.

      Your input abs.orbed solar is way way way too small compared to the output OLR.

      Your Earth would be rapidly cooling!

    • Nate says:

      Christos, has no answers, thus is pretending this does not matter.

  88. Bindidon says:

    It seems that still no one on the blog can explain the huge difference between gravity waves and gravitational waves – in fact, they don’t have anything in common.

    *
    By the way, just a little hint: gravitational waves are by no means an invention of Albert Einstein.

    They were predicted in 1893 already, by a rather unknown British genius named Oliver Heaviside, who understood Maxwell’s equations better than anyone else, and hence logically has been the very first scientist having discovered the strong analogy between gravity and electromagnetism, thus giving us a link between Newton’s and Maxwell’s working fields.

    *
    A comprehensive, modern rewriting of Heaviside’s paper was made by the physicist Oleg D. Jefimenko:

    A Gravitational and Electromagnetic analogy

    Oliver Heaviside

    https://sergf.ru/Heavisid.htm

    • gbaikie says:

      “The word “gravity” in the word gravity wave can make the term more confusing than it really is. It has little to do with having a special relationship with gravity. ALL air motions are influences by gravity. Once the word gravity is eliminated, all that is left is the word wave. Air can have one of two motions, which are either STRAIGHT or WAVE. These waves can be vertical or horizontal. When you look at a 500-millibar chart with the troughs and ridges you are looking at horizontal waves (waves on a more or less horizontal plane).
      A gravity wave is a vertical wave. The best example I can think of in describing what a gravity wave looks like is to think of a rock being thrown into a pond. Ripples or circles migrate from the point the rock hits the water. An up and down motion is created. With increasing distance from the point where the rock hit the water, the waves becomes less defined (the waves are dampening).

      Now let’s look at what a gravity wave is in the atmosphere. To start a gravity wave, a TRIGGER mechanism must cause the air to be displaced in the vertical. Examples of trigger mechanisms that produce gravity waves are mountains and thunderstorm updrafts. To generate a gravity wave, the air must be forced to rise in STABLE air. Why? Because if air rises in unstable air it will continue to rise and will NOT create a wave pattern. If air is forced to rise up in stable air, the natural tendency will be for the air to sink back down over time (usually because the parcel forced to rise is colder than the environment). The momentum of the air imparted by the trigger mechanism will force the parcel to rise and the stability of the atmosphere will force the parcel of air to sink after it rises (you have now undergone the first steps into creating a wave).”

      https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/Miscellaneous/gravity_wave/gravity_wave.html

      • gbaikie says:

        At some point in time, the Chinese wanted to make 1 km tall stick artificial gravity spacestation.

        It’s spin would have made gravitational waves.

      • Swenson says:

        The US President, Theodore Roosevelt, once said “speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far”.

        If China is speaking softly, and carrying a 1 km long stick, it will go very, very far!

        [the Devil made me do it]

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        When a rock is dropped in water, it is the gravitational force of the rock producing the waves, not gravity itself. Gravity serves to limit the amplitude of the waves and to dissipate the amplitude as the wave spreads out. However, it is the rock that causes the waves, causing them to propagate sideways.

      • gbaikie says:

        “However, it is the rock that causes the waves, causing them to propagate sideways.”

        No one is saying anything, different. But, most universe’s mass is not “rock”.

        But if you just had two large rocks orbiting, they cause gravity waves. [As they orbit around their single barycenter].

        Though measuring it with an instrument {though not observing it’s effect upon 3rd rock [or spacecraft} added to it- being this “instrument”] is difficult.
        So the instrument assumes gravitation waves effect space/time- and that is what you disagree about.

        Anyhow such instruments have been made, and they seem to be measuring “something”.
        As we become a spacefaring civilization {not confined to a single rock] such instruments will improve.

    • Swenson says:

      “It seems that still no one on the blog can explain the huge difference between gravity waves and gravitational waves in fact, they dont have anything in common.”

      That includes you, does it?

      Gee, and I thought people could use the internet.

      From Wikipedia –

      “Gravitational waves are sometimes called gravity waves, but gravity waves typically refer to displacement waves in fluids.”

      According to Wikipedia, gravitational waves “are sometimes called gravity waves”, but don’t specify by whom. To further complicate issues, the “speed of gravity” usually refers to gravitational waves (sometimes called gravity waves, of course).

      All quite irrelevant – nobody on the blog can even describe the GHE! Pretending to explain something which cannot even be described, is an exercise in futility.

