Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2024 was +1.05 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up from the March, 2024 anomaly of +0.95 deg. C, and setting a new high monthly anomaly record for the 1979-2024 satellite period.
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).
It should be noted that the CDAS surface temperature anomaly has been falling in recent months (+0.71, +0.60, +0.53, +0.52 deg. C over the last four months), while the satellite deep-layer atmospheric temperature has been rising. This is usually an indication of extra heat being lost by the surface to the deep-troposphere through convection, and is what is expected due to the waning El Nino event. I suspect next month’s tropospheric temperature will fall as a result.
The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 16 months (record highs are in red):
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.13 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.09 | +0.17 | +0.00 | -0.10 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.17 | -0.13 | -1.43 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.26 | -0.03 | -0.37 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.40 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.07 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.88 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.44 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.70 | +0.88 | +0.51 | +0.86 | +0.94 | +1.54 | +1.25 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.90 | +0.94 | +0.86 | +0.93 | +0.40 | +1.13 | +1.17 |
| 2023 | Oct | +0.93 | +1.02 | +0.83 | +1.00 | +0.99 | +0.92 | +0.63 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.91 | +1.01 | +0.82 | +1.03 | +0.65 | +1.16 | +0.42 |
| 2023 | Dec | +0.83 | +0.93 | +0.73 | +1.08 | +1.26 | +0.26 | +0.85 |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.86 | +1.06 | +0.66 | +1.27 | -0.05 | +0.40 | +1.18 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.93 | +1.03 | +0.83 | +1.24 | +1.36 | +0.88 | +1.07 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.95 | +1.02 | +0.88 | +1.34 | +0.23 | +1.10 | +1.29 |
| 2024 | Apr | +1.05 | +1.24 | +0.85 | +1.26 | +1.02 | +0.98 | +0.48 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for April, 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
Yet another notch upwards on the y-axis.
You and I were ridiculed over at WUWT for telling people not to eliminate the possibility that UAH could exceed +1.00 C during this ENSO cycle.
Yup, and true to form they haven’t reposted this update yet. Waiting for a low-traffic period and quickly posting other nonsense to bury it, if previous form is anything to go by.
Not so unexpected. It comes as the first repetition of a combined El Nino/Solar activity/Low stratospheric ozone/and alignment of at least 3 major planets since the 1998 spike; but this time we had all 4 major planets in alignment within an ENSO cycle. Last time 4 planets aligned was in the early 1940’s. You know the warming bump that climate models can’t even deal with. But that time it was a minor alignment with one planet 2 au further from earth.
TFN, yeah. Odd. It’s usually up the same day it is released or the next day at the latest. Surely it will get posted sometime today.
Planetary alignment …. HAHAHAHA … we have an astrologer on board!
Antonin Qwerty believes that planets are apparitions of sorcery and as such their gravity does not contribute to the net gravitational acceleration experienced by earth as it orbits.
Oh man that’s like being a ‘flat earther’.
Bill claims the recent WARM SPIKE was
“Not so unexpected. It comes as the first repetition of a combined El Nino/Solar activity/Low stratospheric ozone/and alignment of at least 3 major planets”
When called out on the Astrology component of his post, he moans that his critic:
“believes that planets are apparitions of sorcery and as such their gravity does not contribute to the net GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION”
I don’t what this dishonest tactic is called…seems to be a BAIT and SWITCH,
Whatever its called, Bill is a prolific practitioner.
Nate recognizes the fact he also called gravity pulling on earth at a different distance from the sun ‘astrology’.
Shows what he knows about this.
Bill still fails to recognize the fact that gravity of the planets pulling on earth aint Earth’s temperature!
Nope but the earth’s distance from the sun determines that among other things.
And there is no evidence offered that a single planetary alignment (whatever that means) does anything to Earth’s orbit of significance, unlike the Milankovitch cycles, which require many MANY planetary nudges over 10s of thousands of years.
Nate says:
”And there is no evidence offered that a single planetary alignment (whatever that means) does anything to Earths orbit of significance”
the flip side of which means there is no evidence that it is insignificant. A shocking discrepancy of governments spending trillions of dollars on this and they don’t even know what the causes are.
Total malfeasance and incompetence. Too many smart people for this to be happening. Its the result of out of control corruption.
And Nate, eccentricity variation is the first variable in Milankovitch theory so there is evidence. You have flipflopped from falsely claiming Milankovitch variability only occurs on a 100,000 year cycle to calling it astrology to claiming we don’t need to consider it because nobody has found it to be significant. . .yet science has embraced it as creating the ice ages. What is it with you guys?
“And Nate, eccentricity variation is the first variable in Milankovitch theory so there is evidence.”
Spouting sciency words lacking context or any calculation, are not evidence of anything, ever.
Science is quantitative. You offer nothing quantitative, no data, nor logic.
A phenomena is known to occur over a long LONG time period, so you why can’t it occur over a very SHORT period!
But offer nothing of substance to back up that thought bubble.
Continental Drift: It could happen in a year, sez genius Bill.
Winter can change to summer in 1 day, sez genius Bill.
Light sure can travel across our galaxy in a day, sez genius Bill.
“You have flipflopped from falsely claiming Milankovitch variability only occurs on a 100,000 year cycle to calling it astrology to claiming we dont need to consider it because nobody has found it to be significant.”
FALSE. No flip-flopping at all. See above.
And no, I never claimed anything about ‘only occurs on 100,000 year cycle’.
I have repeatedly said ’10’s of thousands of years’
Yet another shameless misrepresentation.
“the flip side of which means there is no evidence that it is insignificant. A shocking discrepancy of governments spending trillions of dollars on this and they dont even know what the causes are.”
Yeah, why dosnt the govt get right on that? Afterall it came from a noted expert.
Oh wait, nevermind, it was just some random crank on the internet…
Hunter guy might be interested that one of the first things done with the ice core was to apply Fourier analysis. I think the technique is called Power Spectral Density.
Have fun with your project.
Nate says:
May 6, 2024 at 6:47 AM
And Nate, eccentricity variation is the first variable in Milankovitch theory so there is evidence.
Spouting sciency words lacking context or any calculation, are not evidence of anything, ever.
Science is quantitative. You offer nothing quantitative, no data, nor logic.
A phenomena is known to occur over a long LONG time period, so you why cant it occur over a very SHORT period!
But offer nothing of substance to back up that thought bubble.
————————
sure there is evidence. we know from newton’s cannon that if the muzzle velocity is a bit more than necessary to achieve orbit the orbit will be elliptical but gravity will still keep it in orbit unless the velocity is above escape velocity. thus we know that variation of net gravitational pull will vary the orbits ellipticity. you claim its insignificant and have zero science to back that claim up. recognizing that i say we don’t know if its significant or insignificant and should put our knowledge to work and find out. it is a travesty that we haven’t done that and are growing a crop of ignoramouses that thinks its astrology.
nate says:
”I have repeatedly said 10s of thousands of years
Yet another shameless misrepresentation.”
what gravity alignment takes 10’s of thousands of years?
and how do you explain this lie?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1644065
“sure there is evidence. we know from newtons cannon that if the muzzle velocity is a bit more than necessary to achieve orbit the orbit will be elliptical but gravity will still keep it in orbit unless the velocity is above escape velocity. thus we know that variation of net gravitational pull will vary the orbits ellipticity. you claim its insignificant and have zero science to back that claim up”
Not a quantitative argument, Bill. Which is what is required to establish that your theory is plausible. Nor do you offer data. Or anything at all.
Gravity does stuff, but that doesnt mean it does anything significant to Earth’s orbit in a short time.
The only evidence we have is that these perturbations require many 10’s of thousands of years to produce an effect significant enough to alter Earth’s climate.
I understand that your goal is to irritate people, in this case by making them do work to DISPROVE your whimsical claims.
Not interested.
YOU made the implausible claim that such affects can occur over a year or two. YOU need to support it with evidence.
Put up or shut up.
Nate says:
”The only evidence we have is that these perturbations require many 10s of thousands of years to produce an effect significant enough to alter Earths climate.”
Oh you know that exists huh? Got a link to it?
Seem about time for Nate’s sock puppet to show up. Wait for it. . .
“Oh you know that exists huh? Got a link to it?”
Why are you now playing dum about the Milankovitch cycles that you constantly bring up?
YOU made the implausible claim that such affects can occur over a year or two. YOU need to support it with evidence.
Put up or shut up.
Nate,
OK, so if science is quantitative show how the Revelle Factor affects conservation of mass. I want to see the math. You can start with dL/dt= Inflow – Outflow.
its so obvious:
1. ipcc just ignores it
it does move the earth differentially than the sun.
and nobody has shown that movement to be insignificant. to many corrupt individuals feathering their own beds to the tune of trillions of dollars.
it demands attention. and i never said it can be done in a year or two. the industrial age is about as long as the orbit of neptune. and in that time the other planets will contribute on an irregular schedule. neptune can be near the neutrality line with or without other planets being there.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
“its so obvious:
1. ipcc just ignores it”
Sure, if mainstream science ignores it, then it MUST BE REAL, say Flat Earthers and Moon Landing deniers, pretty much constantly.
“it does move the earth differentially than the sun.”
Sure, and wind can bend tall buildings, so therefore the wind is what knocked down the Twin Towers!
You can’t calculate the size of this effect or show data to support that it will be significant.
You cant you even find a source that knows what they are talking about and agrees with you…
Just another crank theory with nothing to back it up!
Stephen,
“OK, so if science is quantitative show how the Revelle Factor affects conservation of mass. I want to see the math. You can start with dL/dt= Inflow Outflow.”
No you don’t.
You are another one who tries to get people to do work for you, which you then don’t understand, cannot rebut, and thus dismiss.
I’ve shown you this exact thing in the past, given you articles to read about it, and that was the result.
You have shown no ability or genuine interest in learning about it.
Here’s one paper.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1975.tb01671.x
The math you want is in equation 1, and the explanation of it is in the paragraphs that follow it.
Read it, understand it, then report back with your informed, intelligent questions.
I won’t hold my breath.
No, if you are going to invoke the Revelle Factor you need to be able to mathematically derive it from conservation of mass. That’s what Berry did. Berry used conservation of mass to verify the IPCC’s natural carbon cycle model and falsify their human carbon cycle model. Show him where he’s wrong. They claim a human carbon dioxide molecule and a natural carbon cycle molecule are treated differently by nature. The Equivalence Principle in science says this is patently false.
I showed Stephen the math he wants, again he rejects it without reading it!
“if you are going to invoke the Revelle Factor you need to be able to mathematically derive it from conservation of mass.”
The Revelle factor comes from chemistry, Stephen.
You cannot derive chemistry from conservation of mass!
Both need to be incorporated. See eqn 1.
Come back when informed and have an intelligent comment or question.
Nate,
You are the one who said Berry’s math is wrong because of the Revelle Factor. So you need to show mathematically how the Revelle Factor causes nature to affect the outflow of human and natural CO2 differently. Berry’s hypothesis is outflow is equal to Level/eTime. So, it is your contention that the eTime of human and natural CO2 are different because of the Revelle Factor. Show mathematically how.
Nate says:
May 8, 2024 at 3:39 PM
”I showed Stephen the math he wants, again he rejects it without reading it!”
Nate lies all the time about what he has shown. never believe him unless he provides a link proving it he he makes any such claim.
SPA is right here. Revelle’s theory is correct chemically but not correct physically in nature. Of course Revelle knew that and wasn’t alarmed by AGW. Its just that with nature you have to measure the response of nature and not guesstimate it.
Now it is known that the release of carbon into the atmosphere has dramatically increased the ”fast carbon cycle” where carbon is sequestered in the growth of biological life forms, greening the planet dramatically, improving the human condition, moderating weather, and saving lives.
Factor that in and you have conserved mass.
Stephen,
So when I again showed you you math and a paper, that explain the Revelle factor, and how it reduces the carbon uptake of the ocean, you of course do not read it or understand, and thus reject it.
You confirmed my prediction.
What’s the point of asking questions when you have zero interest in the answer?
“Berrys hypothesis is outflow is equal to Level/eTime. ”
Yes, see eq. 1 in the paper. That is the third term on the right.
But the other terms also matter. And he doesnt include them correctly.
That is why he utterly failed to predict the observed annual growth in atmospheric cO2, that has been consistently around 45% of annual anthro emissions for ~ 60 years.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/essd-15-5301-2023-f09-thumb.png
Then we have Bill predictably man-splaining all about a topic he obviously knows little about.
Is Nate actually now denying that the fast carbon cycle sequestration of carbon has not increased? Stay tuned for his answer.
Bill, the master-baiter, says come with me down my rabbit-hole of total confusion.
No thanks.
Wow Nate just admitted that the fast carbon cycle explaining the conservation of mass issue has dire implications for his theory, by calling it something he doesn’t want to discuss.
Any discussion with Bill leads to “dire implications”
Nate,
What are you talking about? There are no other terms for conservation of mass. IPCC and every atmospheric physics text uses the same terms. You are throwing out crap and propaganda.
Troglodyte, please stop being so slow.
You had plenty of time to look at the paper, Stephen. Did you even look?
See eq. 1 in the paper. Berrys term is the third term on the right.
And for those curious about what the anomaly is on the old 1981-2010 baseline it is +1.17 C.
OK, so what? Warm is nice. Much better than cold. We can feed everyone during warm.
Not so nice for these people.
https://www.ifrc.org/nota-prensa/deadly-heatwave-sahel-and-west-africa-would-have-been-impossible-without-human-caused
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/04/inside-an-oven-how-life-in-south-east-asia-is-a-struggle-amid-sweltering-heat
But that’s ok, those people don’t matter, right Stephen?
It’s interesting to look at different perspectives and what is and (more importantly) isn’t said.
The month is the highest ever recorded anomaly in the UAH record, the graph Y scale had to be extended (yet again) to accommodate the data, and the analysis of the second paragraph is about why the anomaly will probably be lower next week. It (probably) isn’t technically wrong, but it gives the distinct appearance of burying the lede.
I’m prepared to be wrong, but I do think 1.05 C will be the peak of this ENSO cycle.
Even if the May anomaly is cooler than April, it would need to fall by a big margin way not to beat the previous record high May, +0.52C back in 1998.
Highest Arctic sea ice extent yesterday on May 1 in ten years.
Funny:
https://tinyurl.com/arctic-sea-ice-graph
The blue line isn’t on top.
In fact it’s even lower than the red one, the record minimum.
The record summer low was in 2012, which had high ice in the spring and at winter maximum. A late summer cyclone caused the low.
Arctic sea ice minimum has trended up since 2012. So far the average for this decade has been higher than for 2011-20. Current ice extent is not only above last decades average but close to 2001-10.
John,
If you pick the lowest optimum of any data set, there will be a higher trend somewhere around that point.
If you take a look at the chart and click on the various items in the right margin, you can compare the 2001-2010 average to the 2011-2020 average. There are also the 1991-2000 and the 1979-1990 averages.
Please report.
Yes, it does annihilate the nonsense claims of the McPhersonist cult who claim we will have our first ice-free Arctic in the next three years, and then promptly go extinct.
Both extremes of the climate spectrum believe that what is happening right now is climate provided it agrees with their belief, but is not climate if it does not. That applies also to the effects of climate change, such as ice melt. The Mcphersonists represent the state of the climate relative to 1750 by the warmest month in the last few years, while deniers choose the coldest month in the last few years to represent their claim.
Only those of us in the middle who follow the real science of the IPCC understand that short term variation is not climate, whichever way it heads, and that only the centre of the distribution represents climate (applicable also to its effects).
That Arctic sea ice has not made a new low since 2012 shows that those who pointed out its cyclic were right. During its cyclic decline from near its century high in 1979, extent made new lows every five years. IPCC did not predict a 12 year uptrend since the record low in 2012.
I have looked at decadal averages. As youd expect, the trend was down for 1981-2020, but for the current decade presently appears up, as climatologists have predicted based on prior centuries in the Holocene.
When and if Arctic sea ice declines for 2021-30 under still rising CO2, the hypothesis that man-made global warming shrinks its extent will have been shown false and cyclicality confirmed.
The fact that the 2011-2020 average reaches lower lows than previous decade averages shows that cycle nuts still have a long way to go.
Nothing nutty about cycles. Whats crazy is to imagine Arctic sea ice was always higher before CO2 started increasing after AD 1850.
The multi decadal cycle is 30 to 40 years. It was low during the 1920s to 40s, such that the Northern Sea Route along Siberia was open during WWII. Sea ice grew from the late 40s until the PDO flip of 1977. Then it fell again until 2007, when a new low record was set in the dedicated satellite record since 1979. Since then, the trend has been sideways, and up since 2012, after which no new low records have been set.
The reality of cycles has already been confirmed. A calendar decade higher than the prior one would not only reconfirm that fact but show the CO2 hypothesis false.
Arctic ice in this century is higher than in most of the Holocene.
As you pointed out, in 2012, “A late summer cyclone caused the low” while the rest of the year was more ordinary.
So that sounds like the vagaries of weather that season of that year. Probably better to look at all year, and average over several years.
We are also seeing Antarctica reach new lows for last few seasons.
> Nothing nutty about cycles.
“Cycle nuts” designate contrarians who cling to cycles even when being shown a clear trend from 1979 to now.
The Arctic sea ice downtrend from 1977 reversed in 2012. There has not been a new low despite two Arctic cyclones in 2016 and one in 2020, as also in 2007. That Arctic ice is growing in general explains why 2016 was higher than 2012.
Antarctic sea ice shows the CO2-sea ice hypothesis false. Antarctic sea extent ballooned dramatically in the dedicated satellite record from 1979 to 2014, while Arctic extent fell. No correlation with rising CO2 means no causation.
Super El Nio 2016 and two weather events in Antarctica then caused sea ice there to decline. It started recovering, then was hammered by the Tongan eruption.
Pointing out that Arctic sea ice is “highest” in ten years is an attempt to spread fake news.
Climate trends are based on 30 year averages. A ten year event is natural variation and would have occurred even if humans never spread across the globe.
JT
Arctic extent has indeed been up so far this decade. But if you believe you can determine a “cycle” after just 4 years then you are deluding yourself … that is just wishful thinking.
AQ:
Please read what I actually wrote. The last lower Arctic sea ice cycle was from 1977 to 2007 or 2012. It’s not based upon three years in this decade. However, if the whole decade 2021-30 proves higher than the average for 2011-20, as is possible, if not indeed probable, then the CO2 hypothesis will have been falsified.
The previous low ice cycle, as noted was from around WWI to WWII, followed by the high Arctic ice cycle, c. 1945-77, despite growing CO2 that whole time. While the Northern Sea Route was naturally open during WWII, the USSR built nuclear ice breakers to keep it open during summer in the 1950s, et seq.
You may have read the famous 1922 news article on disappearing Arctic sea ice. For more than a century, climatologists, biologists, oceanographers and historians have known Arctic sea ice extent to be cyclic. Only “climate scientists”, ie computer gamers who believe natural trends can be extrapolated indefinitely, fell for the scam, or claimed they bought into it.
You certainly use artistic licence when reporting on your “science”.
Kohn,
“The Arctic sea ice downtrend from 1977 reversed in 2012.”
In the peak arctic sea ice period, March, there was no minimum in 2012, and no trend reversal.
https://tinyurl.com/5484ekaw
So that suggests that September 2012 was a singular weather event, rather than an indicator of a trend reversal.
More important than sea ice, the land ice sheets on Greenland and W. Antarctica have continued to decline in mass.
https://tinyurl.com/cn7mvke5
Greenland ice mass measured by satellite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMnFbIDIEGs
‘Kohn’ Typo, should be John
> The Arctic sea ice downtrend from 1977 reversed in 2012.
You might as well argue that the current SPY reversed the trend since 1977, John. Anywho, a point is not a trend, and the 2011-2020 is lower than the previous trends. Cycle nuts ought to know that cycles imply a reversion to the mean.
Suppose Arctic sea ice was an ETF. Would you buy and hold it for enough years to leave It to your grand children?
Arctic sea ice extent since 1840. The decline tracks well with the increase in CO2.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/4/full-JCLI-D-21-0099.1-f3.jpg
Source https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0099.1
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner returns to his old ways.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
To what do you attribute the increase, or is it a combination of factors? Is it cyclic? Should we expect it to retreat in the not too distant future?
The trend has been up since 2012 and flat since 2007. I expect the cycle to continue another 20 years or more. The average for 2021-30 should be higher than for 2011-20.
Ye Gods!
Beats the previous record for April set in 1998, by 0.43C.
Warmest Aprils:
1 2024 1.05
2 1998 0.62
3 2016 0.61
4 2019 0.33
5 2020 0.27
6 2022 0.27
7 2005 0.20
8 2010 0.20
9 2017 0.19
10 2023 0.18
The next couple of months will be interesting for records. May and June’s records were both set in 1998 – 0.52C and 0.44C. For those records not to be beaten will require a record breaking drop in anomalies over the next two months.
It’s also the warmest anomaly so far for any month. Of the 12 highest anomalies, 10 have been in the last year.
Year Month Anomaly
1 2024 4 1.05
2 2024 3 0.95
3 2023 10 0.93
4 2024 2 0.93
5 2023 11 0.91
6 2023 9 0.90
7 2024 1 0.86
8 2023 12 0.83
9 2016 2 0.71
10 2023 8 0.70
11 2016 3 0.65
12 2023 7 0.64
Fans of cherry-picking short term trends, should note that if you start the trend at just about any point after 1979 will now give you a faster rate of warming than looking at the entire data set. Even the trend starting just before the 1998 El Nino spike – i.e. the original pause, now shows a warming rate of 0.16C / decade.
The trend since the start of the New Pause, August 2014, is now 0.32C / decade. And the trend over last 6 years is 0.74C / decade.
All this really shows is that the shorter the period for more it will be influenced by short term fluctuations.
Here’s a side by side comparison of the three main El Nino events.
https://i.imgur.com/ohv7np3.png
It is interesting how much temperatures have increased since the start of the year, when it looked as if the peak had already been reached last October.
Makes it clear how much earlier was the rise in this cycle.
Makes it very difficult to implicate that warming to just El-Nino, HT water vapor is likely to be the early forcing.
ERA5 shows April as a new record for the month, but by a smaller amount than in recent months.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/warmest-april-on-record-but-a-possible
Meanwhile UAH and RSS show ever higher anomalies.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/pages/latest/T/mth1.png
Why the divergence?
“Why the divergence?”
It seems that the lower troposphere reacts more strongly and in a less direct manner to ENSO variations than does the surface.
It’s a consistent pattern; there’s a 3-4 month delay in the on-set and dissipation of ENSO variations in TLT data compared to surface.
Dr Spencer suggests above that this is because excess heat from the warming phase of ENSO is lost from the surface to the troposphere before it dissipates.
“What isn’t being discussed (as far as I can tell) is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels (which we will assume for the sake of discussion causes global warming)“… is doing this: https://ibb.co/St9nWgp
CO2 levels are completely stable over the last 7 months.
“ completely stable” ?
https://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/co2_400/mlo_six_months.pdf
Pretty sure there is not a month that goes by where the discussion here doesn’t address the rapid rise in CO2 and its effects.
And you KNOW that second graph is misleading. It is picking up ONLY the seasonal increase in CO2 that we get at this time of the year. There is NO indication of “instability”. Not that the other guy has any business implying that there SHOULD be short term instability.
“And you KNOW that second graph is misleading.”
I posted that graph in response to Charles Best’s query: ‘CO2 levels are completely stable over the last 7 months.’
Pro-tip: always answer the question asked!
Thank you for your contribution.
You QUESTIONED his claim of stability (the question mark), so your ensuing graph MUST have been an attempt to prove instability.
Pro Tips
(1) don’t try to feign a different motivation after the event
(2) if you want your motivation to be understood, try including some WORDS with you comment which explain it
Thanks for your contribution.
Got it. Thanks
AI, CO2 follows temperature. Always has as the evidence shows.
We were just talking about members of the Right who attack Jews, and who should show up on cue!
“CO2 follows temperature. Always has as the evidence shows.”
What evidence is that?
In God we trust. All others must bring data.
Arkady, you asked for data.
CO2 following temperature was extensively discussed here:https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/26/causality-and-climate/
In the thread you’ll find links to published papers.
For several reasons I wasn’t entirely comfortable with the time-domain approach used in the article, so I used a frequency-domain methodology to measure the delay between CO2 and temperatures as a function period. This allows the separation of different processes. In short, for periods from 2-10 years, and likely longer, CO2 lags temperature by six months. For the annual process, the delay is much shorter, but causality is in the same direction, as would be expected given the relationship between vegetation and seasonal temperature variations.
In the following plots, delay is observed as the slope on the phase response (blue traces)
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png
Having spent quite a bit of time on this, I’m convinced that changes in temperature over the last fifty years cannot be attributed to CO2, unless it can be shown that time runs backwards.
CO2 did not follow temperature during the PETM nor is it following temperature today. Instead it got released independently via volcanic activity and human activity respectively.
Perhaps, but pirates obviously cause global cooling.
Arrr!
BGDWX,
We know temperature doesn’t and never has followed CO2 because we’re still here.
SPA, let me make sure I’m understanding your point. Are you saying that humans could not have released CO2 into the atmosphere independent of temperature because if we did then we wouldn’t exist? Yes/No?
Robert Cutler
I can appreciate the effort you’ve put into this work, and I congratulate you on it, but for me statistics cannot answer the question, what happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? You need a mechanistic model.
“In short, for periods from 2-10 years, and likely longer, CO2 lags temperature by six months”
Robert, makes sense, because those are the time scales of ENSO or the seasons, and we know that CO2 responds to those T changes.
But for the decadal and longer growth of CO2, there is no evidence T caused the unprecedented CO2 growth this last century.
BDGWX,
Why haven’t high excursion in CO2 in the past caused higher temperatures that caused even higher CO2 and so on? We wouldn’t be here.
Step 1 and Step 2 – Sammich Request presupposing Pure Denial
SPA: Why havent high excursion in CO2 in the past caused higher temperatures that caused even higher CO2 and so on? We wouldnt be here.
First…it has occurred. The PETM.
Second…feedbacks only runaway when the 1) the feedback factor is greater than 1 and 2) when the feedback has no limiting factors. CO2’s feedback factor is probably less than 1 for most scenarios (reasons). But even if it isn’t it has two limiting factors. The first is the speed at which the physical processes release carbon into the atmosphere. The second is the finite mass in the various carbon reservoirs which clamps the feedback once the stock is exhausted.
We’re all surprised by this result, but we know it’s not caused by CO2. CO2 can not raise temperatures. Dr. Spencer mentioned a likely cause: This is usually an indication of extra heat being lost by the surface to the deep-troposphere through convection, and is what is expected due to the waning El Nino event.
Also likely is the remaining thermal energy from the HTE.
Clint R
Are you claiming insulation will not raise the temperature of a heated house in the winter? Will insulation manufacturers go broke once people start believing your unscientific opinions? Why spend money insulating your home when it does nothing.
CO2 acts as a radiant barrier between the surface and space. Most know this, a few crackpots like you, Swenson, and Gordon Robertson are not able to accept evidence that shows this to be the case. Primarily satellite values of measured IR values reaching them. The IR reaching the satellite is much less than the surface is emitting. The radiant barrier acts as a radiant insulator for the surface. Reducing the surface heat loss as it is heated by solar influx.
You do not seem able to comprehend this and so continue to show your complete lack of any science background whatsoever.
Norman, you’re just another child of the cult. If you want to learn some science, grow up. Stop with the cult tactics.
Norman,
You wrote –
“CO2 acts as a radiant barrier between the surface and space”
Absolutely correct. The atmosphere acts as an insulator, and prevents about 30% of the Sun’s energy at the “top of the atmosphere” from even reaching the surface. This enables life as we know it on Earth. Otherwise, maximum temperatures would reach those recorded on the Moon – in excess of 120 C, well above boiling point.
Are you denying this simple fact, and the science behind it?
You might as well respond now, because I intend to repeat throwing your statement back in you teeth until you are forced to face reality.
And for everyone that thinks CO2 heats the planet – please explain why water vapour doesn’t do it more effectively?
Any one versed in the science knows this spike is a major problem for conventional views of a greenhouse effect and global warming. There is no plausible mechanism I’ve heard of to produce a spike in stratospheric temperatures this big, and over this short a time period.
Whatever it is completely overwhelms natural variability so it’s definitely something significant and not properly characterised, and we don’t know if its something baked in from some time ago, or caused by a more current process.
My money would be on high altitude aerosol chemistry we have ignored, triggered by HTE. The one thing I would need extraordinary evidence for to accept, is that it’s from anthropogenic CO2.
Methane from melting tundra is a candidate I guess, but if that were the case, I’m sure the people whose jobs depend on climate science being a thing would be trumpeting ‘we told you so’ from their ivory towers.
Summarising cLInt’s response:
Satellites do not measure surface temperatures.
“And for everyone that thinks CO2 heats the planet – please explain why water vapour doesn’t do it more effectively?”
Yes, water vapor is the most important radiative and dynamic component of Earth’s atmosphere. However, its concentration varies significantly with time and geographical location in accordance with the hydrological cycle of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation, and large scale circulation processes. CO2 on the other hand, is a nearly permanent component up to about 80 km altitude.
The relationship between atmospheric CO2 and water vapor can be understood through the Clausius-Clapeyron equation which describes the equilibrium vapor pressure of a liquid in terms of temperature. As the CO2 forcing raises Earth’s temperature, the water vapor content of the atmosphere increases in response.
In summary, water vapor is a hefty passenger, but CO2 is the driver.
“Stop with the cult tactics.”
Yeah Norman, quit presenting facts, logic, and explanations. And quit showing your sources.
Ya know, just stop all those ‘cult’ tactics.
Instead, just be more like Clint:
Make it all up, never offer sound logic, and definitely no sources to back it up. Then top-it-off by insulting your opponents!
” The atmosphere acts as an insulator, and prevents about 30% of the Suns energy at the top of the atmosphere from even reaching the surface. ”
Sorry that is called reflection, not insulation. And some of it makes it to the surface before being reflected off snow and ice.
As usual, Swenson plays exceedingly dum about the abs.orbance of IR emitted from the Earth to space, which acts to insulate the Earths surface from the extreme cold of space.
Dixon,
Yes, another step change, like the several before implies non- systematic cause.
According to troglodytes, shrooms have an effect all the way down or they do not cause anything.
Dixon: And for everyone that thinks CO2 heats the planet please explain why water vapour doesnt do it more effectively?
Water vapor does heat the planet. However, the big difference is that water vapor is a condensing gas whereas CO2 is noncondensing. Because H2O is a condensing gas it is in a stable equilibrium with the temperature in accordance with the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship.
Physicists like to use a marble in a bowl to illustrate how stable equilibriums work. When the bowl is jostled around the marble moves in chaotic directions along the walls, but it will always tend to settle towards its stable equilibrium at the bottom. Like the marble in a bowl water vapor gets jostled above and below its equilibrium level in a chaotic manner too. Perturbations above this level result in more condensation. Perturbations below this level result in more evaporation. In this manner water vapor tends to settled towards its equilibrium level like the marble.
CO2 does not have a stable equilibrium with the temperature like H2O does. This is why CO2 can force a temperature change on its own and why H2O can only amplify a change catalyzed by something else as part of a feedback.
SPA: Yes, another step change, like the several before implies non- systematic cause.
As I’ve told you before step changes do not eliminate systematic contributions. Let me explain it conceptually with math. Let f(t) = t + sin(t) be a function of a important variable within a system wrt to time t. The t term on the rhs represents a linear systematic contribution and sin(t) represents a cyclic non-systematic contribution. When you plot this (desmos works well) you’ll a pause-up-pause-up pattern with step changes yet variable is clearly being influenced by a systematic contribution that causes it to tend upwards despite the non-systematic contribution. It is what happens when you superimpose a non-systematic component (like sin(t) in f(t) or ENSO in the real world) onto a systematic component (like t in f(t) or GHG forcing in the real world).
Ark and bdgwx ramble eloquently about their belief that CO2 can warm the planet.
But, they don’t seem to realize that beliefs ain’t science.
They would have to show how CO2 does warm the planet. What is the exact mechanism? How can a 15μ photon raise the temperature of a 288K surface? They can’t do that because it doesn’t happen.
bdgwx says:
”As Ive told you before step changes do not eliminate systematic contributions.”
I agree with bdgwx here. But the real question is whether the non-systematic pattern has a consistent influence. We agree with the need for a non-systematic influence but we cannot eliminate that influence from having its own patterns of increasing effects such as planets aligning in batches and then due to smaller differences in timing become non-aligned creating much longer termed cycles. . .such as with the movement of multiple planets.
The fact is we cannot just handwave away effects that are variable AND have evidence of occurring within the record of interest that cannot be explained. That only occurs when corruption is rampant. We are a much smarter specie than that.
Bill,
Murray Salby (may he RIP) disagrees. The equation that BGDWX offers above does not describe what we are seeing.
Clearly there is a non-systematic influence. (I am taking non-systematic to mean from outside the earth system).
The peak temperature in the 1940’s is an example of a particularly large event that CO2 models cannot begin to explain.
But as indicated by Syun Akasofu there are layers to this. CO2 when warmer than the coldest days in the highest latitudes is going to help warm those temperature up. The dark winter in the arctic you see a lot of variability in mean temperatures. Obviously if the atmospheric co2 is warmer than the surface its going to cause the surface to be warmer. thus I ascribe to the amount of warming from CO2 being somewhere between .25C and 1.0C per doubling.
But also I ascribe to Dr Akasofu’s statement that to understand anthropogenic warming you have to understand natural warming. And understanding natural warming isn’t on the table due to the political corruption that runs rampant through our universities.
> But the real question is
Our Inspecteur Clouseau always haz ze question.
Yeah, 99 percent of the funding goes to try to prove an insane theory that has already been falsified. It is the same with macroevolution. It has already been falsified. Their argument is you have to come up with a better theory. That’s not how science works.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
“They would have to show how CO2 does warm the planet. What is the exact mechanism? How can a 15μ photon raise the temperature of a 288K surface?”
Since I can put a 288K sandwich into a microwave and warm it with photons carrying 10^-5 eV each, I don’t see warming a 288K surface with photons carrying 0.08eV an impossibility.
But the mechanism is CO2 absorbing those 15μ photons then bumping into other air molecules. When that happens the energy becomes kinetic and warms the air above that 288K surface.
“It is the same with macroevolution. It has already been falsified.”
Why an I not surprised that people rejecting global warming also reject macroevolution and the idea that the Moon rotates every 28 days on an axis 7 degrees off perpendicular to its orbital plane?
SPA: The equation that BGDWX offers above does not describe what we are seeing.
It’s not meant to describe reality. It’s meant only as a simple example to demonstrate a fundamental truth. The fundamental truth…systematic and non-systematic can occur simultaneously and when they do it is possible for them to combine in manner that yields a pause-up-pause-up pattern. It’s important to understand this fundamental truth using a simple example before trying to apply it to the vastly more complicated real world. So I’ll ask you…do you understand how the equation f(t) = t + sin(t) behaves at a fundamental level?
Its really not a matter of systemic vs non-systemic. Climate change is obviously wrought by a multitude of causes. Its just that mankind hasn’t been able to create any sudden massive change thus all such changes such as the recent warming event of ENSO on top of solar max, on top of ozone depletion, on top of planetary alignment has all come together at the same time. Does that sit on top of a gradual warming from CO2 or is this just a culmination of events several years, decades, or centuries in the making? It can all be non-systematic or it may be part systematic. I would agree with SPA if CO2 could only warm the surface if the CO2 is colder as in the mainstream theory. But believe its just the opposite of that which means it plays a much more minor role but not zero role.
BGDWX,
Of course I understand it, do you? The F(t)= t is a straight line with some positive slope and the F(t)= sint is a sine wave oscillating around t. But that’s not what we’re seeing. The step-change is non-systematic so it steps up caused by something outside the system and then the sine wave oscillates around 1,2,3 etc. but a non-systematic cause.
In other words, the sine wave is systematic but the step-change isn’t.
> mankind hasnt been able to create any sudden massive change
Step 1 – Pure Denial
LMAO! Willard is so deep in the tank he can’t see any light.
Stephen P. Anderson says:
”In other words, the sine wave is systematic but the step-change isnt.”
The big problem with CO2 being a large contributor is that the sine wave of warming when looked at as a pattern in changes to warming rates leaves a pattern of underlying warming as a straight line.
But CO2 emissions did not follow a straight line increase. The underlying rate of warming that isn’t explainable didn’t increase with a straight line increase in emissions. Thus at a minimum the underlying warming below the step changes is also a combination of waning natural warming and CO2 warming. So Akasofu is almost certainly right in his graph and when that graph is actually studied by our researchers and attributed out of that will emerge the effect that CO2 has. My initial reasonableness tests I did roughly 16 years ago estimated that CO2 contributed less than .5C per doubling.
Dr. Easterbrook’s work, verified by other works strongly suggests that there is a natural pattern that is somewhat irregular that can create more than 3C warming in 200-300 years. And our current warming is perfectly consistent with that. Folks try to handwave away the facts while refusing to recognize it waving it off as ”noise”. When temperature amplification on the Greenland plateau flatlined in first decade of the 21st century what did our science funders do? They decommissioned the stations. Thats our biggest climate issue. . .corruption and a complete lack of desire to provide any data that runs contrary to the official narrative. Not that that runs contrary to any of our more basic instincts.
Gill returns to
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROFL
SPA: Of course I understand it
Great. Then we have established that it is possible for a systematic component to get superimposed onto a non-systematic component such that a pause-up-pause-up or step change pattern is produced.
Now consider the more realistic equation U(t) = C(t) + E(t) + V(t) + A(t) + S(t) where t is time, U is the UAH temperature anomaly, C is the CO2 concentration, E is the ENSO state, V is volcanic aerosols, A is anthropogenic aerosols, and S is solar zenith flux. We now reproduce U given only C, E, V, A, and S with reasonable skill including the pauses, increases, declines, and step changes. In this model C behaves as a linear component while E, V, A, and S behave as cyclic or oscillatory components.
The following graph should help you visualize the result.
https://i.imgur.com/nZzSVG0.png
BH: Dr. Easterbrooks work, verified by other works strongly suggests that there is a natural pattern that is somewhat irregular that can create more than 3C warming in 200-300 years.
I mean…Easterbrook’s predictions are some of the worst out there so I’m having difficulty understanding what you could possibly mean by “verified”.
bdgwx there isn’t anybody who doesn’t suck at making climate predictions. The mainstream tendency of say investors is ride a trend until it crashes. As a consultant the advice is hedge your bets so you don’t go down in flames. . .which always happens if you don’t.
That is essentially the only thinking that has gone into climate alarmism. They resurrected a theory that had been all but dead for 3/4’s of a century because of a relentless trend. Two major natural phenomena can easily explain that trend without any recognizable source because of being entirely a momentum triggered by some unmeasured or poorly measured natural climate change factor. 1) gradual increase in ocean heat content, and 2) a gradual retreat of glaciation. We don’t know at what point in the next 1000 years or more that might find a current equilibrium.
So we have those trend riders riding their predictions like Slim Pickens as Major T. J. “King” Kong in Dr. Strangelove and we have folks looking for patterns in the decadal data where we actually have a ‘short’ climate record betting on ocean oscillations and stuff.
The real truth is lauded ‘experts’ are expect to have answers and to not give one no matter how much or how little is too bruising. The ignorant do it because they don’t know better. Those expected to know better do it because if they don’t they might not be viewed as an expert.
What I am talking about above we know it can take more than 400,000 years to melt an ice sheet because science has told us so. We know some waters in the ocean have seen the surface in many centuries or more.
We know that gravity from planetary alignments have patterns that take many thousands of years. Its a relatively easy math problem to look at just the rate of the gas giants and see a complex pattern their due to orbit periods not being primary number divisible. We haven’t had more than one solar cycle in a row predicted by the same formula. . .though they may be getting closer. . .until of course at which time the trend suddenly changes.
I don’t know what you’re looking at Bill because that’s precisely what we’re not seeing. We’re seeing a step-change, then a sinusoid around t=1,2,3,etc., then a step-change and another sinusoid, etc. etc.
The only thing we’re seeing advance linearly is CO2 as an integral of temperature.
Stephen P. Anderson says:
”I dont know what youre looking at Bill because thats precisely what were not seeing.”
I am just talking about single causes of forcing. Multiple causes create all sorts of variations.
Real data from a century ago.
Then with an added linear trend demonstrates the escalator effect.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665440
BH: bdgwx there isnt anybody who doesnt suck at making climate predictions.
It depends on what you mean by “suck”. If you mean that there is always some error no matter how small then sure. But if you mean that they couldn’t even get the direction of the temperature change correct then no; it’s only been contrarian predictions from Easterbrook, Archibald, etc. who think the Sun and only the Sun influences the temperature. Their predictions suck no matter how you define the term.
SPA: Were seeing a step-change, then a sinusoid around t=1,2,3,etc., then a step-change and another sinusoid, etc. etc.
It’s actually more complicated than that even. If you look at the UAH values there is a lot of seemingly chaotic ups, downs, pauses, spikes, etc in there. Yet if you combine only the 5 factors I mentioned above it explains most of those ups, downs, pauses, spikes, etc. I’ll see it again…this is what happens when you superimpose a systematic component on top of non-systematic components.
riding a trend is what the non-scientific prognosticator does routinely unless you are a contrarian, then you always predict a change.
to claim any skill at riding a trend the trend must show the variability of the perturbance. as i said when you are profiting from the trend the main tendency is to predict its continuance.
“riding a trend is what the non-scientific prognosticator”
Riiight, there has been no science to explain the trend, discussed here at this blog!
Well you do have a theory that cold stuff can warm warmer stuff you have been selling around here in the name of the 3rd grader radiation model that is known not to work. Beyond that you haven’t described any other theory.
More and more Bill says stuff… that has no connection to reality.
He weirdly thinks the differential equations in Manabe and Wetherald, 1967, that were evidently well beyond his ability to grasp, are taught in third grade.
And as usual, plays dum about the convection included in it, and similar models.
Then he forgets that he sometimes agrees that there is a GHE!
Oh well.
you need a warming variable for those differential equations. What is it and what was it derived from? I have been asking for this forever. Is it that you don’t know like you don’t know if major warming cycles occur at 10’s of thousands of years, or 100 thousand year, or 400 thousand years and you just spout out random numbers in order to refute what somebody has posted?
BH, cold things make warm things warmer all of the time. An easy an intuitive example is the door on your kitchen oven. Close the cooler door and the warmer inside will warm further. The theory…the 1LOT. And this doesn’t violate the 2LOT since heat is not moving from the cooler door to the warmer inside. Heat is still moving from the hot burner to the warmer inside to the cooler door to the cold outside. It’s just that the cooler door reduces the amount by which that flow happens. As a result the inside is forced to warm consistent with both the 1LOT and 2LOT.
“you need a warming variable for those differential equations. What is it and what was it derived from?”
So you admit that the paper has been discussed here and has differential equations in it.
Thanks.
Then you admit that this
“the 3rd grader radiation model that is known not to work. Beyond that you havent described any other theory.”
is FALSE.
Now, go back and read the paper, try to understand it and then ask intelligent informed questions.
sb equations has an object in a radiation field warming to equilibrium and the near surface temperature where co2 has been completely blocked and is considered the same as surface temperature can’t warm more even if its a solid door and its not. so far no evidence has been produced that the door is getting more solid than it is. thats the only way you could prove that.
this experiment and others show you are wrong, differential equations or not. https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
do you have an experiment that shows different? you don’t.
been ther done that nate: https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
Gill confuses the absence of evidence in one study for an evidence of absence.
LMAO
After Bill is shown evidence that his claim that he has never been shown real GHE theory here, is total BS, he tries to change the subject to something else, bad experiments!
Not buying it.
His claim was falsified, but he won’t acknowledge it, and he’ll keep repeating it anyway.
Thats what he does.
Bill, try to say focused on one thing: go back and read MW 1967, try to understand it and then ask intelligent informed questions.
m&W is mathematics for the purpose of applying an unestablished theory of backradiation in the 3rd grader radiation model for the purpose of producing a climate model that has co2 changing the dry lapse rate. oddly though meteorologists don’t recognize that change for a new atmospheric profile model. thats because m&w has been considered adequate for anything but climate models that overestimate warming.
Connecting the above post by me to the discussion of predicting trends and riding trends above. . .it should be noted that the icecore data submitted by Zeke Hausfather supports natural warming trends of up to 4C over at least 250 years.
Thus seeing as how the warming we are currently experiencing resides well within the parameters of natural warming one cannot conclude the current warming is predominately unnatural. That would put the unnatural warming at around .7C per doubling as a maximum supported by current scientific information.
“m&W is mathematics for the purpose of applying an unestablished theory of backradiation in the 3rd grader radiation model”
Nah, just Bill the auditor dismissing highly influential physics that led to the development of global circulation models, because he just doesn’t understand it!
Science will file that rant where it belongs.
Nate says:
”Nah, just Bill the auditor dismissing highly influential physics that led to the development of global circulation models, because he just doesnt understand it!
Science will file that rant where it belongs.”
Yes it led to the development of global circulation models that greatly over estimate warming and that have no clue if some of the warming that they got right is from CO2 or natural causes as there is no valid differential equation that can distinguish between the two.
Nate says:
”Then he forgets that he sometimes agrees that there is a GHE!
Oh well.”
of course i agree. water we know does alter the lapse rate in accordance with m&w.
and co2 may contribute a small amount where atmospheric inversions are common without additionally changing the lapse rate.
and of course that means only at most a half degree solar, ozone, ocean momentum, or ice otherwise needs to be established to account for the LIA recovery or items such uhi, deforestation, agriculture, and other purturbances for the entire industrial age warming.
Nate wrote: “But for the decadal and longer growth of CO2, there is no evidence T caused the unprecedented CO2 growth this last century.”
I never said that it did. Here’s another way of looking at the data that is less rigorous and more subjective but doesn’t require a background in signal analysis.
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_SH.png
In short, the CO2 concentration and southern-hemisphere temperature data are separately de-trended using second-order polynomials and filtered using a one-year moving average to eliminate seasonal variations. The de-trended data is plotted in the upper, right graph. Focusing on the long-term trends, not the short-term fluctuations, what do you see? This is not meant to be a Rorschach test, but I suspect it will be.
Without any evidence of fluctuations in [CO2] driving temperature, it’s difficult to make an argument that the 2nd-order trend in [CO2] over almost 70 years is responsible for the linear trend in temperature. Also, with a multi-decadal sensitivity of only 6ppm/degC, it doesn’t seem likely that the linear rise in temperature accounts for all of the change in [CO2], or if temperature is the cause, it’s through a VERY slow set of processes.
BTW, the sensitivity is visible in the frequency domain analysis, top left graph, numbers in parenthesis. For example, seasonal sensitivity is 61ppm/degC, sensitivity for 10-year periods is 5ppm/degC. The 6ppm/degC scaling used above was manually selected for best visual match.