      Carry on about the semantics of gravity, gravity waves, gravitational waves to your hearts’s content.

    • Eben says:

      Bindidork claims he knows something while all he does is throwing famous scientists names , its claiming is is smart because he ate alamoun’s zshit

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Not only that, the scientist’s name he is throwing about, knew very little about gravity.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      The paper you linked to by Heavyside is largely nonsense and here’s why…

      1)In 1893, when the paper was written, the electron had not yet been invented. He refers to electrification without knowing what electricity is all about, electron/charge flow.

      Im not knocking the guy, simply pointing out he had nothing to go on re gravity or EM.

      2)It would be another 20 years before Bohr equated the electron to production of electromagnetic energy. Hence, the argument of Heavyside, and even Maxwell, were based on unknowns. However, gravitational theory re forces had already been established by Newton. Heavyside is trying to equate gravity to EM without understand EM.

      BTW, Maxwell’s equation still apply to EM as related to current induced magnetic fields, and his projections about light showed great insight. Still, he knew nothing about electromagnet energy produced by electrons in atoms. HE would not have been privy to even the most basic atomic theory we take for granted today.

      Even today, no one has discovered the root cause of gravity. It cannot be related to EM simply because it carries no charge (no electric field) and it dos not affect a compass needle (no magnetic field). Yet it dissipates in the same manner re the inverse square law.

      One thing is for sure, gravity has nothing to do with imaginary space and time fields, which have no existence.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        “1)In 1893, when the paper was written, the electron had not yet been invented”.

        Should obviously read…”1)In 1893, when the paper was written, the electron had not yet been discovered.

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      More analogies!

      At least Heaviside was consistent –

      “For this, also, there is a well-known gastronomical analogy.”

      Later on, he writes –

      “lead me to point out now some of the consequences of the modified law which arises when we assume that the ether is the working agent in gravitational effects, and that it propagates disturbances at speed v in the manner supposed in my former article.”

      Some would dispute the assumption “that the ether is the working agent”, but no matter.

      Heaviside also writes –

      “If they are observable, then, if existent, they should turn up, but if non-existent then the speed of gravity should be greater. [than the speed of light].

      However, a lack of evidence does not necessarily mean absence of lack. An old speculation.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “…they dont have anything in common”.

      ***

      They do have something in common, neither one exists. Calling a wave in the ocean a gravity wave is along the lines of calling excess moisture in the atmosphere a river. Gravity obviously plays a part but some other force produces the waves.

      The other type of non-wave is the one based on the fiction of spacetime. Such waves are strictly imaginary.

    • Bindidon says:

      As always: a load of redundant, irrelevant blathering stuff by the usual pseudo-skeptical boys.

      The only funny moment was dachshund Eben’s teethless ankle-biting.

    • Nate says:

      Interestingly he came out with a speed for gravitational waves 1/1000 of the speed of light. Whereas Einstein and experiment found it to be equal to the speed of light.

      • RLH says:

        “Einstein and experiment found it to be equal to the speed of light”

        Now apply that to Newtonian calculations about orbits.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        Einstein speculated at one time that gravitational waves would exist. Their existence and speed have not been confirmed by experiment. Observations appear to confirm their existence, but are not definitive yet.

        On the other hand, Einstein also claimed that gravitational waves do not exist –

        “In a 1936 manuscript submitted to the Physical Review, Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen famously claimed that gravitational waves do not exist.” – Springer Link, but others claim that Einstein was mistaken.

        Speculation and assumptions are all well and good, but reproducible experiment sorts out fact from fantasy.

        Maybe you would be better employed concentrating on describing the GHE. Or do you now accept that describing the GHE is impossible?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “Springer Link”

        Are you referring to the famous Dutch physicist?

      • Swenson says:

        “Are you referring to the famous Dutch physicist?”

        You tell me.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “You tell me”

        Is that an order?

        Carry on looking like a silly sock puppet.

      • Swenson says:

        “Carry on looking like a silly sock puppet.”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

  89. Gordon Robertson says:

    ren…”Valleys in Southern California are in bloom”.

    ***

    That means the peyote harvest will be coming soon, We’ll have to keep an eye on gb to see if he starts expounding more on Mars. Or counting protons in the solar wind. ☺ ☺ 🦁

    • gbaikie says:

      It’s been wet. And cold. But next week it’s not going to get colder than 40 F. And hasn’t froze in a while- though week or so ago, there was some snow on the low hills around here. But it seems we will get a lot flowers, soon.