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png
Here’s another example, this time [CO2] was de-trended using a natural log function, and global temperature was de-trended using a first-order polynomial.
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_ln_global.png
There is no question that the short-term variation in CO2 can be caused by short term weather patterns (ENSO) and seasonal variation like the seasonal leafing out of deciduous NH forests.
But the long term trend is another story. You can’t use correlation to decide cause and effect between two rising trends.
You have to study underlying mechanisms, then make predictions and test those with measurements.
Lots of this shown in this paper. Measurements of human emissions and measurements of the carbon fluxes going into land and ocean all over the globe. One key result is that ~ 45 % is retained in the atmosphere fairly consistently.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/
Nate, I suggest you read the paper you refer to. It’s largely based on models, several of them, so it really doesn’t support the point you were trying to make.
Robert,
I suggest you read what you reflect on this –
“A simple, but surprisingly accurate model for predicting global temperatures.”
Next time you’re gonna diss modulz, please recall that you did a curve fit based on an MA-3 and a fudge factor.
Nate says:
”You have to study underlying mechanisms, then make predictions and test those with measurements.”
LMao! We have been waiting for years for Nate to establish the mechanism that CO2 allegedly warms the surface in accordance with mainstream theory. All he does is point at blackbox models and assure us the physics is good.
May as well be doing science by reading corporate marketing materials.
“Nate, I suggest you read the paper you refer to. Its largely based on models, several of them, so it really doesnt support the point you were trying to make.”
I suggest you read it carefully, Robert.
It makes use of numerous measurements, such as ocean carbon fluxes.
And models are informed by decades of measurements of the carbon cycle.
“All he does is point at blackbox models and assure us the physics is good.”
And my stalker, Bill, is back for his springtime spreading of natural fertilizer.
the carbon cycle doesn’t explain how co2 warms the surface.
And thus, Bill, you are off topic for this thread.
that would make the reason you are talking about the carbon cycle off topic. just another speculation by corrupt scientists pretending they know the answer.
Nobody is allowed to talk about stuff that Bill doesnt want to talk about.
Who knew?
Another option is to go find other people to tr.oll!
Nate you just fired out an argument that the carbon cycle has nothing to do with future warming by calling warming not part of the topic.
Nate’s repeated attempts to deflect is why I stopped responding.
The analysis I’ve presented is open and transparent. It shows that whatever effect [CO2] has on temperature is overpowered by the effects of temperature on [CO2].
If temperature sensitivity to trace concentrations of CO2 were high, as many claim, then it would be reasonable to expect, given the optical/atmospheric mechanics of CO2 as a GHG, that the effects of CO2-induced warming on shorter time scales would be detectable; anthropogenic emissions have certainly fluctuated over decadal, and shorter periods. The only thing that can be detected in measured data is the influence of temperature on [CO2].
Bottom line, for periods from 1-10 years and longer, changes in [CO2] lag changes in temperature, usually by six months — establishing causality. The sensitivity for 10-year intervals is 4.9ppm/C meaning that temperature changes don’t appear to account for all of the 100ppm change in [CO2] over the last ~70 years.
Links repeated for convenience:
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_SH.png
Robert,
“Bottom line, for periods from 1-10 years and longer, changes in [CO2] lag changes in temperature, usually by six months”
You claim longer, but do not demonstrate that.
Whereas all agree that on shorter than 10 y time scales, CO2 is affected by ENSO and Volcanoes. This is has been much studied.
During El Ninos, atm CO2 rises, and the reason has been traced to its warming and drying of tropical land, which decreases rainforest growth, which decreases the CO2 sink.
The opposite occurs during La Nina.
But the long term rise to current CO2 levels, unprecedented in the ice core record, cannot be explained by any T effect.
For example in the ice core record, the cooling during the LIA, ~ 0.5 C, amounts to no more than 7 ppm reduction of CO2 levels.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GB004247
Figure 2.
Thus the rise in the last century of 140 ppm, simply cannot be due to the 1 C warming.
OTOH, we have a well known source of extrinsic carbon added to the atmosphere over the last century or so.
And about 45% of those additions are consistently retained in the atmosphere.
Robert,
“anthropogenic emissions have certainly fluctuated over decadal, and shorter periods. The only thing that can be detected in measured data is the influence of temperature on [CO2].”
Yes, as Roy Spencer recently showed, the short term emission variations are swamped by variations in natural sources and sinks. So he showed for example that the COVID emissions reductions of 2020-21, were smaller than the natural variation.
And since T also experiences significant natural short term variation, there is no reason to expect it to correlate with emissions variations.
But over the long term, the cumulative emissions correlate extremely well to the measured CO2 rise since the 1950s when continuous measurements began.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icum_global_co2_emissions_1950:2024_1900:2024_1958:2024corr2911013.png
I wrote: Bottom line, for periods from 1-10 years and longer, changes in [CO2] lag changes in temperature, usually by six months
Nate wrote: “You claim longer, but do not demonstrate that.”
I didn’t demonstrate that in the frequency domain because that’s difficult given the limitations of data set length and window interactions. However, the effects of 20-year processes would be detectable at 10 years as a changes in trajectory with changes in frequency, no such change is detectable. There is no detectable transition to a new process either in delay, or sensitivity. The second plot confirms that, but as I said, that’s a much more subjective approach. At 6ppm/C the long term sensitivity is slightly higher — as expected. Sensitivity was increasing with longer periods (lower frequency)
I wrote: “The sensitivity for 10-year intervals is 4.9ppm/C meaning that temperature changes dont appear to account for all of the 100ppm change in [CO2] over the last ~70 years.”
Nate wrote, as if to correct me: “But the long term rise to current CO2 levels, unprecedented in the ice core record, cannot be explained by any T effect.”
Sorry Nate, but the argument that temperature can’t account for all of the recent changes in [CO2], which I obviously agree with, is not an argument for [CO2] causing changes in temperature.
This is my favorite.
Nate wrote, as if to school me: “But the long term trend is another story. You cant use correlation to decide cause and effect between two rising trends.”
Nate then wrote: “But over the long term, the cumulative emissions correlate extremely well to the measured CO2 rise since the 1950s when continuous measurements began”. And just to prove the point provides a plot with two rising trends.
I guess the LLM ran out of memory.
“I wrote: The sensitivity for 10-year intervals is 4.9ppm/C meaning that temperature changes dont appear to account for all of the 100ppm change in [CO2] over the last ~70 years.
I agree.
Nate wrote, as if to correct me: But the long term rise to current CO2 levels, unprecedented in the ice core record, cannot be explained by any T effect.
Yes, because you claimed T caused CO2 variation on longer than 10 y time scales.
Then I’m sure what the entire point of your posts was, if in the end you are still agreeing that the CO2 rise was caused by anthro emissions, not temperature?
If your point was T variation causes CO2 variation, therefore CO2 variation cannot cause T variation, that is simply a non-sequitur.
Because both effects can be true.
The 140 ppm rise has caused ~ 1.1 C of warming according to GHE theory.
Short term temperature swings of 0.2 C are common, which would require 25 ppm CO2 swings, if the effect was linear.
Sorry, we have not been seeing short-term 25 ppm CO2 swings.
And the effect of CO2 on temperature is not supposed to be linear in any case, it is logarithmic.
So you have not remotely falsified the idea that CO2 rise has caused warming.
“ate wrote, as if to school me: But the long term trend is another story. You cant use correlation to decide cause and effect between two rising trends.
Still true.
“Nate then wrote: But over the long term, the cumulative emissions correlate extremely well to the measured CO2 rise since the 1950s when continuous measurements began. And just to prove the point provides a plot with two rising trends.”
First of all, they are not simply two rising trends. Both are non-linear rising trends, and the linear relationship between them shows that they have a quite similar non-linear rise.
Second Im not claiming this proves cause and effect. Im saying that it is entirely consistent with it.
Robert,
You claimed.
“If temperature sensitivity to trace concentrations of CO2 were high, as many claim, then it would be reasonable to expect, given the optical/atmospheric mechanics of CO2 as a GHG, that the effects of CO2-induced warming on shorter time scales would be detectable; anthropogenic emissions have certainly fluctuated over decadal, and shorter periods.”
This is wrong.
In this plot I have scaled and offset the log(CO2) variation to make it match the T rise over the last 60 y. Both are averaged over 12 months.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/log/offset:-2.5/scale:9/plot/gistemp/from:1960/mean:12/offset:0.1
You can clearly see that there are NO short term log(CO2) variations large enough to cause detectable short term T variation of any significance.
Nate says:
”as if to school me: But the long term trend is another story. You cant use correlation to decide cause and effect between two rising trends.
Still true.”
but nate totally unaware that in science you have to be consistent jumps all over validating the climate models because both the models and the observations have rising trends and all you need is a scale factor to make them match.
I said it last month and I’ll say it again…
I cannot believe this is real. ENSO events never have a sustained peak like this. There isnt even enough excess heat in the oceans to feed this peak. Something is seriously wrong here.
This is the effect of the 2022 Hunga volcano. After the SO2 cooling effect subsided after 12-18 months, we are left with the additional ~.3W/m2 from the additional stratospheric water vapor. Lookin at recent papers and the MLS measurements, this is not going away any time soon.
Paul, I am forced to agree with you, as the spike is quite unusual in its longevity. However, I notice the temperature level in Australia has dropped significantly to +0.4 in April with all the rain and clouds we have had in the east, so maybe we will see a drop in global temps next month. This spike goes well beyond a normal El Nino event that officially ended a month ago.
I have a set of several studies on HT’s effect in my stash. None of them show an RF of +0.3 W.m-2. It’s possible I’ve not read something you have so if you can cite the study where you got that figure it would be most appreciated.
But even assuming it is +0.3 W.m-2 that only accounts for a small portion of the +1.56 W.m-2 Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) reported by CERES. And, of course, as I’ve been saying repeatedly the spike in UAH is primarily the result of the transition from La Nina to El Nino. The EEI (which includes the HT effect) does help explain why this spike is higher than the previous spikes, but it’s ENSO that explains most of the swing from low to high and the timing.
bdgwx, the EEI is nonsense, as is your “understanding” of HTE.
The HTE has NOTHING to do with photon emission. The HTE was caused by the disruption of the Polar Vortex. This has been explained numerous times, but you reject anything that does not come from your cult. You even reject established physics!
“Something is seriously wrong here.”
Are you seriously going to repeat this mindless refrain every month from now on?
“There isnt even enough excess heat in the oceans to feed this peak. ” ?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/GRAPHS/heat_content2000m.png
Arkady, please stop trolling.
It is not at all unusual for global temps following el Nino to peak in April. The surprise is not that the global temp response to el Nino has continued to April, but that it began so early.
Wakey wakey all you cookers out there.
Another record anomaly this morning.
Time to start regurgitating all your worn out arguments.
p.s. Have you heard about the frog in a beaker of hot water?
There is frost this AM.
There are no frogs active, never mind boiling in a beaker.
DMT,
You wrote –
“Wakey wakey all you cookers out there.”
Did you really mean “Wakey wakey all you coolers out there.”?
If you did, your attempted sarcasm transformed itself into a demonstration of ineptitude and sloppiness – hardly likely to engender much respect, I guess.
You are no doubt one of those fanatical GHE cultists who can’t describe the GHE!
I prefer science to religious fanaticism where there is disagreement between the two.
We obviously have different views. Carry on proselytising.
Good morning all.
Isn’t it nice to know there will be less snow and ice.
Summers in the northern latitudes will last longer and thus give us a longer growing season.
This is a good thing.
Also, the I’m not sure I understand the use of the terms “troglodyte, throwing your statement back in your teeth, grow up” etc.
Please people.
Stop it.
Nice! But not for these people:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/26/asia-heatwaves-philippines-bangladesh-india
Second year in a row of deadly heatwaves in April in South Asia.
But that’s ok, cuz its somewhere else, involving other people.
what makes you think that’s unusual, Nate?
40C? heck that was the standard for reducing certain outdoor activities in southern Texas in the early 1960’s for military basic training. . .which was hit multiple times during April the year i was there. we called it 104F though. and yes even then it was for the prevention of heat stroke in primarily 18-24 year olds. there is no evidence that co2 is making this more common.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
The continuing UAH record warmth is attributable exclusively to the sun, because total solar irradiance, TSI, has long exceeded the decadal threshold in 2023/2024. Here is the March CERES TSI composite:
https://i.postimg.cc/NMLfLZ17/CERES-TSI-Composite.jpg
This year is the 10th anniversary of my creation of my decadal sun-ocean warming threshold system of climate change. It’s general rule is:
Extreme weather events and climate extremes are limited by the duration of total solar irradiance extremes.
I’ll be back in a few days with the April CERES TSI update.
You show 1361.82 W/m2 for 2024 and 1361.62 W/m2 for 2000. That’s a difference of 0.2 W/m2 which is a radiative force of 0.2 W/m2 * 0.7 / 4 = +0.04 W/m2. The 12m average for 2000/04 is -0.19 C and for 2024/04 it is +0.79 C with the trend over the period being +0.27 C/decade yielding +0.55 C of warming. Do you really think the RF of +0.04 W/m2 from the Sun caused the 0.55 C of warming?
RF of +0.04 Wm-2 causing 0.55C of warming makes more sense than any amount of CO2 doing anything similar.
Ken, That is a sensitivity of 0.55 C / 0.04 W.m-2 = 13.75 C per W.m-2. According to CERES the planetary energy imbalance right now is +1.56 W/m2. You do the math.
bdgwx, both the “energy imbalance” and “sensitivity” values are nonsense. It’s all based on “curve fitting”. That ain’t science.
Interesting, according to your theory the years 2000 and 2022 should have been very warm also.
Were they?
According to the LT temperature chart above, both those years had relatively low temperatures.
bdgwx-
Your figures are not reality, they are the radiative forcing model, which isn’t “real” enough. Since the atmosphere lags the ocean, I don’t use atmospheric radiative forcing as it completely neglects the major ocean warming control of the atmosphere’s temperature.
https://i.postimg.cc/L4QZQd3J/UAH-LT-v-Had-SST3.jpg
Nate-
Your assumption is wrong. 2000 and 2022 were OHC building years.
Don’t assume the same TSI in 2002 will produce the same temperature (or change) in 2023. Excess solar energy above the amount needed to keep the ocean at the same temperature was absorbed from 2000 to 2023, adding heat, increasing the ocean surface temperature. The cumulative amount of ASR stored in 2000 was obviously less than in 2022 or 2023, so the temperature then was also less.
BW: Your figures are not reality, they are the radiative forcing model, which isnt real enough.
Radiative forcing is literally the 1LOT applied at TOA. It doesn’t get any more real than that.
BW: Since the atmosphere lags the ocean, I dont use atmospheric radiative forcing as it completely neglects the major ocean warming control of the atmospheres temperature.
First…that is patently false. RF represents the rate at which energy accumulates in the climate system…all of it…including the ocean. In fact, the ocean takes ~90% of this energy so it does the exact opposite of neglecting the ocean’s influence on atmospheric temperature.
Second…if you’re not using RF then you’re not using the 1LOT as part of your analysis. And by not using the 1LOT you’re analysis is already flawed.
Sorry bdgwx, that’s all wrong.
You’ve probably learned that from the cult. 1LoT does NOT deal with “radiative forcing”. It relates “work” to “heat”. A corollary of that is conservation of energy. But, flux is NOT energy. Energy is conserved, but flux is not. And the only REAL “radiative forcing” comes from Sun. The sky can NOT warm the ocean, except in very rare conditions. The vast majority of the time, the heat flow is from ocean to air.
FirstRF does NOT represent the “rate at which energy accumulates in the climate system.” Once again, your cult has misled you. “Thermal energy” accumulates, flux does not accumulate.
Secondif youre using RF then youre mis-using the 1LOT as part of your analysis. And by mis-using the 1LOT your analysis is already flawed.
Bob,
“Nate-
Your assumption is wrong. 2000 and 2022 were OHC building years.
Dont assume the same TSI in 2002 will produce the same temperature (or change) in 2023. Excess solar energy above the amount needed to keep the ocean at the same temperature was absorbed from 2000 to 2023, adding heat, increasing the ocean surface temperature.”
OK so you admit that
The continuing UAH record warmth is NOT attributable exclusively to the sun’s activity, and that other variables are at work?
I looked at the data you used for your March CERES TSI composite. The annual average of total solar irradiance varied by only 1.4 W/m^2 over the 2000 – 2023 period. The trend was a loss per decade of 0.0003 W/m^2.
I found other CERES data from 09/200203/2020.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/20b5913d-6daf-47b9-9bdf-e019af48ee98/grl62546-fig-0002-m.jpg
The global rate of absorbed solar radiation increased by 0.65 W/m^2 per decade during that time and the emitted thermal radiation went up by 0.24 W/m^2 per decade. The net energy change was an increase of 0.41 W/m^2.
These graphs have much more in common with the TLT data than your TSI graph.
Paper: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
Exactly. His 1LOT energy budget does not add up. And for those who may be unaware the paper you cited is authored by Norman Loeb…the same guy Bob Weber got his data from.
Is there data that shows solar irradiance at different frequencies across the whole EM spectrum from gamma rays down to radio waves?
Here is the Monckton Pause update. At it’s peak it lasted 107 months starting in 2014/06. Since 2014/06 the warming trend is +0.32 C/decade. As I’ve said before that is a lot of warming for a period that was supposed to be the be-all-end-all proof that warming had stopped.
“Here is the Monckton Pause update…”
Don’t worry, if next month’s anomaly is lower than this month’s, a new ‘pause’ will have begun.
Don’t forget Monckton’s original super-duper pause, which at one time ran for 18 years, from July 1997 until January 2016, before meeting its demise.
The decadal trend to date from the depths of that pause is now 0.15 degrees – pretty much the same as for the whole dataset.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202405.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_NH_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.pnghttps://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.pnghttps://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2024.pngYou can see the warming of the troposphere above the equator (but not near the surface).
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_AMJ_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.png
Like I said above I’m prepared to be wrong, but I think +1.05 C is going to be the peak of this ENSO cycle. If that’s the case then the lag between the peak of the ONI and UAH would be 4 months…right in line with expectations. I mention this now because there were discussions a couple of months ago about how it was looking like UAH TLT’s response to El Nino was peaking early. That’s clearly not the case now. What we’re seeing with UAH TLT now is very typical of other El Nino responses in the past.
What is ONI?
Found it!
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-variability-oceanic-nino-index
Some people use MEI to track ENSO as well. I’ve found ONI to be more correlated with UAH than MEI.
I think there is a lot of volcanic ash in the troposphere over the equator now, which will cause a cold winter in the southern hemisphere. This can already be seen from the temperature of Antarctica.https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/maps/gfs_samer-sat_t2anom_d1.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2024.png
Dr. Roy’s data provide more evidence that the rate of global warming is accelerating, as my most recent video shows:
https://youtu.be/zEVUQO8rld0
Mark, have you been able to come up with a viable description/definition of your GHE yet?
The last one you offered sounded like you had no understanding of the basic physics.
Mark, What periods do you use to determine acceleration/deceleration? Sudden acceleration of a warming trend doesn’t fit the conventional view of greenhouse warming, and equally sudden drops invalidate it too.
There’s natural variability, and long term trends, and I’d like you to be specific about the magnitudes you ascribe to both because that helps prove or disprove your theory.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1965/mean:120/plot/gistemp/from:1965/to:2009/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1965/trend/detrend:0.105/offset:0.035
This shows the 45 year trend up to 2009, and the T data up to the present. There appears to be accelerated warming in the last 15 years.
That was 10 year running mean. Here it is with 5 year mean.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1965/mean:60/plot/gistemp/from:1965/to:2009/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1965/trend/detrend:0.105/offset:0.035
“Time to start regurgitating all your worn out arguments.”
Here’s mine: Time for an audit.
Somebody’s device is broke.
Andrew
Ha! When everybody in the world’s devices seem to have broke, in unison, that might be time for rethinking your theory.
The father of global warming said rising CO2 levels would warm our Ice Age.
March 2024: 425.38 ppm
March 2023: 420.99 ppm
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Governments have increased the CO2 levels. One thing they did, was make China burn a lot coal. They also paid to burn wood to be used for electricity.
Though the warmth might have caused from an underwater volcanic explosion. Perhaps they can plan to use nuclear bombs to throw more water into the stratosphere??
Another possibility is rocket launches is adding water to stratosphere- we have getting a lot rocket launches, lately
“When everybody in the worlds devices seem to have broke, in unison”
“Everybody in the world’s” devices acting in unison, is also a red flag.
Andrew
Why is it that the only red flags Andrew cares about correspond to those we can read daily in Troglodytes’ outlets?
Willard,
Away with you, ankle-biter! 😉
Andrew
Bad Andrew, do you know of any two global average temperature dataset that have produced the exact same value for each and every month?
bdgwx,
I don’t look at global average temperature anything, except for this blog.
It’s squiggology. Wouldn’t waste my time. The only reason I commented recently here is because I because I happened to notice the skew for the last however long.
It’s indicative of potential process problems. Does it mean anything? I wouldn’t commit any beliefs to any it.
Andrew
Bad Andrew, I’m not aware of any two global average temperature datasets that produce the exact same values. Anyway, if you want to audit UAH you can do so. Their source code is now publicly available. I can’t post the link directly because the blog will block my post, but if you google for “uah satellite source code” the first link takes you to the site where it can be downloaded. There isn’t anything in the source code that I felt was egregiously wrong. That’s not to say I don’t have concerns with parts of their methodology that could have a significant effect on the warming trend. It’s just that I’ve found nothing that makes me want to dismiss the whole dataset.
bdgwx,
Thanks for the non-combative response. I may look at the code someday, but I think there’s more to the presentation of this graphic than just source code. I suspect there are elements to the process I will never be able to verify, detect, and/or know about.
All I can say from what is presented is that there is an abrupt and sustained deviation that would prompt troubleshooting.
Andrew
BA, I’m not seeing anything unusual with UAH right now. The atmospheric response from the transition from La Nina to El Nino is mostly inline with expectations. I will say that the 13m centered average is riding on the upper edge of the uncertainty envelop of my model, but I don’t think my model is fully capturing the significant aerosol reductions over the last few years. Keep in mind that the planetary energy imbalance as reported by CERES is running at +1.56 W.m-2 right now which is significantly higher than what it has been for most of the earlier part of the UAH record. That combined with the El Nino peak 4 months ago simultaneous with the solar peak forced UAH higher. Had you been tracking posts from Bellman, TheFinalNail, myself, and others we had been warming people not to eliminate the possibility that UAH TLT could exceed +1.00 C on this ENSO cycle especially if it was going to behave with the same 4-5 month lag behind ENSO that was typical in the past. Sure enough…that happened.
“Why is it that the only red flags Andrew cares about correspond to those we can read daily in Troglodytes outlets?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
How do you feel about pro-life freaks?
I remembered a few months ago there was a server error and data needed to be restored from a backup and this was going to take several days.
Something does look decidedly odd with these numbers. Here in the UK we have had a cold and damp spring and I see there is still snow in Canada. It just doesn’t seem the temperatures are aligning.
Still hoping that some warm weather will come our way.
Interestingly enough, the fan on our microwave oven wouldn’t shut off a couple of days ago. Internet resources indicated that the sensor got too hot from the stove underneath. The microwave oven had to be unplugged and the sensor cooled off before the fan would not run when the microwave is plugged in. Who knows what state of the microwave is now? I just know the fan isn’t running while the microwave is plugged in.
Just a semi-related semi-amusing anecdote.
Andrew
We won’t get the April UAH grid for a few days, but the March grid is not inconsistent with your observations.