      Of course what most interested in is ocean settlements, which should be caused to appear, once we get a lot rocket launches {hundreds, and thousands per year]. They will also to related to sub-orbital travel- or when rockets are as cheap as airline travel- maybe within a decade.

      • gbaikie says:

        New Glenn rocket could launch this year. Sure, was suppose to be last year, but delays in rockets isn’t abnormal. So we going to have two crazy billionaires, making reusable rockets.
        And there is not shortage of crazy billionaires, in our world.

  90. When a planet or moon rotates faster, its surface’s temperature is less differentiated. This results in rising the surface average temperature.

    Because for a sphere (it is a well known and explained phenomenon), for the same IR energy emission, the less differentiated the sphere’s surface temperature – the higher the average surface temperature.
    But it is about a phenomenon, when sphere has been previously warmed, or, when sphere has its own inner source/sources of energy.

    Planet or moon gets its surface energy from the interaction processes with the incident solar EM energy.
    When interacting, part of the solar energy gets reflected as SW EM energy.

    The rest is the not reflected portion of the incident solar SW EM energy.
    Most of it gets transformed into IR outgoing EM energy, without being absorbed.
    Only a small part gets absorbed in form of heat in inner layers.

    When planet or moon faster rotation, less gets transformed into IR outgoing EM energy, and more is accumulated in inner layers.

    For planets and moons, it is different then.
    For the same IR emission, the faster rotating planet or moon accumulates more solar energy – thus the faster rotating planets and moons are warmer. Their surface temperatures are less differentiated, and, also, their surfaces accumulate more solar energy.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Christos…that could be due, in part, to what Shula claimed about radiation. Since the only way to dissipate heat is via radiation, heat dissipation via radiation is inefficient, and solar input is very efficient at warming the planet.

      Therefore, the planet cannot rid itself of heat as fast as it receives it from the Sun. Ergo, temperature rises. It’s the same with the Moon, it cools more slowly than it warms, therefore its temperature is higher than it should be.

      I agree with you on rotational speed, just adding more to the story.

  91. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Gordon Robertson:Someone erred grossly when they claimed a change in vector direction is an acceleration. I took a semester course in vector calculus, preceded by a semester course in linear algebra, and I remember clearly how vectors are added and multiplied.

    I’m still waiting for you to tell us where the error is because, since velocity is a vector, any change in its magnitude or direction constitutes an acceleration, according to the definition of acceleration.

    • Swenson says:

      A,

      “Im still waiting for you to tell us where the error is because”

      Arkady, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Acceleration was not defined with vectors in mind. It was defined based on rectilinear motion as the rate of change of the velocity of a mass. Then it was no doubt applied to curvilinear motion in the same way but as the rate of change of the angle of a radial line from an axis to the body in motion.

      Although a change in the rate of motion of a mass along a curve could be used in the same manner as with rectilinear motion, it applies only for an instant. Then the acceleration must be recalculated in subsequent instants.

      That’s easy enough to do on a curvilinear shape like a circle by summing (integrating) the function of a circle based on an instanteneous rate of change but it’s a lot easier to track a changing angle of a radial line. That’s why we tend to use x-y coordinates for linear motion and polar coordinates for curvilinear motion.

      So, if you have a mass moving along a curvilinear path at a constant velocity, you could observe the tangent line at any point where the tangent line represents the instantaneous motion of the COG of the mass. In fact, in engineering problems we replaced the entire mass (presuming a uniform rigid body), moving along a curve, with a vector representing the motion of its COM. Therefore the tangent line become a vector quantity since it has magnitude and an instantaneous direction.

      So, if we now track a vector that represents the velocity of the COG of a mass moving along a curve, it must behave in such a manner that it’s analogue in polar coordinates is the same. If we define a mass moving at a constant angular velocity along a curve, it means that the angle a radial line to the mass COG from an axis coordinate is changing at a constant rate.

      As long as the change of angle of the radial line is constant, there can be no acceleration of the mass. That changing angle, however, of a radial line, is not the same as the changing angle of the tangential vector wrt to the x-axis, representing the tangential motion of the COG of the mass.

      That’s where the mistake comes in. Some seems to think that a changing tangential vector angle of a body moving on a curve suggests acceleration. It can’t be acceleration if the body is moving with constant velocity along the curve.

      This is the same misunderstanding we have with the Moon. If the Moon was moving in a circular orbit at a constant velocity, the angle a radial line from Earth’s centre would change wrt to an axis would be constant. However, a tangential vector representing lunar motion (constant velocity) would change its orientation though 360 degrees wrt the stars per orbit.