“Here in the UK we have had a cold and damp spring and I see there is still snow in Canada.”
It’s been wet, but certainly not cold on average.
Compared with the 1991-2020 average, the UK Mean temperature was 1.0C above average in March, and 0.4C in April. And follows a February 2.2C above average.
I suspect people think it’s been cold becasue it’s also been very cloudy, so little direct sunshine and not so hot during the day.
“n the UK we have had a cold and damp spring and I see there is still snow in Canada. It just doesnt seem the temperatures are aligning.”
And yet in South Asia they had another deadly heat wave
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/26/asia-heatwaves-philippines-bangladesh-india
similar to last April.
The shower is hot, but the fridge is cold. I don’t think I’m going to get the average ambient temperature of my house by focussing on these locations….
Concordia Station Temperaturehttps://i.ibb.co/dGXkg9h/Screenshot-2024-05-02-18-10-55.png
https://i.ibb.co/dGXkg9h/Screenshot-2024-05-02-18-10-55.png
And?
It’s May 2 + 6 months = November 2 there, forgotten?
Solar wind
speed: 415.7 km/sec
density: 8.73 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 May 24
Sunspot number: 104
https://www.spaceweather.com/
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 135 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.49×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low
6 numbered spots
Solar Cycle Progression
April: 136.5
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
The averaged blue line is flat.
It needs to be about 160 for March, to remain flat.
May, not March.
Oh also:
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
29 April – 25 May 2024
Solar activity is expected to be at low levels with a chance for
M-class (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) activity over the outlook period.
Primarily contributors to flare probability include Region 3654
currently in the western hemisphere and a collective of active and
adjacent regions in the southern hemisphere which are due to return
to the visible disk over 08-10 May. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Yet solar cycle #24 and #25 have been smaller than recent cycles.
Earths geomagnetic field has been weakening possibly allowing for more atmospheric heating.
No papers to really support this line of thought. Just trying to include all the data.
Yes, the rise in temperature did surprise me.
Some, maybe most, think it was result of volcanic eruption that tossed millions of tons of water into the upper atmosphere, it apparently was a very large volcanic eruption, but it didn’t kill a lot of people- considering how it was. Other say it had do with new govt regulation and ocean cycles.
In terms of solar cycle, most agree that the Solar Grand Maximum, ended two solar cycles, ago and many think we entering the Solar Grand minimum. And many think there will be global cooling resulting from the solar grand min, once solar cycle 25 max, ends.
I think 25 max could end, fairly quickly, but NOAA latest solar 25 max, prediction is it will increase soon.
Or current the flat blue line, will rise, a lot.
And as said, for blue flat line to just remain flat, May needs to be about 160 sunspots.
And think May could be about 100 sunspots, or the average blue line going down.
Solar wind
speed: 417.6 km/sec
density: 1.91 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 May 24
Sunspot number: 125
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 142 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.39×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
7 numbered spot, 1 spot not numbered yet, and 2 spots going to farside. None yet, coming from farside
As a summary, I have been trying to predict solar activity on this blog, for more than a year, not sure when exactly but I believe before 2023 started.
My interest in it, is related to being able to guess, cosmic rays or also called Galactic Cosmic Rays [GCR] levels which are significant in terms of crewed Mars exploration. And what important is having some idea of GCR, about 2 years in the future. Which seems rather impossible to me, but not know much about it, I thought try to do it.
Or at least get idea of how wrong I could be.
Anyhow, I am getting some idea about it.
And this was prompted because Valentina Zharkova claim solar activity could predicted over very long time periods and that we were entering a somewhat short Grand Solar Min which would be followed another Solar Grand Max.
So, I wanted to know if she wrong or not.
Sunspots are still impossible to predict, but in terms of general levels of GRC, it may be possible.
Solar wind
speed: 455.1 km/sec
density: 2.09 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 08 May 24
Sunspot number: 144
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 204 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.93×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.3% Low
8 numbered spots. none going to farside or coming from it.
Solar wind
speed: 373.6 km/sec
density: 3.64 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 May 24
Sunspot number: 121
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 121 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.39×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low
6 numbered spots. The spot with highest given number, 3666, grew a lot. Other larger spot have grown in last 24 hours also.
And what looks like a bigger spot is coming from farside.
No spots going to farside within next couple days.
Solar wind
speed: 321.2 km/sec
density: 6.66 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 May 24
Sunspot number: 136
“Sunspot AR3663 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares. AR3664 is also developing a delta-class field, so it may start exploding soon as well.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 136 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.62×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low
7 numbered spots. The larger one coming from farside [3667] is 3rd
largest spot, with 3666 and then 3363 being bigger. 3363 is large cluster of moderate to large spots, and another large cluster with smaller spots is 3664.
no spots going to farside any time soon, and no other spot coming from farside, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 479.2 km/sec
density: 5.68 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 May 24
Sunspot number: 152
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 152 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.61×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
9 numbered spots. 1 is coming from farside.
2 developed on nearside [3668 and 3669].
None are going to farside within a day.
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
06 May – 01 June 2024
Solar activity is expected to be at moderate to high levels
(R1-R3/Minor-Strong) through 12 May as Regions 3663 and 3664 rotate
across the visible disk. Low to moderate levels are expected on 12
May-01 Jun.
There is a chance for S1-S2 (Minor-Moderate) solar radiation storm
levels on 06-13 May due to the flare potential of Regions 3663 and
3664. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Solar wind
speed: 507.2 km/sec
density: 2.00 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 07 May 24
Sunspot number: 148
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 171 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.81×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
9 numbered spots, 1 leaving to farside
NASA IG: Major technical problems with Orion remain unsolved
“A just released report [pdf] by NASAs inspector general has found the major technical problems discovered after the first unmanned Artemis mission of Orion around the Moon remain unsolved, and threaten the safety of the astronauts that NASA plans to send around the Moon on the second Artemis mission.”
https://behindtheblack.com/
I’m not a scientist, but always follow the publications that Roy Spencer shares here. So, can anyone tells me (both sides) about the temperature being +1,05? Is it correlated to the global warming caused by human emitions of CO2, or is it correlated to the Nino over pacific ocean that now looks to be decreasing, but there is energy in oceans being dissipated in the atmosphere? Thanks.
David, we know the warming is not due to the CO2 nonsense. The best guess is that ocean oscillations are causing the warming trend. As you mentioned, El Niño was active for many months and possibly combined with the leftover effects from the Hunga-Tonga eruption over a year ago, pushing UAH temps to record highs.
David: Is it correlated to the global warming caused by human emitions of CO2, or is it correlated to the Nino over pacific ocean that now looks to be decreasing, but there is energy in oceans being dissipated in the atmosphere?
It’s both.
There’s something non-systematic causing the warming. It is pretty obvious.
Natural variation plus linear trend gives steps.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665440
Confirmed! UAH data continues to show the earth is in a warming trend.
As a retired operational meteorologist, I am not worried about it. Am I supposed to be?
What I’ve noticed over recent years is that global warming alarmists are comparing today’s instrumental data to proxy data, then making hysterical claims that today’s global warming is the fastest in 800,000 years, or 2.5 million years, or whatever time period they arbitrarily choose to scare the public with. And then some go as far to say humans are causing an extinction event.
Question – Is this valid scientific reasoning?
This leads to the problem of government policy makers. Should they be involved? And why in the heck are atmospheric researchers getting into the business of advocating policies that will create hardships for common working class people?
The Biden Administration (and their political allies) is pushing electric vehicles onto every American. Well guess what? I happen to be a Tesla Model-S owner of 10 years. And it is the most incredible motor vehicle I’ve own in my lifetime (and the most expensive). But I would never try to mandate electric vehicles onto the public. And the reason is simple. A battery electric vehicle is only viable if you have a garage with a 240V outlet so you can charge overnight. If you live in an apartment, you will be forced to compete against other mandated EV owners to search for an unoccupied public charging stall. And if you are successful, it will take by a factor of 10 more time to charge your BEV than what it would take to fill up at a gas station.
Anybody beginning to see the insanity in this? Let’s say if the global warming zealots are successful in forcing every American into a BEV. How much do you think this will lower global mean temperature if implemented? This is a point Christy and Spencer have made for several years. Dr. Christy testified before Congress that if we can make America disappear, the affect on global mean temperature would be so small, we could not measure it.
I am all for climate research, and many thanks go to Spencer and Christy for their contributions, and for sharing their findings with the public. But when climate researchers and public officials start advocating things, that should be a red flag.
Anybody agree?
Many good points there, Rob.
The evidence is that we’re in a natural warming trend, that started in the 1970s. Likely the warming is due to ocean oscillations. With the help of the Argo floats we’re learning more and more about the oceans. Possibly in another 50-100 years we will be able to actually predict such trends.
There is no need for any alarm. The GHE nonsense is NOT science. There isn’t even a viable description/definition of such a thing. The nonsense is based on political agenda and supported by a ragtag alliance ranging from children to phony intellectuals.
I think the result for April demonstrates how much uncertainty there is climate prediction and climate modeling.
As for the electric cars, in my experience any project that is motivated by panic will likely have problems. The success of any project is always in the planning stage. Problems in the planning stage become amplified in the execution phase.
Solar panels do not work at night when most people will charge their cars. Storage batteries add more cost. What is the panic? There is plenty of time to figure out how to make things more sustainable for the USA while 95% of the rest of the world’s population continues to increase their 90% of carbon emissions.
rob…”Confirmed! UAH data continues to show the earth is in a warming trend”.
***
Not really. The sat data shows a statistical warming but does not explain why or where the warming is occurring. I can tell you one thing, it is not happening in Vancouver, BC, Canada.
I don’t know if Roy has the time but I’d appreciate a breakdown of where the warming is showing up, and a possible explanation as to why.
The newer UAH data includes stratospheric elements whereas the original did not. I am wondering if the Hunga Tonga WV injected into the stratosphere is somehow affecting current readings.
Another possibility is the direct sunlight experienced by the sat telemetry. I know the telemetry is adjusted to allow for that but what if the frequency distribution of solar EM has changed?
This sudden jump in global temps the past few months suggests strongly there may be issues with the sat telemetry.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
DMT,
Do you need to give a keyboard a severe beating? It seems to be producing irrelevant repetitive nonsense.
DMT, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Mr. Asshat is being full of himself once again:
https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-shift-index-alert/climate-shift-index-alert-british-columbia-may-2024
Why are you such an impotent sock puppet?
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Cooling of the eastern North Pacific, very favorable for fishing and California sea lion.
https://i.ibb.co/wN58VF0/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
Winter is returning to Russia with snow and cold weather.
https://i.ibb.co/R78snBn/ventusky-rain-3h-20240511t0300-64n43e.jpg
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Indian voters are battling sweltering conditions to take part in the worlds biggest election as a severe heat wave hits parts of the country and authorities forecast a hotter-than-normal summer for the South Asian nation.
The India Meteorological Department (IMD) said a heat wave will affect parts of south and east India until the end of the week, including four states that are voting on Friday.
Parts of West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka are among 13 states and union territories voting in the second phase of India’s mammoth elections, with temperatures forecast to exceed 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some areas.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/india/india-election-heat-wave-climate-intl-hnk/index.html
“severe heat wave hits parts of the country and authorities forecast a hotter-than-normal summer for the South Asian nation.”
Obviously, for a “normal” to exist, the series on which it is based must contain numbers both higher and lower than “normal”.
“Hotter than normal” is not only normal, it is absolutely essential – otherwise there can be no “normal” at all!
Whatever temperatures are being experienced, unless they exceed 90 C, they are not outside the range of surface temperatures.
If you live in a hot place, do not be surprised if you get hot.
Mike Flynn,
Obviously, you are braying. But about what?
Let me guess, without reading –
Obvious gotcha, irrelevant truisms, empty pontification.
Am I close, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
severe heat wave hits parts of the country and authorities forecast a hotter-than-normal summer for the South Asian nation.
Obviously, for a “normal” to exist, the series on which it is based must contain numbers both higher and lower than “normal”.
“Hotter than normal” is not only normal, it is absolutely essential otherwise there can be no “normal” at all!
Whatever temperatures are being experienced, unless they exceed 90 C, they are not outside the range of surface temperatures.
If you live in a hot place, do not be surprised if you get hot.
Mike Flynn,
Have you lost your quote marks because you do not know anything else than to use an iPad?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“Have you lost your quote marks because you do not know anything else than to use an iPad?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Why do you act as if you were Graham D. Warner’s attack dog desguised under a sock puppet?
Cheers.
“severe heat wave hits parts of the country and authorities forecast a hotter-than-normal summer for the South Asian nation.”
Obviously, for a “normal” to exist, the series on which it is based must contain numbers both higher and lower than “normal”.
“Hotter than normal” is not only normal, it is absolutely essential otherwise there can be no “normal” at all!
Whatever temperatures are being experienced, unless they exceed 90 C, they are not outside the range of surface temperatures.
If you live in a hot place, do not be surprised if you get hot.
Worried Wee Willy, realising he is looking quite stupid, responds –
“Mike Flynn,
Why do you act as if you were Graham D. Warner’s attack dog desguised under a sock puppet?
Cheers.”
I leave to others to choose the target of their sniggering, or derisive laughter.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Obviously, you are braying. But about what?
Let me guess, without reading –
Obvious gotcha, irrelevant truisms, empty pontification.
Am I close, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Why do you act as if you were Graham D. Warners attack dog desguised under a sock puppet?
Cheers.
“Obvious gotcha, irrelevant truisms, empty pontification.”
Then rinse and repeat.
Compelling arguments…not so much.
“Why do you act as if you were Graham D. Warners attack dog desguised under a sock puppet?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Silly sock puppet.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Time to check out the satellite telemetry, it is obviously not in step with what we are experiencing here on the surface.
ha ha ha ha ha!
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2024/05/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-05-01.gif
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2024/05/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-05-01.gif
RLH, what do your SavitzkyGolay graphs look like now?
bdgwx
Blindsley H00d aka RLH’s graphs aren’t based on a Savitzki-Golay filter.
They are simply cascaded triple running means based on Vaughan Pratt’s specification of the size of the consecutive simple running means.
But since, for example, a triple 60 month running mean has an inactive window of 60+50+39 = 149 months, RLH fills the running mean’s tail window half with Savitzky-Golay data and names that tail a ‘projection’ (what is certainly the reason why he never correspondingly fills the running mean’s head with the front of the same Savitzky-Golay data).
Ah ok. That’s good to know.
When you see a big sudden step in data it is not real
It is a big jump and it happened in all the satellite and surface databases.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/pages/latest/T/mth2.png
This looks real.
“This looks real.”
As real as colored squiggly lines ever did.
Andrew
Spoken like the proverbial frog.
Eben,
In a fully deterministic chaotic system, such behaviour is to be expected.
The IPCC states “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system . . . “, and, assuming that the data used by Dr Spencer is part of the “climate system”, then I would expect this data to also vary chaotically – even if such variations appear counter intuitive, from time to time..
It really doesn’t matter, does it? Panicking is going to make no difference.
If my speculation about the causal relationship of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to global temperatures is correct (CO2 creates no heat at all), then it might be worthwhile looking for real, rather than imaginary, sources of heat. Dr Spencer appears to be at least open to the possibility that heat from anthropogenic sources may be responsible for measured temperature increases.
Time will tell, I suppose.
I think you ought to ask Dr. Roy if he thinks it’s real, Eben. After all, it’s his dataset.
“Spoken like the proverbial frog.”, says another fanatical GHE cultist, who can’t even describe the GHE!
Just blind faith in the cult predictions of doom! doom! doom!
In the future of course – where, when, how much, what – all to be advised.
What a load of rubbish!
What next? Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is bad?
[laughing as usual]
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
“Step 3 Saying Stuff”
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Time to check out the satellite telemetry, it is obviously not in step with what we are experiencing here on the surface. ”
This of course is needed ONLY in case of satellite telemetry temperature data being unusually HIGH.
Unusually low temperatures are always perfect for Coolistas.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Unusually heavy seasonal rains have left a vast swath of southern Russia and Central Asia reeling from floods, with dozens of people dead in Afghanistan and Pakistan and tens of thousands forced to flee their homes in Kazakhstan and Russia.
Authorities say the flooding the atypical intensity of which scientists blame on human-driven climate change is likely to get worse, with more rain predicted and already swollen rivers bursting their banks.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/flooding-russia-kazahkstan-afgahnistan-deaths-evacuations-2024-climate/
Ren must have missed this one.
“Authorities say the flooding the atypical intensity of which scientists blame on human-driven climate change is likely to get worse”
Yes, and Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, and Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize.
Does your gullibility exceed your ignorance, or vice versa?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Your incredulity is duly noted.
Only can do something about it.
What do you intend to do, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“Authorities say the flooding the atypical intensity of which scientists blame on human-driven climate change is likely to get worse”
Yes, and Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, and Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize.
Does your gullibility exceed your ignorance, or vice versa?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
I will take your copypasta as a yes.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
“Authorities say the flooding the atypical intensity of which scientists blame on human-driven climate change is likely to get worse..”
Yes, and Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, and Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize.
Does your gullibility exceed your ignorance, or vice versa?
You may take my comment anyway and anywhere you like. Am I supposed to care?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet,
I will take your copypasta as a yes.
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Here you are, in my thread, almost denying being Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet!
“Here you are, in my thread, almost denying being Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You are a silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
You forgot about the snowfall in Afghanistan, which froze the flowers of fruit trees and is having critical economic consequences for many families.
You forgot that the newsie above was five days ago:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heat-wave-asia-2024-deaths-india-severe-weather-climate-change/
You can’t win that kind of contest in a warming world, Ren.
“You cant win that kind of contest in a warming world, Ren.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
No U.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Here you are, in my thread, almost denying being Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet!
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
This way please.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
always ends up
…winning the argument.
gaslighting
No, winning the argument.
gaslighting…again
Definitely winning the argument.
Apparently some people feel that in a debate, they dont need to make a convincing argument. All they have to do is declare themselves the winner.
Must be all the participation trophies the 13th place kids have been getting lately.
if that were the case then you would have gotten one too Nate
like when Nate failed to acknowledge the stark difference between ”can be considered” and ”is”.
it would only be so if the gravitational pull of the earth were suddenly switched off via the conservation of energy law.
failing to recognize that wouldn’t disqualify nate from receiving a participation trophy.
So Nate would receive partial credit for getting the math right and just missing on a fact.
Gill forgets that in the world of Moon Dragon cranks, the surface of the ball “can be considered” the center of mass of the ball.
ROOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLL
Little Willy loses another one.
as usual he is clueless as to even what is going on.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
LLLLLLLLLLMMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOO
see what i mean. parents should supervise their children.
Funny that Gill finds his own practice of laughing out loud so childish.
Little Willy loses another one.
The new new pause continues: Another month at WUWT with no “new pause” articles. No “new pause” articles on WUWT for 9 months; how long will this new pause go?
That’s a problem for “skeptics” because it disagrees with their theories, and as Feynman said: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is… If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Arkady,
“Thats a problem for skeptics because it disagrees with their theories”
What theories are you referring to? Can’t or won’t say?
Which makes your excellent partial Feynman quote rather pointless.
Feynman also pointed out in a Cornell University lecture that one cannot prove a vague theory wrong. This is because vague theories lead to vague or indefinite consequences. Feynman said of testing vague outcomes: “with a little skill any experimental result can be made to look like an expected consequence. He argued if you cannot make precise predictions from your guess, then you cannot claim to know anything about it”.
With regard to the GHE, nobody can even describe it, making guesses as to its method of operation completely meaningless.
But carry on avoiding saying anything that can be remotely considered scientific, if you wish.
Bang on on about skeptics and non-existent theories. CO2 warms nothing. Climate does not control weather. You can’t describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality.
Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong. Take all the time you want. I’m capable of laughing at you while you waste your time trying to do the impossible.
Don’t blame me because you are ignorant and gullible.
Mike Flynn,
As Feynman once said –
> I learned from her that every woman is worried about her looks, no matter how beautiful she is.
Do you mind looking like a silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“Do you mind looking like a silly sock puppet?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
As Feynman once said –
> How much do you value life? Sixty-four.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
“What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Why do you insist in invoking Graham D. Warner’s spirit?
Never mind answering, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Why does the surface temperature in Antarctica reach the average temperature of the tropopause in winter? The answer is simple: the Earth’s troposphere is an extremely thin layer, and only due to rotation and circulation does the temperature not reach lethal values. When the circulation slows down immediately extreme values appear.
https://i.ibb.co/10KBdnr/zt-sh.gif
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
The AmundsenScott South Pole Station is located on the high plateau of Antarctica at 9,301 feet (2,835 m) above sea level. It’s getting colder down there, so one might expect low temperatures at the surface.
It is the tropopause jet current that is the creator of weather, and its strength and course depend on the speed of rotation and pressure in high latitudes.
https://i.ibb.co/ysk6YkG/ventusky-wind-200hpa-20240503t0600.jpg
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_NH_2024.png
With land-based records down to the +0.6’s for April (using the UAH baseline), this is more evidence that the surface temperature is not what satellites are reading.
AQ,
You wrote –
“. . . this is more evidence that the surface temperature is not what satellites are reading.”
And you are concerned because . . . ?
Do meteorological “atmospheric temperatures” read by any means change anything at all? Fanatical GHE cultists like yourself seem fixated on supposed and completely meaningless “air temperature” for no reason that you can explain.
Sounds like a mental affliction to me.
Flynsson
” Sounds like a mental affliction to me. ”
Says this blog’s mentally most deranged boy.
” Bindidon, please stop tr0lling. “
“Flynsson”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bellman pointed out that the UK average temperature in the UK in April was 0.4 degrees above average.
This is only half the story.
The night time temperatures were 0.8 degrees higher whilst the daytime temperatures were 0.4 lower.
April has been unusually cloudy this year in the UK, which explains this difference.
More importantly is how this effects Energy use. Most of us have our heating turned down during the night when we are snuggled up in bed. However when we wake up we are using more energy to compensate for the lower daytime temperatures.
mark wapples: “The night time temperatures were 0.8 degrees higher whilst the daytime temperatures were 0.4 lower. ”
I think you are a bit off there. Night temps were 0.85C above average, day time was 0.04C below average, not 0.4.
“April has been unusually cloudy this year in the UK, which explains this difference.”
As I said in my comment – I think that’s why there is a perception of it being a cold month, that and the fact the second half was colder than the first.
But I was addressing the claim that the UK had had a cold spring, which was being used to suggest the UAH global averages were wrong.
Here are the anomalies I get for the UK, for the year so far.
Month TMEAN TMAX TMIN
1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3
2 2.2 2.0 2.4
3 1.0 0.8 1.3
4 0.4 0.0 0.8
Only January could be said to be slightly below average. And this is compared with the warm 1991-2020 period. Compared to temperatures last century, 2024 has been much warmer. Here’s the same compared to the 1961-1980 period.
Month TMEAN TMAX TMIN
1 0.9 1.1 0.6
2 3.3 3.4 3.3
3 2.2 2.1 2.4
4 1.6 1.4 1.7
What is your reason for using tMean?
Blindsley H00d
What is your reason for asking?
Explanation.
I used TMEAN because it was a comparison with UAH data, which is average temperature, not maximum temperature.
Honestly, the desperation at the moment is quite palpable. On WUWT I’ve just been told that the concept of a global average is an “extreme left wing” concept.
” Explanation. ”
No, Blindsley H00d.
One more of your attempts to discredit Tmin in favour of your beloved Tmedian, for sure.
You failed here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k8oNXAY0hFrkcRo7x5eEVTEWBGsAK-CX/view
here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FEoidp-brB2oZ_WyCnHNXZxW8pHS32JI/view
and here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view
Bellman
” On WUWT Ive just been told that the concept of a global average is an extreme left wing concept. ”
This is the definitive ‘heartlandization’ of WUWT.
Never seen so many posts from aggressive, harsh barking dogs like bnice2000.
Nor posts from WUWT’s uncertainty mafia (Tillman, Gorman, Karlomonte and their groupies) discrediting any comment with ‘Where is your uncertainty calculation?’ but never being able to produce these very same uncertainty calculations by their own.
To be fair karlomonte once calculated the monthly uncertainty of UAH at “3.6 C”. He did this by computing the variance of the values in the grid (which is an acceptable type A methodology) and got 169 K^2 as the variance. He then took the 4th root of that to get “3.6 K”. When Bellman and I pointed out that the 4th root of K^2 couldn’t possibly be an uncertainty because that has units of K^(1/2) he continued to defend his calculation.
BTW…the type A formula for uncertainty is sqrt(variance^2 / N). Using N = 9508 (the number of filled cells in the grid) you get sqrt(169 K^2 / 9508) = 0.13 K which is very close to the type A evaluation I get when comparing UAH to RSS and the 0.20 K value from the type B method Christ et al. 2003 used.
bdgwx
” When Bellman and I pointed out that the 4th root of K^2 couldnt possibly be an uncertainty because that has units of K^(1/2) he continued to defend his calculation. ”
This is exactly their behavior.
*
” BTWthe type A formula for uncertainty is sqrt(variance^2 / N). Using N = 9508 (the number of filled cells in the grid) you get sqrt(169 K^2 / 9508) = 0.13 K… ”
Thank you for this information.
The exact number of cells in UAH’s 2.5 degree grid is… 9504 (66 times 144).
Yes. Good catch. 9504.
Why tMean rather than tMedian? You do know statistics?
More than you ever will, Richard.
So with all your knowledge of statistics tell me why tMean over tMedian then.
I was talking about bdgwx, Richard, whom is a real formal guy.
By contrast to you, who’s a coder who pretends being one.
So I will wait for bdgwx statistical reason for using tMean over tMedian then.
You could also commit to a specific claim and make an argument for it, Richard.
tMedian is better than tMean for things such as average temperatures.
“The median of a data set is often considered a better measure of center than the mean when the data set contains outliers or skewed distributions.
I’m referring to tMean here because that’s what UAH uses. But if you’re asking me which of a mean or median is better then the answer is both have advantages and disadvantages. Neither is better in all scenarios. I will say one reason people often use a mean for temperature is because (when done appropriately) it can be used in equations that relate temperature to energy. For example, if UAH says the global average temperature of the troposphere increased by 0.5 C I can estimate that it took 1 kj/kg.C * 0.5 C * 3.85e18 kg = 1.9e18 kj of energy assuming negligible changes in mass, specific heat capacity, or latent sources. We can’t use the same procedure with the global median temperature.
Are you claiming that tMean is not skewed?
RLH, it depends on what you mean by “skewed”. If you mean “gives the wrong result” then I gave you an example where tMedian is “skewed” or gives the wrong result while tMean is not “skewed” or gives the right result.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Skewed has a very specific meaning in statistics. Look it up.
I suggest you read that sentence again, Richard:
> I gave you an example where tMedian is skewed or gives the wrong result while tMean is not skewed or gives the right result.
“Neither is better in all scenarios.”
Not sure why RLH doesnt get this, and keeps missing the point.
RLH, keep in mind that I said nothing about tMean being skewed or not. You made it sound like I did so I was left with no other choice than to infer your meaning based on what I said. So you’ll have to forgive me for not playing your cat and mouse game the way you wanted. In the interest of saving everyone time perhaps you could simply put into words what you actually intended to ask instead of expecting me to read your mind.
” Why tMean rather than tMedian? You do know statistics? ”
For the stubborn, opinionated pseudo-statistician ‘RLH’ (I have good reasons to name him ‘Blindsley H00d’) I repeat that until now he still was not able to disprove my results showing the lack of a relevant difference between TMEAN and TMEDIAN when comparing them within time series like USCRN.
Here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k8oNXAY0hFrkcRo7x5eEVTEWBGsAK-CX/view
here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FEoidp-brB2oZ_WyCnHNXZxW8pHS32JI/view
and here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view
*
All what Blindsley H00d is able to do is to refer to general statements he picks up out of articles, or to present a school boy evaluation of USCRN which, ‘by accident’, lacks exactly what I have shown extensively enough in the three graphs above:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values-3.jpg?w=1024
RLH,
And if by “skewed” you mean the metric has a disproportionate number of values lower than it vs higher than it then you can rest easy knowing that I never said tMean isn’t immune from being “skewed” by that definition like would be the case with an asymmetric distribution.
That line of discussion is completely irrelevant to this subthread. The reason Bellman and I used tMean is because that’s what UAH used. And the reason why datasets use tMean in general is because it (unlike tMedian) has a relationship with energy. And if you go back up and read mark wapples post starting this subthread you’ll see his question is in regards to energy usage. If we’re only given the option of using tMean or tMedian then answering mark wapple’s question can only be done using tMean since tMedian will give you the wrong answer.
Pseudomod, May 8, 2024 at 3:17 AM
” bdgwx, please stop tr0lling. ”
What’s the matter with you, Pseudomod?
There is only ONE tr0ll here, and that’s RLH – and no one else.
Keep your ‘please stop tr0lling’ for corners like GHE or the lunar spin denŷal, please, and keep off technical threads you don’t understand anything of.
Shut up.
Graham D. Warner is tilting once again.
“Shut up. ”
What?
You, Pseudomod, professional denier of any valuable science, tell me to shut up?
Ha ha ha.
Who are you, Pseudomod? A MOTL/MOTR nobody who thinks he can reduce the complexity of motions to stoopid, trivial thoughts.
Shut up, Bindidon.
Im shocked, shocked, to find that tro.lling is going on in here!
And by the tr.oll police no less!
A desperate, obsessive stalker appears.
And, since 4:54 pm, he is no more.
Another obsessed fan appears.
Ten warmest ENSO seasons (July-June):
1. 2023-24 +0.87 (10 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.
AQ,
Maybe you could demonstrate your vast scientific knowledge, and explain the reasons for the “Ten warmest ENSO seasons” (whatever an ENSO season happens to be)?
No? Just acting the goat, are you?
[what a dimwit]
> Maybe you could demonstrate
Step 2 – Sammich Request
You’re looking very wethered, kid.
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
AQ,
Maybe you could demonstrate your vast scientific knowledge, and explain the reasons for the Ten warmest ENSO seasons” (whatever an ENSO season happens to be)?
No? Just acting the goat, are you?
[what a dimwit ]
I see you’re on the search for a buck, doe.
“I see youre on the search for a buck, doe.”
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Top 10 G.O.A.T.s (as ranked by Mike Flynn / Swenson):
10. Serena Williams
9. Heather McKay
8. Muhammed Ali
7. Mark Spitz
6. Roger Federer
5. Shane Warne (**)
4. Lionel Messi
3. Michael Jordon
2. Don Bradman
1. Antonin Qwerty
** Chuckers excluded from reckoning
“ranked by Mike Flynn / Swenson)”
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Yes Arkady, please leave Flynn alone so he can focus on my posts.
“Yes Arkady, please leave Flynn alone so he can focus on my posts.”
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Merely helping you out Mikey.
Good list BTW. Well done on leaving out the chucker.
“Merely helping you out Mikey.”
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Your replies are looking very ovine, Mikey.
I’d suggest you put yourself on the mutton market, but I suspect you’re pasture ewes-buy date.
“Your replies are looking very ovine, Mikey.”
Antonin, please stop trolling.
What sentence could just as easily be spoken at a sheep husbandry lecture as at an IT lecture?
.
.
.
.
.
.
“You” can never get enough RAM.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Have you factored into your conclusion that ENSO is a minor player wrt the AMO and PDO and that we are likely in a cycle involving them all where global temps rise? Tsonis et al revealed in a study dating back a century that when the oscillations are in phase, global temps rise, and when out of phase, temps fall.
Tsonis himself reasoned that we should stop pursuing theories about anthropogenic warming and look more closely at ocean oscillation and their interaction. Of course, no one has bothered since all the money is available only for producing lies about the AGW.
Yet again, out of all the papers out there, you choose ONE that you misinterpret as supporting your agenda, and ONLY for the reason that you believe it supports your agenda. You certainly do not have an understanding of his methods which would enable to to make that choice independently of your agenda.
If you had read his work properly you would have understood that his claim was that such a coupling leads to a CHANGE in the climate state, NOT necessarily a warming. He is describing the surges and “pauses”, which pre-trend would have been rises and fall. He describes four such couplings in the 40th century, two which lead to rises, one which lead to a fall, and then the “pause” which was a fall superimposed on a steeply rising trend.
At NO stage does he say anything like “we should stop pursuing theories about anthropogenic warming”. That is YOUR invention. In a different article (not a paper) after discussing climate variability he says “So, do I think that there is an anthropogenic influence on climate? I actually do” … and then proceeds to discuss this.
But at least I suppose I should thank you for withdrawing me from participating in Flynn’s tr011ing game by actually supplying something to debate, something which he is incapable of doing.
(Dr Spencer … Please DO NOT approve my 1st attempt at this comment which was posted under a mis-spelled name.)
Yet again, out of all the papers out there, you choose ONE that you misinterpret as supporting your agenda, and ONLY for the reason that you believe it supports your agenda. You certainly do not have an understanding of his methods which would enable to to make that choice independently of your agenda.
If you had read his work properly you would have understood that his claim was that such a coupling leads to a CHANGE in the climate state, NOT necessarily a warming. He is describing the surges and “pauses”, which pre-trend would have been rises and fall. He describes four such couplings in the 40th century, two which lead to rises, one which lead to a fall, and then the “pause” which was a fall superimposed on a steeply rising trend.
At NO stage does he say anything like “we should stop pursuing theories about anthropogenic warming”. That is YOUR invention. In a different article (not a paper) after discussing climate variability he says “So, do I think that there is an anthropogenic influence on climate? I actually do” … and then proceeds to discuss this.
But at least I suppose I should thank you for withdrawing me from participating in Flynn’s tr011ing game by actually supplying something to debate, something which he is incapable of doing.
40th should clearly be 20th
AQ,
You may debate to your heart’s content.
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
Science is not about debate – it’s about facts. 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.”
If you can’t even describe the GHE, then you can hardly come up with a theory to explain it, can you?
Best you stick to debating. If you do it in front of a mirror, you’ll only lose half the time, won’t you?
Give it a try.
Swenson’s ‘theory’ is that the Earth has only ever cooled for the last 4.5 By.
But its about the facts. And the facts show that the Earth WARMED significantly 20,000 years ago. And again, in the last century.
As Feynman said It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.
Hence, Swenson’s ‘theory’ is simply wrong.
Oh well, he will keep believing it anyway.
How do we tell that the deniers have lost the argument yet again?
Because Flynn jumps in to “save” them yet again with a change of subject. Can’t allow them to continue traversing that losing path, now can we Mikey.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Clint R says:
“We’re all surprised by this result, but we know it’s not caused by CO2. CO2 can not raise temperatures. Dr. Spencer mentioned a likely cause: This is usually an indication of extra heat being lost by the surface to the deep-troposphere through convection, and is what is expected due to the waning El Nino event.”
Dr. Spenser also has repeatedly tried to explain the Greenhouse Effect to people like you. I guess he’s “just another child of the cult.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/
Clint R also openly and proudly rejects the 1LOT. He has called the planetary energy imbalance (which is nothing more than the 1LOT applied at the top of the atmosphere) nonsense at least twice in this blog post alone. If he cannot be convinced that the law of conservation of energy is reality in its most fundamental form then nobody will ever be able to explain how the GHE works in a way he can understand.
Seriously WRONG, bdgwx. I have never rejected 1LoT. You may be trying to get me to use the “L-word”. But, I don’t stoop to the level of your cult. You may actually believe what you say. You may be that ignorant.
Conservation of energy deals with “energy”. Flux is NOT energy. You may be so ignorant of physics you do not understand that.
b,
You are obviously a fanatical GHE cultist, if you are making some staggeringly bizarre statement like “energy out equals energy in”!
Complete nonsense. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. Energy out has manifestly exceeded energy in!
You babble about the “law of conservation of energy”, trying to sound like you know what you are talking about, but it is obvious that you don’t. Go on, educate me – if you wish. What is the relevance of the law of the conservation of energy to the cooling Earth?
You really have no idea, do you? You cannot describe the GHE, but then nobody can, so you imagine that appealing to your own authority might magically make a planet heat up!
I suppose you are mad enough to claim that you can explain something that you cannot describe, are you? The GHE, for example.
Not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
Sorry Craig T, but Spencer would be more of a “thorn-in-the-side” to your cult. He has admitted physics is not his area of expertise. So he doesn’t debunk the GHE nonsense based on physics, he debunks it based on his knowledge of climate and weather, with a little “common sense” thrown in. I have no problem with that.
A “child of the cult” is someone that has been completely indoctrinated and can no longer think for themselves. They will believe anything the cult puts out. They will childishly spew any nonsense to support their cult, such as claiming that ice cubes can boil water or passenger jets fly backward. They rely on insults and false accusations when their beliefs are debunked, just as bdgwx demonstrates above.
True, Spencer is a thorn in the side of climate scientists but he still is educated. He never “debunk(ed) the GHE nonsense”, he doesn’t believe it could significantly warm the planet above preindustrial levels.
“But while I am in general supportive of questioning even our most cherished and long-held scientific beliefs, I do not yet see a reason for abandoning the basic physics of the greenhouse effect.”
Clint – Out of curiosity, do you ever wear a jacket? Don’t you know that a jacket can never warm you above your core body temperature?
“Don’t you know that a jacket can never warm you above your core body temperature?”
–
Please explain, why we take the jacket off in a warm sunny day?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
True Cristos, but I expect Clint to say since the jacket is cooler than your body it would violate the 1LoT for it to cause you to overheat.
May3, we had a sunny morning in Athens. Air was cold, jacket was warm in the sun, and we needed the jacket on, because without jacket it felt cold.
Air was not warmed by the sun, because it is transparent to solar EM energy.
Jacket got warmed by the sun.
It was not comfortable to take off the jacket, because the air was cold.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Wrong again, Craig T. Real objects do NOT violate 1LoT. You and your cult are the ones that violate the laws of thermo.
Craig T,
You wrote (obviously in a fit of madness) –
“Clint Out of curiosity, do you ever wear a jacket? Dont you know that a jacket can never warm you above your core body temperature?”
What sort of a silly gotcha is that?
Don’t you know that the surface of the Earth is no longer molten, showing that it has cooled? Don’t you know that during the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat?
Obviously not – you don’t seem to know much about reality at all, do you?
CO2 has no heating powers. None. So sad, too bad.
Off you go now, and try to dream up some more irrelevant and pointless analogies, trying to avoid admitting that you can’t describe the mythical GHE. Good luck.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“True Cristos, but I expect Clint to say since the jacket is cooler than your body it would violate the 1LoT for it to cause you to overheat.”
Why would you think that your “expectations” carry any value at all?
Craig T, please stop trolling.
“Jacket got warmed by the sun.”
You really think jackets don’t keep you warm on cloudy days, or at night?
Sees very strange…
Nate,
“Jacket got warmed by the sun.
You really think jackets don’t keep you warm on cloudy days, or at night?
Sees very strange”
–
A jacket is an insulator. Insulator, when absorbing solar energy, gets warmed.
So, why the warmed by the sun jacket “sees very strange” to you?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’ll repeat the question, Christos.
You really think jackets dont keep you warm on cloudy days, or at night?
Craig T
Clint R is also a full time member of the lunar spin denial mafia on this blog (the people who think, like do 5 year old children, that the Moon doesn’t rotate because it shows always the same face to us).
I’ve had the sense to stay away from this page for a few years but I fully remember Clint and his position that objects moving through space must turn like horses on a racetrack.
Craig T
” … his position that objects moving through space must turn like horses on a racetrack. ”
Not quite. According to the lunar spin deniers, this hold only for planetary satellites.
After all, Craig T: does Earth not rotate about is polar axis?
Bindi and Craig, why tr0ll here? If you believe you understand orbital motion, then please supply a valid model of “orbiting without spin”.
If you can’t put up, then shut up.
As usual, Clint R is utterly wrong.
Like most 5-year-old children, he does not understand that the Moon and Earth are both celestial bodies that are born in an accretion disk and therefore both rotate on an internal axis.
Trying to supply a ‘valid model of orbiting without spin’ makes no sense to adults.
*
Instead of discrediting and denigrating as ‘astrologers’ all people who scientifically confirmed the lunar spin and proved it is the cause for Moon’s apparent, optical libration effects:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
Clint R should have the courage to scientifically disprove all these results obtained since centuries by several different observation tools and observation data processing methods.
Bindi, you should know by now that endless rambling ain’t science. The simple ball-on-a-string debunks anything that says Moon spins.
Where’s your model of “orbiting without spin”? It’s way past time for your to put up.
Put up or shut up.
The solar accretion model is one of desperation at best. It does no explain how debris formed into spheres with the proper momentum to be in orbit.
Clint and the rest of us non-spinners have proved over and over how the the spinners since Cassini are wrong. None of them has ever proved scientifically that the Moon rotates on a local axis and you have supplied no evidence to the contrary.
craig t…none of us have argued about objects moving through space, only about an orbiting body that keeps the same face pointed at Earth. In that capacity, the Moon moves exactly like a race horse on a track.
Gordon Robertson
A racehorse on a track has to continuously rotate on its axis as it runs around a curve. If it did NOT rotate it would run straight off the track. You do not comprehend each step requires a little rotation. No logic can get though that closed mind of yours.
“No logic can get though that closed mind of yours.”
Norman, please stop trolling.
Instead of discrediting and denigrating as astrologers all people who scientifically confirmed the lunar spin and proved it is the cause for Moons apparent, optical libration effects:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
Clint R should have the courage to scientifically disprove all these results obtained since centuries by several different observation tools and observation data processing methods.
Robertson
” None of them has ever proved scientifically that the Moon rotates on a local axis and you have supplied no evidence to the contrary. ”
You are lying, as always.
The list of scientific material I posted above proves the lunar spin ad nauseam but you try to deny these results with dumb ideas which any child would laugh about these days.
YOU, Robertson, belong to the ignoramuses who never would be able to disprove these results.
Nor would you ever be able to explain how Tobias Mayer computed in 1750 the same period for the lunar spin as today’s scientists obtained.
YOU are the one who behaves dishonest enough to claim all these treatises and reports would have to do with Moon’s libration – despite it is visible to anybody that they have to do with its rotation about an internal axis.
Your never changing lack of technical skills, scientific knowledge and experience we all can see here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1664818
Bindi, you don’t understand anything about the Moon issue. You just believe whatever your cult tells you. Neither you nor Norman knows anything about this issue. Norman doesn’t understand the difference between “changing direction” and “axial rotation”.
And neither of you has a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
As usual, you’ve got NOTHING.
Worse yet, you won’t shut up….
“The simple ball-on-a-string debunks anything that says Moon spins.”
A ball on a string has one side constrained, when taut the string applies a force to the edge of the ball. In contrast gravity pulls on the center of mass of an orbiting object. For an object to “orbit without spin” it would maintain its orientation in relation to the fixed stars while in orbit.
Well you started off okay Craig, but your conclusion was a disaster.
Gravity can be considered to be acting on CoM. That’s why the string is such a good model for gravity. But, a better model would be a string tied to every molecule on Moon, or the ball. When you understand that gravity has the same effect on both sides, and all parts, then you can see how it can change the direction. And changing direction is NOT axial rotation. (If the ball were actually spinning, the string would wrap around it. If Moon were actually spinning, we would see all sides of it.)
I predict you STILL won’t understand, because I can recognize your tendency to cultism. You hate reality, and you despise those that bring it to you.
Prove me wrong.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“For an object to “orbit without spin” it would maintain its orientation in relation to the fixed stars while in orbit.”
Unfortunately, all sides of the Moon would then be visible from the Earth, which would lead many to the conclusion that it was “spinning”. This perception would be enhanced by noting that the Earth would rise and set in the lunar sky, in the same way the Sun rises and sets in the terrestrial sky, which leads to the conclusion that the Earth is “spinning”.
If you happened to be a fanatical GHE cultist trying to avoid admitting that you cannot describe the GHE, you could define “spinning” to be “not spinning” (much like “slow cooling” is “not cooling” or “heating”).
Or just say that the Moon is simultaneously spinning and not spinning (true), and accept that nobody really cares about your opinion anyway. Have you figured out the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? What about each night?
Maybe the GHE heats and cools simultaneously, and at other times does nothing at all?
That would cover pretty much everything, wouldn’t it?
“Gravity can be considered to be acting on CoM. Thats why the string is such a good model for gravity. But, a better model would be a string tied to every molecule on Moon, or the ball.”
The string acts on a single point on the outside of the ball, making it a terrible model for gravity. The molecules of the Moon have greater cohesion than the force of gravity acting on the molecules. (Otherwise the Moon would disintegrate and form a ring around Earth.) The Moon’s CoM follows the path of orbit without any rotational force being applied.
Watch this video of astronauts in the ISS demonstrating Newton’s first law. The balls and the astronaut are being pulled on by gravity but there is no force acting on the rotation of the balls. The slightest tap causes one ball to rotate in ways the other ball is not.
https://youtu.be/-luKN6mad5w?si=N-nMXM9GI2YeOOv9&t=57
Craig T,
You wrote –
“Watch this video of astronauts in the ISS . . . ”
And you will note that a ball in free fall can be slowed to the point where it is visibly not rotating about any axis.
At the same time, it is manifestly orbiting the Earth – around every 90 minutes – like the rest of the ISS and its contents – astronauts etc. Are they all rotating about an internal axis 16 times a day? Not according to me.
Maybe you need to appeal to an authority which supports you.
That video has NOTHING to do with the issue, Craig. I predicted you STILL wont understand.
Thanks for proving me right.
“Gravity can be considered to be acting on CoM. Thats why the string is such a good model for gravity.”
Non-sequitur.
Im most people’s experience on Earth, thrown balls (projectiles) are unconstrained from spinning freely by gravity. Very unlike that from a string attached to its surface.
Compare a basketball in a free-throw to a whacked tether ball.
Both are experiencing gravitational pull, but only one is prevented from spinning freely.
So for planetary motion, the ball-on-a-string is a poor model.
Nate gives us another example of what “brain-dead” looks like.
The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbiting without spin”. It is NOT a model of “planetary motion”, basketballs, or anything else. The cult cannot even understand the simple ball-on-a-string. This was predictable.
They can’t learn. This is what “brain-dead” looks like.
Puffman forgot to mention the reason why he dismisses a video demonstrating how objects behave in space. Next, he will try to obfuscate this lack of justification by reissuing one of his silly riddles.
Moon Dragon cranks have little else.
Silly willy contributes his childishness to Nate’s brain-dead, making it even funnier.
Puffman is such a charmer that he is polluting this blog with his third or fourth or fifth or sixth or nth sock puppet.
And he still has to do either the baseball and basketball experiment or the Pole Dance Experiment.
“At the same time, it is manifestly orbiting the Earth around every 90 minutes like the rest of the ISS and its contents astronauts etc. Are they all rotating about an internal axis 16 times a day? Not according to me.”
It is according to NASA:
“Nominally, the ISS flies in an LVLH (Local Vertical Local Horizontal) attitude. That means that the vehicle pitches at four-degrees-per-minute in order to keep its belly pointed towards the Earth. So, nominally, the orientation of the ISS appears rather consistent with respect to the Earth.”