      That change in orientation angle of a tangential vector does not indicate a rotation of the Moon on a local axis. Neither does the change in angle represent an acceleration of the Moon in its orbit.

      • Willard says:

        > Although a change in the rate of motion of a mass along a curve could be used in the same manner as with rectilinear motion, it applies only for an instant.

        🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌

      • Swenson says:

        “🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        How much change of rate can you fit in an instant?

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “How much change of rate can you fit in an instant?”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        I’m sure Walter R. Hogle appreciates the relevance of Mike Flynn’s replies to cover up for Mr. Asshat’s blunder.

        He once told me he was big at math.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        wee willy…[GR]”Although a change in the rate of motion of a mass along a curve could be used in the same manner as with rectilinear motion, it applies only for an instant”.

        wee willy replies with ducks. Doh!!!

        Is there any sense in your brain at all? The direction of a vector representing motion on any curve applies only for an instant. Next instant, the direction has changed. The vector represents the rate of change, ergo, the rate of change applies for only an instant, which we know better as a differential quantity, described as an instant in layman’s talk.

        Would it do any good to ask you to butt out of debates you have not the slightest chance of understanding? No…I didn’t think so. You specialize in making a complete ass of yourself.

      • Swenson says:

        “Im sure Walter R. Hogle appreciates the relevance of Mike Flynns replies to cover up for Mr. Asshats blunder.”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        > ducks

        Looks like Mr. Asshat needs new glasses!

        🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌

      • Swenson says:

        “🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        A rate of change. An instant. Constant or average rates are quite manageable using vector calculus. In fact, simply consider fields, Mr. Asshat’s pet object.

        Think from time to time, silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        “Think from time to time, silly sock puppet!”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

  92. gbaikie says:

    Elon Musk Doubles Down on Mars Dreams and Details Whats Next for SpaceXs Starship
    By Edd Gent April 12, 2024
    https://singularityhub.com/2024/04/12/elon-musk-doubles-down-on-mars-dreams-and-details-whats-next-for-spacexs-starship/

    “One glaring omission in the talk was any detail on whos going to be paying for all of this. While the goal of making humankind multiplanetary is a noble one, its far from clear how the endeavor would make money for those who put up the funds to make it possible.”

    Sell real estate.

    Anyone can own any land on Mars. So, free land.
    How do sell free land?
    The land has access to water and power. {which you paid for- it’s not free]. But you have free Mars land, but land is sold close to where you can cheap water and cheap electrical power.
    So if you want some land in which you are going to mine water and have some solar panel. It’s free. But if you live in town, and live off the electrical grid and get water piped to you. Then you have to buy real estate. Or you get real estate which might increase in value as the town grows.
    Or just like on Earth.
    And town is also going have laws and etc. If you don’t want laws and etc, don’t live in or near a town.

    • Eben says:

      Nobody is going to Mars

      • gbaikie says:

        Nobody is scheduled to go to Mars orbit or Mars surface.
        People are scheduled to orbit our Moon. And scheduled to land on the Moon.
        There is no rocket which can get crew to Mars orbit, or Mars surface.
        There is no rocket, yet which can land crew on the Moon.
        If the Starship rocket can land crew on the Moon, the Starship can also send crew to Mars {either to orbit or land on Mars}.

        Starship test flight 4 will happen in about 1 month. There probably be a Starship test flight 5, in couple months. And the 6th launch might not be a test flight.

        SLS will launch crew to orbit the Moon sometime in later part of 2025.
        When it launches crew to go to lunar surface, will later than this- it needs Starship or New Glenn rocket to do this mission.

        Probably the Starship won’t send crew to Mars before it land crew on the Moon. But maybe do the Dear Moon mission before that.

    • gbaikie says:

      SpaceX’s Announced Starship Upgrades are Ludicrous and Awesome!
      Marcus House
      522K subscribers
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=revW3hiJfhs
      A good weekly round up

  93. Swenson says:

    Bindidon,

    From WUWT –

    “NOAA fabricates temperature data for more than 30 percent of the 1,218 USHCN reporting stations that no longer exist. – Lt. Col. John Shewchuk, certified consulting meteorologist”

    Bindidon, tell me it isn’t true!

    You might also have a view on –

    “All these different entities out there, like NOAA, GISS, BEST, all the entities I listed, use the same data from GHCN. And they all apply their own set of ‘special sauce’ adjustments to create what they believe is true.

    Its almost like each of these entities is creating their version of the real, true God. You know, it’s like a religion. Theyre using different mathematical and statistical techniques to produce their version of climate reality.

    And it all goes back to the same original, badly-sited, badly-maintained ghost station dataset around the world. USHCN and GHCN are the same stuff.” – Anthony Watts.

    You could always make your usual accusations of blah, blah, teethless ankle biting, arrogant polemics, and all the rest of your diversionary attempts to avoid facing the reality that you can’t even describe your GHE God!

    [smiles]

    • Bindidon says:

      Anthony Watts, a ‘meteorologist’ ???

      Flynnson is apparently stoopid enough to swallow anything from anyone – provided it serves to spread even the stoopidest of lies.

      • Swenson says:

        “Lt. Col. John Shewchuk, certified consulting meteorologist”

        Who said Anthony Watts is a meteorologist? You, so you could claim he isn’t?

        As I said before, you could always make your usual accusations of blah, blah, teethless ankle biting, arrogant polemics, and all the rest of your diversionary attempts to avoid facing the reality that you cant even describe your GHE God!

        What is the “stoopidest lie” you accuse “Flynnson” of spreading?

        You can’t quite say, can you?

        Maybe you could explain why you said “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”, and later said that your statement was nonsense – and that you would never intentionally say such a thing! Oh dear, you write something nonsensical, get caught out writing it, and then claim it must have been an accident!

        It doesn’t make you look terribly bright does it? Have you come up with a description of the GHE which isn’t nonsense? No?

        Colour me unsurprised!

        [smiling broadly at fanatical GHE cultist, hoist with his own petard]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        That John Shewchuk:

        https://co2coalition.org/teammember/john-shewchuk/

        ?

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “That John Shewchuk:”

        I don’t know. If you say that there are two John Shewchuks who “After retiring from the Air Force he became a Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) and was board certified by the American Meteorological Society”, I cannot prove you wrong.

        You are quite the idi‌ot, aren’t you? You keep providing links which support what I say. Is this a result of your declared love for me, or are you just stu$#8204;pid?

        It doesnt matter either way, does it?

      • walterrh03 says:

        That’s not addressing Swenson’s overall point.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You cited a crank who brown noses Tony.

        Was your

        “tu$#8204;pid”

        a way to give your st#8204;pid little encoding trick to bypass moderation?

      • Swenson says:

        Wee Willy Wanker,

        “You cited a crank who brown noses Tony.”

        You are cranking out gibberish again, as walterrh03 appreciates.

        As to your silly “Was your

        “tu$#8204;pid”

        a way to give your st#8204;pid little encoding trick to bypass moderation?”, if you claim I wouldnt tell you the truth, why would you waste your time asking?

        Very strange, Willard. Your tro‌lling efforts become more inept by the day.

        Keep at it – you might become an adequate tro‌ll, one day. At the moment you are only an object of derision, and a general laughing stock!

        [laughing at fanatical GHE cultist]

      • walterrh03 says:

        It thinks it enhances its responses by throwing off-topic insults like “whiny bitch” or “silly sock puppet”. It can’t even use its brain correctly because it’s pathologically unstable.

      • Willard says:

        Walter R. Hogle has opinions about tone:

        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. 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.

        And any data that incorporates spatial interpolation should, at the VERY least, not be taken at face value.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1638409

      • Swenson says:

        Whacky Wee Willy,

        “Walter R. Hogle has opinions about tone: . . .”.

        Do you agree or disagree, or are you just totally confused?

        I know you have boasted in the past about wasting space. Maybe you really meant to boast that you are a waste of space, is that it? Come on, Willard, don’t be shy – be as boastful as you like!

        It really makes no difference, does it? You are what you are, whether you like it or not.

        Carry on.

        [laughs at numpty]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You ask –

        “Do you agree or disagree”

        I agree that Walter R. Hogle is a whiny bitch.

        What are your braying about, silly sock puppet?

      • Swenson says:

        Whacky Wee Willy,

        “Walter R. Hogle has opinions about tone: . . .”.

        Do you agree or disagree, or are you just totally confused?

        I know you have boasted in the past about wasting space. Maybe you really meant to boast that you are a waste of space, is that it? Come on, Willard, dont be shy be as boastful as you like!

        It really makes no difference, does it? You are what you are, whether you like it or not.

        Carry on.

        [laughs loudly at numpty]

      • walterrh03 says:

        It’s so pathologically unstable that it’s doing the very thing it’s projecting to everyone else.