Wrong again, Craig.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
Craig T,
I wrote “Are they all rotating about an internal axis 16 times a day? Not according to me.”
You claim NASA states otherwise, and quote –
“Nominally, the ISS flies in an LVLH (Local Vertical Local Horizontal) attitude. That means that the vehicle pitches at four-degrees-per-minute in order to keep its belly pointed towards the Earth. So, nominally, the orientation of the ISS appears rather consistent with respect to the Earth.”
Unfortunately, you neglected to point out which part of your quote specifies which internal axes individual astronauts are rotating about, which hullifies its relevance, don’t you think?
Try appealing to an authority which says what you want it to say.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
> I wrote
Thank you for repeating an irrelevant gotcha.
It can be ignored again.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Craig T, you wrote –
“Dr. Spenser also has repeatedly tried to explain the Greenhouse Effect” – without managing to describe the “greenhouse effect”, of course.
Maybe you could provide a copy of Dr Spencer’s description of the GHE? No?
You are just another fanatical GHE cultist, aren’t you, who cannot even describe the GHE.
Go on, tell me how somebody else has described the GHE somewhere else, at some other time, and then list all the reasons you cant actually put this brilliant description into words!
[what a peanut]
“The atmospheric gases most responsible for IR absor*tion and emission in the atmosphere (‘greenhouse gases’) act like a radiative blanket, cooling the middle and upper layers, but warming the lowest layers and the surface.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/
(I’ve had problems posting this because Dr. Spencer used one of his banned words in describing the greenhouse effect.)
Craig T,
Don’t be silly. Maybe you think that “The Greenhouse Effect Decreases the Rate of Energy Loss by the Earths Surface” provides some novel insight into the fact that the surface cools in the absence of sunlight, and that the Earth itself has cooled continuously for four and a half billion years, despite continuous sunlight during that period.
Slowed cooling is not heating. In Dr Spencer’s sentence, “the greenhouse effect” can be replaced with “the atmosphere”, without any sensible loss of meaning. Fine, if somebody wants to rename “the atmosphere” to “the greenhouse effect” they are free to do so.
I don’t agree with Dr Spencer’s statement “Either way, when you reduce the rate of net energy loss from an object, the object will have a higher temperature than if you didnt reduce the rate of energy loss.”
Reduce the rate of energy loss from a block of ice by using more insulation. Now convince me that the temperature of the ice has risen. In my experience, the more insulation, the longer the ice will stay cold. Maybe Dr Spencer meant to say something else, but I can only read what he wrote – not his thoughts.
Still no description of the GHE – especially if it’s supposed to result in heating. Keep trying if you wish – you’re just wasting your time.
Off you go, now.
Mike Flynn,
You prove minds again –
> Perhaps you think
Perhaps you think nobody knows you are a silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner is having a little fun.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
test
There is not any emergencies to rush. The fossil fuels burning (the intensive CO2 emissions) do not whatsoever affect Global climate temperature.
–
Global warming happens because of the more uniform global temperature. It is getting warmer for some millennials now. Because the warming is an orbitally forced process.
*******
When global warming, it is enhanced by the Higher Latitudes Temperatures Amplification.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ark…”water vapor is the most important radiative and dynamic component of Earths atmosphere”.
***
Th radiative component has nothing to do with it since WV makes up only a small fraction of the atmosphere, even in the Tropics. The significance of WV is adding to the mass of air in the Tropics hence increasing the heat capacity of the air. In other words, tropical air holds more heat than air located poleward.
According to Lindzen, that super-heated air is transported polewards as it rises and is transported by convection. Same in the oceans, where heat from tropical waters is transported poleward.
WV plays a role in heating and heat transport but it has nothing to do with the GHE and/or AGW theories. Radiation is a minor player in global warming as opposed to the alarmist theories where it plays a major role.
Gordon Robertson
Radiant energy loss is the most significant factor in the loss of energy by the Earth system. Convection and conduction only move energy around to different locations. They do nothing to remove energy that is gained from the Sun. Only radiant energy does this.
I am not sure why you have to peddle such poorly thought out ideas. It does not make you look like you know what you are talking about.
You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (even though experimentally verified, I have linked you to experiments) and act like you took higher level physics. Why do you continue to pretend you have any type of science background. Your posts show you have none!
“Why do you continue to pretend you have any type of science background. Your posts show you have none!”
Norman, please stop trolling.
norman…this is way beyond your level of understanding. All you have in return is basic nonsense.
The rate at which heat is input via solar radiation is a lot higher than the rate that radiation can cool the surface. That’s you warming effect right there. If you can’t get rid of heat as fast as it is input, the planet warms.
I have never questioned the fact that the only way the planet can ultimately remove heat is by radiation. I have simply pointed out that radiation is inefficient compared to conduction/convection which also dissipates heat by natural means, within the atmosphere.
The S-B equation is an anachronism that needs to be abandoned. It was only ever good in a temperature range of 500C to 1500C. It gained popularity among theoretical physicists who were trying to work out gas theory using statistical means.
Norman,
You keep banging on about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law as though you are invoking a sacred prayer.
The problem is that some fanatical GHE cultists believe that they can calculate what the temperature of the Earth “should be” by some strange semantic gymnastics, which boil down to claiming that the temperature of an object (in this case the Earth) can be established by measuring the amount of sunlight which falls upon in it – using W/m2, or something equally pointless.
This is obviously complete nonsense, if you accept that the surface of the Earth was once molten. The cultist calculation completely ignores the fact that a body may have a temperature independent of the radiation falling upon it. For example, a block of ice, a bowl of water, and a crucible of molten iron may all be illuminated by the Sun.
Some dimwitted cultist will perform laborious calculations, and proudly announce that the temperatures of all the objects have been warmed by the sun to 255 K, say. The S-B law decrees it!
Are you one of those cultists, Norman, or will you accept the reality that the surface of the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and that this measured temperature varies between roughly 1200 C (fresh magma from the interior) to about -90 C on the Antarctic Plateau?
This, after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, of course!
You lose. Nature wins.
Gordon Robertson
You are just wrong, totally! I have linked you to lower temperature experiments that verify Stefan-Boltzmann. Repeating wrong misleading information is not a suggested tactic.
You falsely claim nonsense (you have never studied any physics, most posters know this about you, you get your physics from blogs and you don’t have enough science background to see how bad this physics really is).
YOU: “The S-B equation is an anachronism that needs to be abandoned. It was only ever good in a temperature range of 500C to 1500C.”
This is just a false claim you make over and over. Does it make you feel good about yourself to actively lie? That is what you are doing by passing false information. Bindidon calls you a liar and you prove him quite correct.
You look at NOAA and call them frauds but you don’t care you are a fraud and phony. Why doesn’t that even bother you a little?
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I have simply pointed out that radiation is inefficient compared to conduction/convection which also dissipates heat by natural means, within the atmosphere.”
False and misleading again. Conduction and convection move energy around the atmosphere. They do not get rid of energy. Energy does not go away!! Your physics is horrible! You don’t even know the basics of any physics. If radiant energy did not remove energy from the Earth system it would just get hotter and hotter. Swenson would get his molten surface
You can’t understand how molecular dipoles can generate EM in the IR band and you pretend you know science.
You are a true science denier.
Gordon Robertson
I will give you evidence that you will deny. It is what you do.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alessandro-Di-Carlofelice/publication/347545372/figure/fig4/AS:1022686595645441@1620838893449/Comparison-of-Moons-surface-temperature-at-the-lunar-equator-between-Diviner-mission.png
If the link works it is a graph of moon surface temperature.
You can see that the temperature rises rapidly as the solar input reaches the surface but as it gets warmer the radiant output (in the IR band) matches the energy received by the Sun and the temperature reaches a peak when the input energy is equal to the output energy and it is much lower than 500 C. About 127 C. You can find out how much energy the Moon is emitting in IR when it reaches the peak temperature and calculate to validate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Not sure why you have to be such a science denier. You never consider evidence of anything just blab in ignorance and denial of evidence.
Norman,
Are you saying that the SB law calculates the maximum temperature of the Earth’s surface to be 90 C, but calculates the maximum temperature of the Moon to be 127 C?
You are not very clear, for someone claiming the scientific high ground, are you?
Is this supposed to be related in some way to a mythical “greenhouse effect”, or are you just trying to avoid admitting that you can’t even describe the GHE?
You can run, but you can’t hide!
No GHE. After four and a half billion years, the surface has cooled to its present temperature – despite four and a half billion years continuous sunlight, and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law!
Nature wins again – you lose.
> No GHE
Step 1 – Pure Denial
Norman,
Are you saying that the SB law calculates the maximum temperature of the Earths surface to be 90 C, but calculates the maximum temperature of the Moon to be 127 C?
You are not very clear, for someone claiming the scientific high ground, are you?
Is this supposed to be related in some way to a mythical “greenhouse effect”, or are you just trying to avoid admitting that you cant even describe the GHE?
You can run, but you can’t hide!
No GHE. After four and a half billion years, the surface has cooled to its present temperature despite four and a half billion years continuous sunlight, and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law!
Nature wins again you lose.
Just look at Willard’s description of the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling”. The miracle of warming through cooling, according to the fanatical GHE cultist Willard!
No wonder he is reduced to the inept idiot trolling level.
Mike Flynn,
Are you saying that you cannot stand when people ignore your comments?
For a silly sock puppet who keeps repeating the same things daily for more than a decade on a website, that must hurt.
Keep repeating comments that are being ignored!
Cheers.
Norman,
Are you saying that the SB law calculates the maximum temperature of the Earths surface to be 90 C, but calculates the maximum temperature of the Moon to be 127 C?
You are not very clear, for someone claiming the scientific high ground, are you?
Is this supposed to be related in some way to a mythical greenhouse effect, or are you just trying to avoid admitting that you cant even describe the GHE?
You can run, but you cant hide!
No GHE. After four and a half billion years, the surface has cooled to its present temperature despite four and a half billion years continuous sunlight, and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law!
Nature wins again you lose.
Just look at Willards description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling”. The miracle of warming through cooling, according to the fanatical GHE cultist Willard!
No wonder he is reduced to the inept idiot trolling level.
Mike Flynn,
You hypothesize –
> the SB law calculates
No, silly sock puppet, it does not!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson,
Every citizen needs to have a crisp, qualitative understanding of these concepts.
1/
Radiation is the only mechanism by which infrared heat emitted by the Earth system can pass to outer space. Other forms of heat transfer, such as conduction or convection, are not applicable in the vacuum of space.
2/
Adding GHGs to the atmosphere effectively reduces the efficiency of infrared heat transfer to space.
Lagniappe:
Moist air is less dense than dry air due to the lower molecular weight of water vapor compared to dry air constituents like nitrogen and oxygen.
A,
“Adding GHGs to the atmosphere effectively reduces the efficiency of infrared heat transfer to space.”
What’s that got to do with anything? Are you going to claim that slower cooling results in increased temperatures? The surface demonstrably cools at night – it doesnt get hotter no matter how inefficient the heat loss is!
Just how thick are you pretending to be?
At least you are starting to appreciate the impossibility of describing a “greenhouse effect” in any way that reflects reality. Why not just admit that you cannot do it, and join Dr Spencer in efforts to establish the reasons why thermometers show temperature increases?
Some of his recent posts might help to start you off. You’re not scared that you might find reasons that don’t require the operation of a mythical GHE, are you? I believe I have mentioned a couple, even keeping in mind Feynman’s admonition “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
“The surface demonstrably cools at night it doesnt get hotter no matter how inefficient the heat loss is!”
Obviously you have never spent a summer night in Houston!
It’s true that at night in the desert water can freeze, but only on a dry, clear night when nothing stops the longwave radiation from leaving the Earth. The surface will always cool some when the sun goes down, but 100% humidity will considerably reduce the heat loss.
“Obviously you have never spent a summer night in Houston!”
Your mindreading abilities are as deficient as your knowledge of physics.
The nighttime temperature in Houston has never increased as a result of inefficiencies (whatever that means) of heat loss from the surface – when I’ve been there or at any other time.
You can refuse to accept that heat loss results in cooling – fast or slow.
Maybe you are one of the fanatical GHE cultists who believe that “not cooling, slower cooling” results in thermometers becoming hotter – like Willard!
Carry on not being able to describe the GHE. I won’t laugh at you – too much, anyway.
Mike Flynn,
Silly sock puppet –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
craig….”Dr. Spenser also has repeatedly tried to explain the Greenhouse Effect to people like you”.
***
I have a great respect for Roy and John Christy and the work they have done with sat data. However, I don’t think I have read two scientists who describe the GHE in the same manner. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist who taught at MIT has his own version and he called the traditional GHE definition a fantasy aimed at simplifying science for laymen.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both who work and teach in the field of thermodynamics, have falsified the popular GHE theory. They based their critique initially on an experiment conducted by R. W. Wood in 1909 in which Wood conclude that a greenhouse warms due to air being trapped in a greenhouse by the glass, and not by radiation being blocked by the glass. Wood was an expert with gases like CO2 and he questioned the theory that a trace gas could warm the atmosphere, hence his experiment.
There is no explanation for how trapped IR in a greenhouse can warm the air. The alternative theory is that GHGs in the atmosphere slow down the radiation of IR from the surface hence raising the temperature. The rate of surface radiation is controhled by the temperature difference between all gases in the atmosphere and the surface (Newton’s Law of Cooling). The rate of cooling has nothing to do with GHGs.
The greenhouse effect is making a more uniform global temperature.
Earth has a fairly uniform temperature, but Earth is in an Ice Age, which has less uniform temperature as compared to Earth not being in an Ice Age.
More CO2 might cause a more uniform temperature, but it’s known to be a weak greenhouse gas.
gb,
You wrote “The greenhouse effect is making a more uniform global temperature.”
You might just have well written “The atmosphere is making a more uniform global temperature.” Why bother using a mythical GHE which nobody can describe to explain the known effects of the atmosphere?
Without an atmosphere, extreme terrestrial temperatures would be the same as those on the Moon – say 120 C to -130 C, rather than our 90 C to -90 C.
No GHE required – just an appreciation of basic physics. The principles were well known to such as Prof John Tyndall, who pointed out that without an atmosphere, life as we know it on Earth would be insupportable, from consideration of temperature alone.
There is no “greenhouse effect”. Not even a tiny weeny one. Nobody can even describe this mythical “greenhouse effect”, anyway.
The fanatical GHE cultists much prefer to argue about the motion of the Moon (even Isaac Newton worked that one out), or indeed anything else than the GHE. Nothing wrong with people arguing, of course. Not a single physical fact is harmed in the process.
–gb,
You wrote The greenhouse effect is making a more uniform global temperature.
You might just have well written The atmosphere is making a more uniform global temperature. Why bother using a mythical GHE which nobody can describe to explain the known effects of the atmosphere?–
Richard Lindzen had said the oceans are about 1/2 of the greenhouse effect.
And I tend to agree with him.
“Richard Lindzen had said the oceans are about 1/2 of the greenhouse effect.”, but of course he is unable to describe this mythical “greenhouse effect”, isn’t he?
Even Raymond Pierrehumbert, GHE proponent, eventually wrote “Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation”, hidden away in a paper about radiative transfer theory, global warming, greenhouse gases and suchlike.
The oceans are heated from below, not above. Heat from the sun does not somehow hide itself in the depths – hot water floats, and during the night, gives up all the heat of the day. A properly constructed solar pond can reach 85 C during the day – but promptly cools at night, alas.
No GHE – if “climate scientists” want to cool atmospheric insulation wrapped around a cooling body (the Earth) a “greenhouse effect”, then they are either fo&$8204;ols or frauds. Might as well say that a Dewar flask uses the “greenhouse effect” to achieve its insulating properties!
All dreams and fantasy. Refusal to accept reality.
Cookers, “You can run, but you cant hide!”
+1.05 degrees!
ALLOW ME TO REPEAT
PLUS 1.05 DEGREES!
dmt,
Look down between your feet! -1200 degrees! Not molten!
ALLOW ME TO REPEAT
MINUS 1200 DEGREES!
I win.
Mike Flynn,
What do you gain exactly with your irrelevant talking point?
Attention?
Nobody really bites at it anymore.
Aw diddums.
Silly sock puppet!
From Raymond Pierrehumbert:
“The greenhouse effect shifts the planets surface temperature toward the photospheric temperature by reducing the rate at which the planet loses energy at a given surface temperature. The way that works is really no different from the way adding fiberglass insulation or low-emissivity windows to your home increases its temperature without requiring more energy input from the furnace…. Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.”
This common sense summary is given after 5 pages of technical discussion of radiative transfer.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Craig T,
Here’s the closest that Raymond Pierrehumbert comes to describing the GHE –
“The greenhouse effect of CO2 on Earth and Mars is visually manifest as the ditch carved out of the Planck spectrum . . . “. Ah, I see, it’s a “ditch”.
No doubt responsible for four and a half billion years of terrestrial cooling, and the surface cooling that occurs every night – four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight notwithstanding!
Maybe Raymond fell into the ditch and banged his head, resulting in some mental impairment.
You and Raymond don’t seem to realise that no matter how much insulation you use, it won’t raise the temperature of a fresh corpse in the Sun. Actually, in bright sunlight, the insulation prevents sunlight reaching the corpse, and its temperature drops! Hence the use of things like hats, roofs, sunshades and so on.
You live in a dream world, don’t you? Go on, tell me that your best description of the GHE is a “ditch”. Oh, you have a better one, do you?
Fire away.
“Go on, tell me that your best description of the GHE is a ‘ditch'”.
Pierrehumbert wrote:
“The greenhouse effect of CO2 on Earth and Mars is visually manifest as the ditch carved out of the Planck spectrum near 667 cm^−1. That dip represents energy that would have escaped to space were it not for the opacity of CO2.”
“For Earth and Mars, the width of the CO2 ditch corresponds approximately to the width of the spectral region over which the atmosphere is nearly opaque to IR. Increasing atmospheric CO2 increases the width of the ditch and hence increases the CO2 greenhouse effect. But the increase occurs in the wings of the absor*tion feature rather than at the center (see figure 2).”
He’s talking about the V shape in the spectrum around 667 cm^−1 where CO2 absorbs a large amount of IR light. Some claim that CO2 already absorbs all of the 667 cm^−1 light, so more CO2 won’t matter. His point is that the “ditch” widens with more CO2 so more total IR light is absorbed.
Of course that’s not a description of the GHE, it’s an example of it.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“Of course thats not a description of the GHE, its an example of it.”
Oh, I see – an example of something that has no description. Nifty trick.
Nobody has described the GHE – although many claim to be able to provide examples, explanations, or analogies of this thing that cannot be described. You can’t describe the GHE, can you? What, afraid of my sniggering? You don’t care what I think, do you?
Pierrehumbert is talking arrant nonsense, and simply refuses to accept that surface cools each night (losing all the heat of the day, plus a little bit of the Earth’s internal heat), and that the surface as a whole has cooled, being no longer molten. The notch would seem to be in Pierrehumbert’s understanding of reality.
So there you go – you refuse to accept reality, and you can’t describe the GHE!
Is that more gullibility than ignorance, or vice versa?
“The greenhouse effect of CO2 on Earth and Mars is visually manifest as the ditch carved out of the Planck spectrum near 667 cm^−1.”
“Oh, I see an example of something that has no description. Nifty trick.”
I trust you understand what it is for something to be visually manifested. Let’s look at the TOA outgoing longwave spectrum:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edwin-Kite/publication/309738530/figure/fig3/AS:425988237598722@1478574918106/Fig-S2-Outgoing-Longwave-Radiation-at-the-Top-Of-Atmosphere-TOA-assuming-a-273K.png
Notice that massive hole around 15μ (667 cm^−1)? That absence of outgoing energy was caused by CO2 absorbing the photons before they left the planet.
Now for Pierrehumbert’s explanation of what happened:
“Coupled vibrational and rotational states are the key players in IR absor*tion. An IR photon absorbed by a molecule knocks the molecule into a higher-energy quantum state. … [T]he energy of the photon will almost always be assimilated by collisions into the general energy pool of the matter and establish a new MaxwellBoltzmann distribution at a slightly higher temperature. That is how radiation heats matter in the local thermodynamic equilibrium limit.”
Craig T,
You appeal to the authority of Raymond Pierrehumbert, who endeavours to “explain” a GHE which he can’t describe (nobody can).
After I pointed out that it would be a nifty trick, you wrote “I trust you understand what it is for something to be visually manifested.”
Indeed I do. Are you implying that Pierre has “visually manifested” something which doesn’t exist? That would be an even niftier trick, if you could find someone even more ignorant and gullible than yourself to accept it. It turns out that visual manifestations of spirits, by mediums, were just trickery. No ghosts, no unicorns, no GHE.
You also wrote –
“Now for Pierrehumberts explanation of what happened:”
This is the explanation for a GHE which he can’t describe, or his statement that CO2 is just planetary insulation? Pierrehumbert believes that adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter (by magic, apparently).
No wonder you appeal to the authority of Pierrehumbert. Who next – Michael Mann, perhaps?
> Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both who work and teach in the field of thermodynamics, have falsified the popular GHE theor
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
“Step 3 Saying Stuff”
Here’s you saying stuff – the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”. Is step 3 where the magic occurs, making the planet hotter by cooling it slowly?
Willard, please stop trolling – you are just not very good at it.
Mike Flynn,
That was you saying something true:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Cheers.
“Step 3 Saying Stuff”
Heres you saying stuff the GHE is not cooling, slower cooling. Is step 3 where the magic occurs, making the planet hotter by cooling it slowly?
You quote Mike Flynn “Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me.” Obviously a smart fellow, like me and Richard Feynman.
No GHE. In the absence of heat, everything cools.
Willard, please stop trolling you are just not very good at it.
–You quote Mike Flynn Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me. Obviously a smart fellow, like me and Richard Feynman. —
That is an interesting question.
The answer I think is, global warming was a terms for the massive rapid warming from the coldest period of the glacial period.
When sea level was rapidly rising and stuff like ice sheets in Europe
and North America were disappearing.
The father of global warming thought it was due to rising global CO2 levels. But he was incorrect.
Oh, if google search father of global warming, the top links refer
to “Dr. James Hansen”, but further down is Svante Arrhenius.
I meant, Svante Arrhenius.
These days, Hansen seems to favor using more nuclear energy.
Long ago, he thought rising Methane levels were causing most of global warming. But then Al Gore, was pushing CO2, and he switched to the CO2 mantra.
Mike Flynn,
You deflect –
> You quote Mike Flynn
I am quoting *you*, Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn,
You deflect
> You quote Mike Flynn
I am quoting *you*, Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.”
Do you have a point, or are you quite mad? That’s a metaphorical question, of course.
Carry on being an irrelevant idiot.
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb –
> Do you have a point
Yes, I do, silly sock puppet.
You are Mike Flynn.
Cheers.
“You are Mike Flynn.”
That’s your point?
And? That’s about as stupid as saying “Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist”.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“You are Mike Flynn.”
In you the obsession strong is.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
For once you make an effort, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
— GDEM: Mission of Gravity
by Paul Gilster | May 3, 2024 | 4 Comments
If space is infused with dark energy, as seems to be the case, we have an explanation for the continuing acceleration of the universes expansion. Or to speak more accurately, we have a value we can plug into the universe to make this acceleration happen. Exactly what causes that value remains up for grabs, and indeed frustrates current cosmology, for something close to 70 percent of the total mass-energy of the universe needs to be comprised of dark energy to make all this work. Add on the mystery of dark matter and we actually see only some 4 percent of the cosmos. —
…
“So we have a mission concept that can detect dark energy within our Solar System by measuring deviations found within the classic Newtonian gravitational field. And GDEM is hardly alone as scientists work to establish the nature of dark energy. This is an area that has fostered astronomical surveys as well as mission concepts, including the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the European Space Agencys Euclid, the Vera Rubin Observatory and the DESI collaboration (Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument). GDEM extends and complements these efforts as a direct probe of dark energy which could further our understanding after the completion of these surveys.”
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/
As volcanic ash reaches the stratosphere, the temperature in the lower stratosphere rises and drops near the surface. This is obvious because solids absorb solar radiation to an enormous extent. And how does volcanic ash act in the upper troposphere? Obviously the same, it warms the troposphere and cools the surface. Once again, the graphic shows the increased temperature of the troposphere above the equator and the decreased temperature near the surface.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
Moreover, the high temperature of the troposphere hinders cloud formation, which can result in high summer temperatures in the northern hemisphere and low winter temperatures in the southern hemisphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.png
May the 4th be with you!
Tim S,
Thanks, and with you!
“May the 4th . . . ” Good one!
Good catch :–)
There is now a rapid increase in sea ice extent in the south.
https://i.ibb.co/z5B0Qfw/S-iqr-timeseries.png
” There is now a rapid increase in sea ice extent in the south. ”
No.
The opposite is the case: in 2023 there was an incredible decline in sea ice extent in the south.
Now the situation is returning to normal:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
You can see the difference between the thick black line (2024), which moves currently along the 2019-2023 average, and the thin blue line (2023, which descended near to 3 Mkm^2 below the 30-year norm in July).
*
I know you love all the news related to cooling off; how about mapping sea ice extent in the Arctic instead?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Listen up “skeptics.”
The cargo cult is like flat earthers, who want the govt to make the world flatter.
Earth is spherical, and Earth is in an Ice Age.
“who want the govt to make the world flatter.”
gbaikie, the first step is admitting, and then it’s one day at a time.
Sir Isaac Newton worked 7 days a week, 18 hours a day. He had given up his personal life, he probably never had any intention of getting married or raising a family. He wanted to devote all his life to the works of science and the pursuit of mathematics and so he did.
In the 1940s, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was committed to his teaching role at the University of Chicago, despite being based at the Yerkes Observatory. Each week, he traveled 80 miles to teach a special course attended by only two students.
The students were Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen-Ning Yang. They proved their mentor’s faith was well-placed when they both won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1957, years before Chandrasekhar received the same honor in 1983.
Remarkably, this course went down in history as the only one where every attendee received a Nobel Prize, underscoring the extraordinary impact of Chandrasekhar’s dedication and teaching.
Earth is currently in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
She’s just taking advantage of her wokeness. I’ve seen her try to describe the GHE nonsense. She has no clue.
But her wokeness makes her a cult favorite.
Puffman reacts as predicted:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/3/19/2086873/-Godwin-s-Law-corollary-because-wokeism
Another reason for him to do the Pole Dance Experiment!
“Another reason for him to do the Pole Dance Experiment!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
A,
You wrote –
“He wanted to devote all his life to the works of science and the pursuit of mathematics and so he did.”
Apart from his prodigious theological output, of course, for Newton wrote more about religion than science or mathematics. He kept most his output secret, because his Unitarian views were considered heretical in his day.
Or his 30 years as Master of the Mint, a Government appointment. According to documents of the time, Newton involved himself in the day-to-day running of the office to which he was appointed.
According to Newton’s own writings, his scientific and mathematical endeavours were of less personal importance than his studies of the occult and alchemy. Luckily for us, Newton predicted that the world would not end before 2060 at the earliest, based on his mathematical calculations. That’s comforting, isn’t it?
I’m not sure how he fitted it all in. No TV or internet, perhaps?
Our Moon doesnt rotate about its own axis.
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is equal to its around Earth orbital period:
27,32 Earth days.
Moons diurnal period is 29,53 Earth days.
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is shorter than Moon’s diurnal period, because Moon also orbits sun.
Moon’s sidereal rotation spin = 1 /27,32 rot/day
Moon’s diurnal rotation spin = 1 /29,53 rot/day
Consequently, Moon spins faster in reference to the stars than it spins in reference to the sun!
Moon’s spin in reference to the stars is faster, than its spin in reference to the sun, because Moon’s spin in reference to the stars is a sum of two movements:
1. The Moon orbiting Earth.
2. The Moon orbiting sun.
–
There is not any movement of Moon around its own axis.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Go to
https://www.noa.gr
tell them your simple-minded nonsense, and come back with their answer (I hope you will be honest enough not to misrepresent it).
Thank you, Bindidon.
–
Our Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
Since Moons sidereal rotation period 27,32 days (in reference to the stars) is the same as its orbital around Earth period, Moon definitely does not rotate on its own axis.
If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas #2
I repeat: go to
https://www.noa.gr
tell them your simple-minded nonsense, and come back with their answer (I hope you will be honest enough not to misrepresent it).
Binny,
This is the same NOAA which wrote –
“Some radiation escapes to outer space, some is reabsorbed by other greenhouse gases, and some is directed back down to the Earth. Then, that radiation can get absorbed again, and then re-emitted, and then..”
– or some other NOAA which accepts the reality that radiation from a colder object is not absorbed by a warmer. For example, surrounding a teaspoon of water totally with a million tonnes of ice will not heat the water, no matter how much radiation the ice is reflecting back to the water.
Appealing to the authority of NOAA shows your level of intelligence and gullibility.
The best NOAA can do in relation to describing the GHE is to waffle about analogies, and then say “Note: This atmospheric process is referred to as the Greenhouse Effect, since both the atmosphere and a greenhouse act in a manner which retains energy as heat. However, this is an imperfect analogy.”
NOAA can’t even come up with a decent analogy, let alone a description! What a pack of fools?
Carry on.
Everything except your first and last lines are true.
Just as the Earth’s rotational axis is 23.5 degrees off the normal of its orbital plane, the Moon’s axis is about 7 degrees off normal of that orbital plane. While Cassini realized the Moon was rotating once per orbit, it wasn’t until Tobias Mayer recorded the position of crater Manilius over time that the angle and location of the Moon’s rotational axis was determined.
Now if the Moon’s orbit was circular and its rotational axis normal to its orbital plane I would “just say that the Moon is simultaneously spinning and not spinning.”
Because of the angle of the axis astronomers can see the lunar rotation in relation to the Earth. Because the Moon slows in its orbit at apogee and speeds up at perigee astronomers can tell the rotation isn’t in lock step with the Moon’s orbital position.
And I find it a bit insulting to Newton, Galileo, Cassini, Mayer and all of the other astronomers that anyone would trash their observations without so much as taking a measurement.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379722008282
There is nothing in the 3 volumes of Principia to suggest Newton claimed the Moon spins on a local axis. If he had thought that, knowing Newton, he would have expanded on it, explaining the rotation. There is nothing about rotation other than a statement I put down to the interpreter mistaking the meaning of Newton’s words.
The initial translation was made after Newton’s death and the translator could not consult with him. Apparently, the translator went on the conclusions of Cassini, not Newton.
If you read Newton on lunar motion, he states…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion.
2)the linear motion is bent into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field.
3)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the major ellipse focus where Earth is located.
All three points, when taken together can have no other interpretation than curvilinear motion without local rotation. Also, the three points are a direct contradiction of the interpretation that the Moon rotate exactly once per orbit.
Newton used the Latin revolvir in Old Latin. Revolvir can be translated in several ways in the context of motion and the translator used it to indicate a local rotation. I am betting that Newton meant it as an orbit where the Moon was revolving round the external axis, the Earth.That jives with his three points above whereas a local rotation does not.
What Mayer was observing was a libration which he mistook for a physical rotation. Libration is a product of an elliptical orbit related to an observers view angle. Cassini was out to lunch.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“Now if the Moons orbit was circular and its rotational axis normal to its orbital plane I would just say that the Moon is simultaneously spinning and not spinning.”
Just like the fanatical GHE cultists who claim that cooling is heating, and that the GHE can simultaneously heat and cool the Earth.
If you say that the Moon is capable of simultaneously spinning and not spinning, then nobody can argue that you are wrong! A master stroke!
Have you any more pearls of wisdom to cast before the swine?
Speeding up the Moon and slowing it down would require a tremendous force acting in the tangential direction. At the distance of the Moon, the force acting on it from Earth is 1/3600th the force we experience at the surface. It is simply not enough to accelerate the Moon.
The explanation for the ***speed change*** is the Moon’s tremendous momentum. It is generally in equilibrium with Earth’s gravitational force but the gravity component varies slightly. As it weaken, the lunar momentum, which is constant, carries the Moon farther in the same time, hence the speed orbital speed changes.
Speed is not velocity, which is a vector quantity. Speed is distance/time and if more distance is covered in a unit time, the speed changes, but not the tangential velocity vector.
Craig, finding things on the web you don’t understand ain’t science.
What is your viable model of “orbiting without spin”?
If you don’t have a viable model, you’ve got NOTHING.
Kreg, your version of “orbit without spin” has passenger jets flying backwards and upside down:
https://www.canva.com/design/DAGEEJSpSi4/qZ0QwpIqz7FeMW1IBycWyw/view?utm_content=DAGEEJSpSi4&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=editor
Good luck with that.
Thanks, Craig:
Op. Cit.
Have you ever seen Moon Dragon cranks provide a numerical model for their silliness?
Me neither.
“Have you ever seen Moon Dragon cranks provide a numerical model for their silliness?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’ve missed you too, DREMT
“Kreg, your version of ‘orbit without spin’ has passenger jets flying backwards and upside down:”
Should you ever get a passenger jet into space orbiting the Earth it could travel at any attitude you chose.
“Have you any more pearls of wisdom to cast before the swine?”
I quoted your pearl, Swenson:
“Or just say that the Moon is simultaneously spinning and not spinning (true)”
If there was no difference except perspective between saying the Moon rotates or does not, I wouldn’t argue the point. (Although I would never accept someone claiming geosynchronous satellites don’t orbit the Earth.)
“Speeding up the Moon and slowing it down would require a tremendous force acting in the tangential direction. At the distance of the Moon, the force acting on it from Earth is 1/3600th the force we experience at the surface. It is simply not enough to accelerate the Moon.”
The Moon’s velocity at furthest from Earth (apogee): 0.970 km/s
The Moon’s velocity at closest to Earth (perigee): 1.082 km/s
Craig T,
You wrote –
“”Have you any more pearls of wisdom to cast before the swine?”
I quoted your pearl, Swenson:
Or just say that the Moon is simultaneously spinning and not spinning (true)
If there was no difference except perspective between saying the Moon rotates or does not, I wouldnt argue the point.”
I accept your quoting me as your authority, and am suitably humbled by your acknowledgement of my superior knowledge. However, I asked for any MORE pearls of wisdom, so just quoting my obviously brilliant words again, as flattering as it is, just demonstrates your level of intelligence.
Feel free to argue the point all you like – that’s about as brainless as fanatical GHE cultists arguing about a GHE which they can’t even describe!
Carry on arguing.
> I asked for any MORE pearls of wisdom
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Should you ever get a passenger jet into space orbiting the Earth it could travel at any attitude you chose.”
OK, Kreg, but back to my point…
…your version of “orbit without spin” has passenger jets flying backwards and upside down. Good luck with that.
Gordon, I can’t find the Principia quote so I won’t argue that Newton said the Moon rotates on its axis. But there is a more relevant point about Newton.
“Every object perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, except insofar as it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.”
This also applies to axial rotation. Without a rotational force acting on an object it continues to move according to its rotational inertia.
From the perspective of the Earth, the sun appears to revolve around the Earth, planets sometimes reverse direction in retrograde motion, and the Moon seems to not rotate. From Newton’s perspective of the fixed stars we see all planets orbit the sun and the Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit.
“your version of orbit without spin has passenger jets flying backwards and upside down. Good luck with that.”
These guys seem to think planets and moon’s have a front that needs to point forward in the orbit….quite silly!
Speaking of Newton:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Newtonsmountainv%3D7300.gif
Obviously this cannonball, fired without spin, would be moving as per the “Non-Spinners” version of “orbit without spin”.
Graham D. Warner cannot let go of his phone.
Appropriately, non-evidence is presented as evidence to support the non-spinners non-sense.
“OK, Kreg, but back to my point
your version of ‘orbit without spin’ has passenger jets flying backwards and upside down. Good luck with that.”
A passenger jet requires a forward thrust to create lift on the wings. Racehorses move forward because their hooves push against the ground.
By definition an object in orbit is moving without generating any thrust. Are you suggesting that airplanes flying normally are in orbit?
No, I’m suggesting that your version of “orbit without spin” is ridiculous. Do you have a better physical model of it than the passenger jet?
So you’re asking if I have a better model than your ridiculous graphic?
https://www.canva.com/design/DAGEEJSpSi4/qZ0QwpIqz7FeMW1IBycWyw/view?utm_content=DAGEEJSpSi4&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=editor
How about the ISS, which uses torque equilibrium attitude and control moment gyroscopes to turn 4 degrees per minute to keep the same side facing the Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aF7zwhlDDU&t=258s
No, Kreg, I’m not asking you for an example of something that’s actually orbiting. I’m asking you for a viable, physical model of "orbit without spin" which fits with your ludicrous idea of what that is.
You see, you could opt for a yo-yo with a frictionless axle. It would move the way you want it to, but it would objectively be spinning on that axle in order for it to do so. So, it wouldn’t be a viable physical model of "orbit without spin", now would it?
Or, you could go with an XY plotter programmed to move a model celestial object in a circle. That would move the way you want it to, and it would not be spinning, but it would have nothing to represent the force of gravity. Not viable, either.
I’d bet that anything you could come up with would fall into one of those two categories – objectively spinning, or not having anything to represent the force of gravity.
An example would be the ISS when it doesn’t use its attitude control system to keep the same side facing Earth. Gravity doesn’t apply a torque to rotate objects in space, it just attracts its center of mass toward the object it rotates.
Go watch the video I linked and read my post below where a NASA flight contro11er explains what is done to the ISS to keep the same side facing Earth.
Kreg, you’re not listening. I already said I’m not asking for an example of something that’s actually orbiting. I saw Clint R’s effortless annihilation of your post down-thread, already. That issue’s already been settled, and not in your favour. Try to focus on the here and now, the argument you’re currently losing against me. Without a viable, physical model of "orbit without spin", the "Spinners" are always going to lose!
“No, Im suggesting that your version of orbit without spin is ridiculous.”
Argument by faux incredulity.
Its ridiculous only in the form of YOUR airplanes-in-orbit strawman!
“Without a viable, physical model of “orbit without spin”
Nah, they have been shown several, and each time the rules for ‘viability’ are changed in order to reject it.
They don’t know what they want.
As always, Robertson resorts to his old misinterpretations, misrepresentations and lies – concerning by no means only the lunar spin!
Look at his dumb post (March 26, 2024 at 8:12 PM)
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1655065
*
He seemingly keeps all his notes in a binder without storing any contradiction to his endlessly repeated lies.
And here on this thread, again the same usual trash.
*
1. ” There is nothing in the 3 volumes of Principia to suggest Newton claimed the Moon spins on a local axis. ”
Wrong. See Book III, Prop XVII, Theor. XV.
It is exactly the place where Newton claims that:
https://books.google.de/books?id=x-_K1KGZvv4C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&source=bl&ots=LtVy4wJkn_&sig=ACfU3U3JXf_82r1cHHz7daxmm0agYrJFcQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUgYmsh8zjAhVsxosKHY1NAXAQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
*
2. ” If he had thought that, knowing Newton, he would have expanded on it, explaining the rotation. ”
Says arrogant ignoramus Robertson who never would be able to expand on anything.
Newton explained his view about the lunar spin to Mercator in 1675 already, who published it one year later.
Newton very probably anticipated that a mathematical description of the lunar spin would become a far more complex project than his theory of universal gravitation.
Moreover, Newton
– was during decades in permanent competition with Flamsteed, Halley and Hadley about the tedious way to a solution for the longitudes at sea
– worked hard till 1702 on his famous TMM, the Theory of Moon’s motion, trying to solve the three body problem
– finally was busy till 1704 in a completely different context:
” Opticks: or, A Treatise of the Reflexions, Refractions, Inflexions and Colours of Light. ”
{ By the way, a treatise in which we can discover that Newton already suspected that light could possibly… be bent by masses. Using Newton’s formulas, start light bending by the Sun is 50% of Einstein’s. }
*
” There is nothing about rotation other than a statement I put down to the interpreter mistaking the meaning of Newton’s words. ”
Here too, ignoramus Robertson deliberately ignores having been corrected may times. A proof for dementia or dishonesty or both.
There was NOT ‘the interpreter’ (by the way: Andrew Motte, insulted many times by Robertson himself).
Newton’s Principia was translated directly from Latin by several authors: for example, Mrs. du Chatelet (1749, French), Wolfers (1882, German), Krilov (1951, Russian).
I posted many times links to these translations, which he all deliberately ignores, including Principia’s most recent English translation by Ian Bruce (2012).
*
” Newton used the Latin revolvir in Old Latin. ”
Neither Newton nor any other scientist wrote anything in Old Latin in the XVIIth / XVIIIth centuries: this Roman langugae was in use till around… 50 BC.
The Latin language used by Newton and others is named ‘New Latin’.
*
” Revolvir can be translated in several ways in the context of motion and the translator used it to indicate a local rotation. ”
So? Did then all translators use it ‘unisono’ to indicate the same local rotation?
*
” I am betting that Newton meant it as an orbit where the Moon was revolving round the external axis, the Earth. ”
Oh look! Dumbie Robertson ‘is betting’.
Look at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1657131
and you see the reply to Robertson’s endless trash.
*
And finally, Robertson’s dumbest part of his dumb post:
” What Mayer was observing was a libration which he mistook for a physical rotation. ”
Only an ass like Robertson would confound the optical wobbling named ‘libration’ with a physical rotation.
Meanwhile, the non-spinners have NO viable model for how the Moon can possibly be rotating around an external axis through the Earth, when its rotational axis is observed to be tilted at 6.7 degrees wrt to its orbital axis.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1664566
I assume Kreg’s workin’ on that viable physical model of "orbit without spin".
“I assume Kregs workin’ on that viable physical model of ‘orbit without spin’.”
After posting NASA explaining what it takes to make the ISS orbit while facing the same side towards Earth, I think that model might be a mike drop.
“There is nothing in the 3 volumes of Principia to suggest Newton claimed the Moon spins on a local axis. If he had thought that, knowing Newton, he would have expanded on it, explaining the rotation.”
Thanks to Bindidon for pointing me to Newton expanding on the Moon’s axial rotation.
BOOK III PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
“The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I. Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. These things appear by the Phenomena. … But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb; but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moon’s latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.”
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Newton%27s_Principia_(1846).djvu/410
Kreg, you still haven’t actually posted a viable physical model of “orbit without spin”. I’m not sure you even know what “model” means.
Newton included axial rotation in his first law of motion.
“Projectiles persevere in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity. A top, whose parts by their cohesion are perpetually drawn aside from rectilinear motions, does not cease its rotation, otherwise than as it is retarded by the air. The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting with less resistance in more free spaces, preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a much longer time.”
He understood that the pull of gravity in no way changes the axial rotation (or lack of it) of an object.
Still nothing.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Again: still nothing.
Gordon,
Can you use the equations for momentum?
“the lunar momentum, which is constant, carries the Moon farther in the same time, hence the speed orbital speed changes.”
If the Moon’s orbital speed changes, the Moon’s lunar momentum must change.
According to Momentum = mass times velocity?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner PSTers and seeks to irritate.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SpaceX’s Massive Updates for Flight 4 are Astounding!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Hr-4O4N5g
And talks about the Saxavord Spaceport and also China lunar mission to return samples from South PoleAitken basin.
binny…”Vournas #2
I repeat: go to
https://www.noa.gr
tell them your simple-minded nonsense, and come back with their answer (I hope you will be honest enough not to misrepresent it)”.
***
Christos is polite to everyone on this site even you. Why is it, in your blatant ignorance, you cannot address him politely?
ark…”Sir Isaac Newton worked 7 days a week, 18 hours a day. He had given up his personal life, he probably never had any intention of getting married or raising a family. He wanted to devote all his life to the works of science and the pursuit of mathematics and so he did”.
***
Your brief unauthorized bio of Newton omitted a few facts. For example, Newton was devoutly religious and credited God with creating the universe. Although I am not religious, I see his point. There is no other explanation for how the universe came to be and it it has always been as it is. Why? There is no other scientific explanation for life on Earth and evolution theory is a sorry attempt by the human mind to explain it.
Newton wrote volumes on the Bible. How he found the time and dedication is beyond me, someone who looks forward to Saturday night when I can view 2 straight hours of the 3 Stooges.
Newton had a remarkable mind and I regard anyone as a blithering ijit who claims his brilliant work has been replaced by a physics wannabee in Einstein. Any ijit who can claim, with a straight face, that Newton’s gravitational force is an illusion, and that it really exists as a fabric of space and time is ready for the looney bin.
Besides his religious devotion, it was not easy in the day of Newton to meet an eligible woman. There was also the plague, which forced him out of London and Cambridge for year. Rather than brood over sex, as our LGBTQ crowd does today, he got on with it, using his mind in lieu of chasing skirts.
I’m sure Newton didn’t chase skirts. 😉
“Im sure Newton didnt chase skirts.”
And your opinion has value because you have proof that Newton was homosexual, perhaps?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I’m sure you have none. Feel free to prove me wrong!
[laughing at the trolling efforts of diversionary GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn,
We actually do –
https://getmaude.com/blogs/themaudern/isaac-newton-on-sex
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“We actually do.”
Do what? Have proof that Newton was a homosexual?
I know you would like to think that you share at least something with Newton, but that’s not proof!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
We have evidence that your inference was silly, silly sock puppet.
Isaac is most probly asexual.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
“Mike Flynn,
We have evidence that your inference was silly, silly sock puppet.
Isaac is most probly asexual.
Cheers.”
What inference was that, Wee Willy? What was I supposed to have inferred, and why do you believe you have mindreading abilities?
You can’t back up your claims of evidence about an inference which doesn’t exist, can you?
By the way, if by Isaac, you were referring to Isaac Newton, you might make yourself clearer by not using the present tense to refer to him. He has been dead for some time. When you wrote “probly” did you mean “probably”, or were you just attempting to be confusing?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You inexorable –
> What inference was that
That not chasing the opposite sex implies homosexuality, silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote that somebody implied “That not chasing the opposite sex implies homosexuality . . .”
Who was that, and what is its relevance to the fact that you cannot describe the GHE any better than “not cooling, slower cooling”?
If that’s the best you can do, I can see why you prefer to concentrate on homosexuality. Are you perhaps out and proud, or still lurking in a closet?
I’m proudly heterosexual myself, but you are free to be what you want. Possibly not such a bad thing to remove your genes from the general pool, do you think?
What are you (besides an ignorant and fanatical GHE cultist, of course)?
Mike Flynn,
No, I did not write that somebody implied anything.
I wrote that you did. Here:
> And your opinion has value because you have proof that Newton was homosexual, perhaps?
This was in response to “I’m sure Newton didn’t chase skirts.”
Even for a silly sock puppet you’re not very bright, are you?
Cheers.
” … who looks forward to Saturday night when I can view 2 straight hours of the 3 Stooges.”
That explains a lot.
All week typing out nonsense with only Curly, Moe and Larry for company on a Saturday night. Sad.
Newton’s Principia for the Common Reader by Subrahmanijan Chandrasekhar. Oxford University Press Inc. 1995.
Spoiler alert: not written in lame man’s language.
And?
And what, Mike Flynn?
[Newton] also had a lengthy feud with a dildo salesman.
But Willard:
What if we attached one of William Chaloner’s “bawdy novelty pocket watches” to a tree by rope, and it traveled around the tree keeping its longer, more bawdy hand pointed at the tree? What would Newton say about that?
Little Willy, Kreg, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner decided it was time to PSTer.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
craig t…”[Pierrehumbert]The greenhouse effect shifts the planets surface temperature toward the photospheric temperature by reducing the rate at which the planet loses energy at a given surface temperature. The way that works is really no different from the way adding fiberglass insulation or low-emissivity windows to your home increases its temperature without requiring more energy input from the furnace. Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.”
***
We know how fibreglass acts to reduce heat loss, it actually interacts with air molecules to slow their passage to the outside walls where they would cool quickly. How do air molecules in the atmosphere do the same?
The GHE/AGW theory is even more mysterious since alarmists claim it is surface radiation that mainly cools the surface. They posit further that slowing down radiation somehow changes the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.
Quantum theory tells us that heat is lost at the time radiation is created. Therefore, after radiation leaves the surface there is no way to affect the rate of heat loss, since the heat is already lost at a different rate.
We could regard the atmosphere as a buffer zone between the surface and space but as an insulator, any insulation effect would apply only to air molecules, which implies conduction/convection. The atmosphere can have little or no effect on radiation just as fibreglass has no effect on it.
The atmosphere, due to its negative pressure gradient caused by gravity, acts as a natural heat dissipator for conduction/convection. As heated air molecules at the surface rise naturally, they go through an ever-decreasing negative pressure gradient, and as a result, they lose heat as they rise.
Norman doesn’t understand any of this and he will no doubt resort to insults and ad homs due to his frustration.
“Quantum theory tells us that heat is lost at the time radiation is created.”
And that radiation is the only way energy can leave the Earth. But if a molecule absorbs that photon then bumps into another molecule that energy returns to being heat.
“The atmosphere can have little or no effect on radiation just as fibreglass has no effect on it.”
Along with fiberglass the insulation on my house has a thin layer of aluminum to keep radiative energy in during the winter and out during the summer. The classic glass thermos has a vacuum layer with a silver coat to reduce radiative heat loss. Some gasses (water vapor, methane, CO2) are opaque to a range of IR radiation, keeping that energy from leaving the Earth.
I hope Norman doesn’t resort to insults and ad homs (I hope you, Clint and Swenson won’t either). But the frustration comes from posters that ignore that the only way energy reaches or leaves the Earth is in radiative form.
Craig T,
Molecules don’t bump into each other. That’s GHE cultist thinking.
You wrote –
“Some gasses (water vapor, methane, CO2) are opaque to a range of IR radiation, keeping that energy from leaving the Earth.”
Well no, nothing at all prevents radiation from leaving the Earth. That’s why the Earth has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, and continues to do so. The surface even cools each night!
All completely irrelevant, isn’t it? You are gullible and ignorant enough to believe in a GHE which cannot be described. Feel free to demonstrate that my opinion is wrong, providing a few facts in support.
Carry on.
“Molecules dont bump into each other.”
Then can you explain Brownian motion?
“Well no, nothing at all prevents radiation from leaving the Earth.”
So can you explain what happens to the IR around 15μ? Why are they missing from the outgoing radiation?
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edwin-Kite/publication/309738530/figure/fig3/AS:425988237598722@1478574918106/Fig-S2-Outgoing-Longwave-Radiation-at-the-Top-Of-Atmosphere-TOA-assuming-a-273K.png
Craig T,
“Then can you explain Brownian motion?”
Of course I can. Why do you ask? Don’t you know?
Craig T,
You ask –
“So can you explain what happens to the IR around 15μ?”
Of course I can. Why do you ask? Don’t you know?
Brownian motion occurs when molecules bump into a small mass. The IR around 15μ was absorbed before reaching the top of the atmosphere.
I should have asked you to explain Brownian motion if molecules never bump into each other and the absence of 15μ radiation leaving the Earth while claiming nothing prevents radiation from leaving the Earth.
Craig T,
I accept you apologising for your sloppiness and lack of forethought.
You now write –
“I should have asked you to explain Brownian motion if molecules never bump into each other and the absence of 15μ radiation leaving the Earth while claiming nothing prevents radiation from leaving the Earth.”
Why do you ask? Don’t you know?
Nothing prevents radiation from leaving anything. All matter above absolute zero emits IR radiation. In my universe, anyway. iIf you don’t like it, start your own cultist GHE universe.
Not only can you not describe the GHE, but your admitted sloppiness and lack of forethought seems exceeded by your ignorance of reality.
The Earth has cooled. The surface is no longer molten. If Pierrehumbert has told you it cannot be, you are free to believe him.
Swenson, I realize that in your universe molecules don’t collide and spectrograms of outgoing radiation are meaningless. Now go to bed – you’re stumbling over your automatic insults.
Mike Flynn just woke up, Craig.
Craig T,
“Swenson, I realize that in your universe molecules dont collide and spectrograms of outgoing radiation are meaningless.”
Obviously, you can’t actually quote me saying that spectrograms of outgoing radiation are meaningless, so you just made that up, didn’t you? Reality is not something that sits well with you, is it?
You are starting to accept reality, though. I accept that the visualisation of molecules colliding with each other is useful in many areas, even if physically untrue at a quantum level. Chemistry texts often refer to electrons as being little bodies orbiting an atomic nucleus, which is nonsense, but widely believed, even if physically incorrect.
Not to worry, nobody has described the GHE in anyway that agrees with reality in your universe either! Unless the Earth in your universe has not cooled, of course.
Playing the insult card is typical for fanatical GHE cultists. If you choose to feel insulted, feel away. If you have time left over, you can also choose to feel offended, upset, angry, annoyed or the like. Don’t blame me for your inability to control your emotions.
It won’t help you to describe the mythical GHE, will it?
Carry on.
“Mike Flynn just woke up, Craig.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
And now Mike Flynn is asleep, Craig.
Our silliest sock puppet lives down under.
Flynn believes that if A states that B issued insults in his direction, that A is claiming he felt insulted.
Typical sly language switcharoo by him.
Little Willy, Antonin, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner should have waited a little longer to PSTer.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A century ago, we knew essentially none of what are now considered the basic facts of cosmology. This situation changed rapidly, first on the theoretical front in the 1910s, then on the observational front in the 1920s.
Cosmology studies the universe on the largest scales, and over large scales the most important force of nature is gravity. Our modern understanding of gravity is the theory of general relativity, proposed by Einstein in 1915. The key insight in this theory is the idea that space and time can be curved and have a dynamical life of their own, changing in response to matter and energy. As early as 1917, Einstein applied his new theory to cosmology, taking as an assumption something we still believe is true: that on the largest scales, matter in the universe (or at least our observable part of it) is uniform through space. He also assumed, consistent with the apparent implication of observations at the time, that the universe was static. To his surprise, Einstein found that general relativity implied that any uniform universe would necessarily be non-static either expanding or contracting. In response he suggested modifying his theory by adding a new parameter called the cosmological constant, which acted to push against the tendency of matter to contract together. With that modification, Einstein was able to find a static (but unstable) solution if the cosmological constant were chosen precisely to balance against the attraction of matter on large scales.
This discussion became somewhat academic when Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason announced in 1929 that the universe is expanding: distant galaxies are receding from us at speeds that are proportional to their distance. It had only been in 1924 that Hubble had established that the spiral nebulae, which many thought were clouds within our own galaxy, were separate galaxies in their own right, demonstrating the true vastness of the universe. The collection of stars we live in, the Milky Way galaxy, contains something over 100 billion stars, and there are over 100 billion such galaxies within the observable universe.
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
“taking as an assumption something we still believe is true:”
Ah, I see. Just speculation and guesswork, after all.
That would suit you, wouldn’t it? Wishy-washy cosmology for Wishy-washy Willard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You proclaim –
> Ah, I see.
No, silly sock puppet.
You don’t.
Cheers.
“taking as an assumption something we still believe is true:”
Ah, I see. Just speculation and guesswork, after all.
That would suit you, wouldnt it? Wishy-washy cosmology for Wishy-washy Willard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You profess –
> Just speculation and guesswork
Science is mostly conjectures and refutations.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“taking as an assumption something we still believe is true:”
Ah, I see. Just speculation and guesswork, after all.
That would suit you, wouldn’t it? Wishy-washy cosmology for Wishy-washy Willard.
Your not-so-brilliant response “Science is mostly conjectures and refutations”, no doubt appealing to your own dubious authority. My conjecture is that you suffer from some form of mental affliction, and available evidence seems to bear my conjecture out.
Here’s an example, based on one of your bizarre comments –
“Mike Flynn,
You proclaim
> Ah, I see.
No, silly sock puppet.
You don’t.
Cheers”
Others might see this sort of comment as a less-than-glowing endorsement of your mental acuity.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You probe –
> That would suit you
That science deals with theories, that Mr. Asshat is wrong to claim that God is the only game in town, or that you are a silly sock puppet?
If you could clarify what you are braying about, that would be great.
Cheers.
You seem to have temporarily lost your ability to retain information, so I will repeat my earlier response –
“”taking as an assumption something we still believe is true:”
Ah, I see. Just speculation and guesswork, after all.
That would suit you, wouldnt it? Wishy-washy cosmology for Wishy-washy Willard.
Willard, please stop trolling.”
Which particular part of my response confuses you?
You aren’t annoyed because you still cannot describe the GHE, are you? I thought that by now, any rational person would have realised that such a task was impossible. That might explain why you are still trying to pretend the GHE exists – it’s just very magical and mysterious, so describing it is really, really, hard!
Carry on Wee Willy – try diverting to something else. The Moon? The theory of relativity? Early Jesuit philosophers on the nature of space?
I guess anything is better than having me throw your last description of the GHE (“not cooling, slower cooling”), in your face repeatedly.
Luckily, you don’t need my help to look like a an ignorant and fanatical GHE cultist – you are doing a fine job, all by yourself!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You mention information.
What are you braying about?
You’re just a silly sock puppet.
You don’t deal in information.
Cheers.
You seem to have temporarily lost your ability to retain information, so I will repeat my earlier response
“”taking as an assumption something we still believe is true:”
Ah, I see. Just speculation and guesswork, after all.
That would suit you, wouldnt it? Wishy-washy cosmology for Wishy-washy Willard.
Willard, please stop trolling.”
Which particular part of my response confuses you?
You arent annoyed because you still cannot describe the GHE, are you? I thought that by now, any rational person would have realised that such a task was impossible. That might explain why you are still trying to pretend the GHE exists its just very magical and mysterious, so describing it is really, really, hard!
Carry on Wee Willy try diverting to something else. The Moon? The theory of relativity? Early Jesuit philosophers on the nature of space?
I guess anything is better than having me throw your last description of the GHE (“not cooling, slower cooling”), in your face repeatedly.
Luckily, you dont need my help to look like a an ignorant and fanatical GHE cultist you are doing a fine job, all by yourself!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You mention information again.
Why are you then copy-pasting a comment that is void of it?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner tries to PSTer me in my own thread.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner has twisted fantasies
Little Stalker, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner still tries to PSTer me in my own thread!
Shhhh.
Interesting that there is no new record in the last three columns. The Arctic peaked in August, and is down a lot since then. Are we entering, or have we already entered, a new cooling period hidden from view by the latest El Nino??? If so, presumably we will see some big UAH LT temperature falls soon?
There will be big falls soon due to a likely La Nina. Or at the very least the current neutral conditions taking over.
And you have just set yourself up to falsely call them “a new cooling period”.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Anything can happen, mate. But predictions are a wasted effort, regardless of what your beliefs are related to climate change. Cooling is just as wishful as warming. It’s deterministic chaos after all; all you can do is sit and enjoy the ride.
Mike Jonas
” The Arctic peaked in August, and is down a lot since then. ”
Maybe you might zoom a bit out the last months:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1123hOzasZRvkrKr8toQppimIaElIkMKW/view
Mike Jonas
Same as above for UAH’s ConUS and Australia series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X6iQoMpS3Cc8eESK3ygwK8XlpRk_ojaX/view
We left the 2020 El Nino, passed the strongest la Nina since decades and entered El Nino’s 2023 edition.
As we are in a weakening phase of El Nino, we probably (!!!) might expect some cooling in ConUS and Australia in a few months.
Time will tell, as Salvatore Del Prete loved to say :–)
*
Amazing is the similarity of the running means for the two land regions, despite located on both sides of the Equator and on different latitude bands.
It becomes even more apparent when using cascaded running means to flatten the wriggles:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jw_LImT8qk7E_gboEkLVX6auVTZI5MgP/view
My new climate model
https://youtu.be/kGOKS6PkbE4?t=73
We can already see the first planetary waves in the stratospheric polar vortex in the south and an increase in pressure over the polar circle.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_AMJ_SH_2024.png
Earth Wikipedia:
Synodic rotation period 1.0 d
(24h 00 m 00s)
Sidereal rotation period 0.99726968 d[16]
(23h 56 m 4.100s)
–
Moon Wikipedia:
Synodic rotation period 29.530589 d
(29 d 12 h 44 min 2.9 s; synodic; solar day) (spin-orbit locked)
Sidereal rotation period 27.321661 d (spin-orbit locked)
–
–
If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Facts and measurements only confuse fanatical GHE cultists.
Thank you, Swenson, for your response.
“Facts and measurements only confuse fanatical GHE cultists.”
We should inform people every possible way, because people do not know physics, and therefore people only listen to what scientists say.
I also believed what scientists were saying about Moon’s rotating, and about CO2 greenhouse warming danger. It was not my specialty, so I had to relay on scientists who were specialists on the matter.
And what I heard worried me as everyone else.
I got even more worried one day, when thinking of our fate in CO2 polluted atmosphere.
Then, something changed in mind – wait a minute, I said, CO2 ~ 400 ppm in Earth’s thin atmosphere (1 bar at sea level) is a trace gas in a thin atmosphere, it is almost nothing out there.
Also I started questioning, how do the plants manage with so little CO2 around? How it comes plants still survive ?
What I came to is that plants absorb CO2 not directly from atmosphere, but the CO2 first is deluted in water.
And I started my own research. It took me a lot of time reading everything I could find in Internet.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“What I came to is that plants absorb CO2 not directly from atmosphere, but the CO2 first is deluted in water.”
Plants have tiny pores in their leaves called stomata. This is how CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere.
https://www.thoughtco.com/plant-stomata-function-4126012
Thank you, Graig, for your response.
“Plants have tiny pores in their leaves called stomata. This is how CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere.”
Graig, I always thought it was their tiny pores in their leaves called stomata.
Now, please, imagine how leaves may take in CO2 from stomata?
CO2 is a gas dissolved in air in proportion 1 molecule CO2 in 2500 molecules of air.
To mention, CO2 is the main food for plants, not some minerals microelements, which are also always needed.
So, in the case of a 100% efficiency, a leave to gain 1 gr. should had processed 2.5 kgr of air.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“And I started my own research. It took me a lot of time reading everything I could find in Internet.“
Arkady, please stop trolling.
“Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
Last time I checked, 27.32 was less than 29.53.
Thank you, Antonin, for your response.
“Last time I checked, 27.32 was less than 29.53.”
What you say is that Moon’s sidereal rotation period is shorter than Moon’s synodic period, because Moon also orbits sun.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You mean that the moon orbits the earth, which in turn orbits the sun.
So in fact, there was nothing in your numbers which proves your point.
And the synodic period is NOT the “orbital around Earth period” (to repeat your clumsy language).
AQ,
You wouldn’t lashing out because you can’t describe the GHE, are you?
Clumsy language? His English expression seems reasonable, for someone whose first language is not English.
Here’s something you wrote –
“Only those of us in the middle who follow the real science of the IPCC understand that short term variation is not climate, whichever way it heads, and that only the centre of the distribution represents climate (applicable also to its effects).”
Not only clumsy, but mostly incomprehensible, not to say displaying complete ignorance on your part.. Even excusing your poor expression, you say that something (a centre, presumably) applies to the “effects” of climate! You poor witless fanatical GHE cultist – climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, and has no “effect” on anything at all (apart from the fevered fantasies of the mentally afflicted GHE cultists).
The “real science of the IPCC”? What is that? Do you consider the statement by the IPCC that it is not possible to predict future climate states, scientific or not?
You are definitely a strange one, aren’t you? Can’t describe the GHE, won’t accept that the Earth has cooled, don’t believe that it is not possible to predict future climate states . . . .
Ah well, it takes all types, I suppose. Even types like you.
Keep at it.
Dang – let he who is without sin . . .
I meant to write “be” after “wouldn’t”, of course.
I grovel in abject mortification – a thousand pardons!
My comment was perfectly understandable in context to anyone with at least a moderate understanding of the English language.
Did you notice how you had to change my words to feign such a clumsiness. No … of course you didn’t … you have trained your muscle memory to cheat by bypassing your brain.
And did you notice that you accepted his initial comment without question without actually checking which number was less? That is full-blown denial at its worst.
“That is full-blown denial at its worst.”
Please stop trolling.
Antonin,
“And the synodic period is NOT the “orbital around Earth period (to repeat your clumsy language).”
–
Please compare those two numbers:
Moon’s Sidereal rotation period 27.321661 d (spin-orbit locked)
And
Moon’s orbital around Earth period 27.321661 d (spin-orbit locked)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So you’ve just shown PRECISELY what I said, ie.:
“the SYNODIC period is NOT the ‘orbital around Earth period'”
(Unless you are now claiming that the sidereal period is equal to the synodic period.)
Seriously, there are real issues going on with your comprehension.
This is why, months ago, I started using only “orbit” and “spin”. All of the other terms, “revolution”, “rotation”, “local rotation”, and “rotation about an internal axis”, just confuse the issue. It’s important to keep things simple, when trying to teach children.
Earth both orbits and spins. Moon only orbits.
If you’re trying to responsibly teach, keep it simple.
Thank you, Antonin, for your response.
“So youve just shown PRECISELY what I said, ie.:
“the SYNODIC period is NOT the ‘orbital around Earth period'”
(Unless you are now claiming that the sidereal period is equal to the synodic period.)
Seriously, there are real issues going on with your comprehension.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas,
The Moon’s synodic period is not the same as its orbital period around the Earth because of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun.
While the Moon orbits the Earth, the Earth is also orbiting the Sun. This means that by the time the Moon completes one orbit around the Earth, the Earth has moved a certain distance along its own orbit around the Sun. As a result, the Moon needs to travel an additional distance in order to catch up to the Earth’s position in its orbit around the sun.
Thank you, Arkady.
“As a result, the Moon needs to travel an additional distance in order to catch up to the Earths position in its orbit around the sun.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No need to thank me.
I know it can be difficult to grasp complex subjects in a non-native language.
Arkady,
“No need to thank me.
I know it can be difficult to grasp complex subjects in a non-native language.”
–
Please, tell what is your native language, so I use it for your benefit.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas,
I much prefer English.
Arkady,
“I much prefer English.”
Ok, your English expression seems reasonable, for someone whose first language is not English.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Ok, your English expression seems reasonable, for someone whose first language is not English.”
I would hope so!
I moved to the U.S. at age 16 to attend college, and it’s been my home for fifty years now.
Ok, shall we discuss the Rotational Warming?
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV
What is the purpose of merely quoting what I said and saying nothing else?
AQ,
You wrote –
“What is the purpose of merely quoting what I said and saying nothing else?”
Why do you want to know?
AQ, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
> Why do you want to know?
Why do you want to know why AQ wants to know what he wants to know?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“Why do you want to know why AQ wants to know what he wants to know?”
This from an idiot who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote that comment –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Long live and prosper, and try not to be too harsh on yourself, silly sock puppet!
Christos Vournas,
“Ok, shall we discuss the Rotational Warming?”
As long as it relates to climate science, such as what is causing the temperature timeseries at the top of this page.
Little Willy, Arkady, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner PSTers again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Yes, the ISS flies an LVLH attitude. LVLH stands for local vertical, local horizontal. That means we describe the attitude of the ISS with respect to a reference frame that is defined as follows:
X axis – aligned with the velocity vector
Y axis – aligned with the orbital momentum vector
Z axis – aligned with the orbital radius vector
If the ISS is flying LVLH (0,0,0) it’s body axis is coincident with the LVLH frame. Typically, we fly a small bias from the LVLH.
In order to maintain an LVLH attitude, the ISS maintains a 4 degrees per minute pitch (the nose moves downwards at 4 degrees per minute). 4 degrees per minute is the rate needed to rotate a full 360 degrees in 90 minutes (the average orbital period).
It’s important for the ISS to do this because it was designed to fly in this attitude. We need the communications and GPS antennae to point upwards, we need the meteor shielding to be in the front, and we need the Lab window to be facing down.
It isn’t hard to maintain that rotation because, as Sir Isaac tells us, an object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon.”
NASA’s Robert Frost answering the question “Does the ISS rotate during orbit to keep the same attitude with respect to the ground below?”
I’ve seen this before, Craig. It’s a perfect example of the confusion that comes out of NASA. Thanks for the reminder.
The ISS is in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), so it still experiences drag even from the thin atmosphere. Add to that its irregular structure and you get “torque”. Consequently, it is necessary to keep adjusting its attitude and altitude.
And the character “Robert Frost” can’t get it right. He gets “orbiting” — “Imagine it this way — your friend is standing in front of you. If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
CORRECT! Also called “orbiting”.
“If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
CORRECT! Also called “spinning”.
But poor Robert gets confused when he puts the two motions together — “If you walk in a circle around your friend and constantly turn so that you are continually facing him, you are both revolving and rotating.”
INCORRECT! Someone needs to buy a ball and string for Robert….
“And the character Robert Frost cant get it right.”
Here’s his elevator bio:
“I work in NASA’s Flight Operations Directorate. I’ve trained astronauts on the guidance, navigation & control of the International Space Station and am currently a flight control1er for visiting vehicles.”
When he says NASA must adjust the ISS attitude “4 degrees per minute is the rate needed to rotate a full 360 degrees in 90 minutes (the average orbital period)” I think he’s clear on what he’s talking about.
ISS day is about 90 min and Earth’s is about 24 hour.
ISS would rotate for it’s solar panels.
Unlike earth surface which gets solar power for at most for 25% of time, at higher elevation ISS gets solar polar 60% of the time.
Or 60% of a 90 min ISS day.
So at it’s night, I suppose it keeps rotating to be in position to catch it’s dawn.
24 / 1 1/2 is 16. So ISS has 16 dawns for every Earth dawn.
The easiest way to keep solar panels aimed at the sun would be to not rotate. Because the ISS has to rotate to keep the same side oriented to the Earth (see above) it turns 360 degrees each orbit.
The solar panels are designed to rotate separate from the ISS, at least on one axis, so the rotation of the station is not done to angle the panels.
Solar panels were created for space {they would not exist without space exploration]. And solar panels on ISS are far more viable than solar panels on Earth’s surface.
The battery needs electrical power for 40% of 90 mins. Unlike earth which needs 16 hours per day.
By not understanding the motions, Craig and gb get everything overly confused, as usual.
The ISS wants to keep one side facing Earth, like Moon. ISS would do that by itself, if it were in distant space. But ISS is in LEO, which means it is affected by the atmosphere, as weak as it is. So ISS must produce its own attitude and altitude adjustments to maintain its desired orbit and orientation.
The ISS really has NOTHING to do with the Moon issue. It’s just more crap thrown against the wall.
“The ISS wants to keep one side facing Earth, like Moon.”