      • Willard says:

        Walter R. Hogle keeps whining like the whiny bitch we all know and love.

      • walterrh03 says:

        7.

      • Swenson says:

        “Walter R. Hogle keeps whining like the whiny bitch we all know and love.”

        Really?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        “Really?”

        Why do you ask?

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        “Silly sock puppet!”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

  94. Gordon Robertson says:

    gb…”But if you just had two large rocks orbiting, they cause gravity waves. [As they orbit around their single barycenter]”.

    ***

    I can’t see why they are called waves, since gravity forms a static field, like a permanent magnet. Waves vary in amplitude and gravity cannot produce waves in water since it is a static field.

    Light waves and sound waves do vary in amplitude at a given frequency.

    • gbaikie says:

      “I cant see why they are called waves, since gravity forms a static field, like a permanent magnet. ”

      If you move a permanent magnet closer and further away, the static field varies in strength.

      If outside {or inside] the two orbiting large rocks, their gravitational effect, varies.

      Your only problem is that people are talking about space/time and you disagree about the concept of space/time.
      Or there is no problem if space/time is not mentioned.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gb…”If you move a permanent magnet closer and further away, the static field varies in strength”.

        ***

        It’s still a static field, not varying like a wave. A static field varies its strength based on the inverse square law. It is still the same field, no variance as with a wave action.

        An electromagnetic field associated with an electric motor or a transformer can vary when the current is AC. The EM field generated by an antenna is AC and acts like a wave in that it has a frequency and a wavelength.

        Gravity is such a static field and cannot vary like a wave. Ergo, there is no such thing as a gravity wave. Any associated wave action is due to other forces than gravity.

      • Willard says:

        > Gravity is such a static field

        🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌

      • Swenson says:

        “🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

  95. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Find the missing word(s):

    “The ______ would be that value where the distribution spends most of its time, the most common value if you will.”

    Best of luck!

  96. Entropic man says:

    Speed of gravity.

    I suggest a test.

    The Sun raises tides in the oceans due to its gravity.

    Simplifying slightly, a solar high tide occurs when the Sun is directly overhead.

    Light from the Sun takes eight minutes to reach the Earth. If gravity travels at the speed of light it will be similarly delayed.

    If gravity travels instantaneously there will be no delay.

    If there is a light speed delay the tide will respond to the Sun’s position eight minutes ago. If there is no delay the tide will respond to the Sun’s position now (Please don’t give me a hard time about the meaning of “now”. Smile emoji.)

    This is a measurable difference Solar tides would occur eight minutes later if the speed of gravity is faster than the speed of light.

    • Swenson says:

      Entropic Man,

      Do it, document it thoroughly, and show your results – if you have the courage of your convictions.

      Otherwise, you are just asking others to waste time which you are not prepared to.

      Maybe somebody will take up your “suggestion” – who knows? If nobody does, maybe they value your opinions as much as I do.

      • Entropic man says:

        Already done.

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-012-5603-3

        If you examine figure 2 and figure 3 you will see that the time difference between the “instantaneous” and “speed of light” times is 8 minutes 26 seconds +/- 25 seconds.

        The average time for light to travel from the Sun to travel from the Sun to the Earth is 8 minutes 19 seconds.

      • Clint R says:

        The “scientists” don’t understand the concept of a “field”. They’re trying to measure how fast something is moving that is not moving!

      • Entropic man says:

        Clint R

        The Sun’s gravity field is static, but the Earth is moving. It’s not actually a movement problem, it is a vector problem.

        Because of the light speed delay an observer on the rotating Earth sees the Sun 8 minutes 19 seconds behind its actual position. The apparent position is 2.1_degrees East of the Sun’s actual position.

        Due to the light speed delay the vector of the Sun’s gravitation is towards the Sun’s apparent position rather than its actual position.

        Since the Sun apparently passes it’s highest position eight minutes or 2 degrees late, so does it’s gravity vector and so does the high solar tide.

      • Clint R says:

        All nonsense Ent, like your “passenger jets flying backward”.

        Light travels, but gravity exists as a “field”. Earth moves within that field, but the field is not moving.

        Why do you try to pervert reality?

      • Willard says:

        When Puffman starts the false accusations, it’s time to stop. Wrestling with a pig is like wrestling with a sock puppet.

        Puffman only impresses other cranks like Walter R. Hogle and Graham D. Warner, anyway. He has NOTHING.

      • RLH says: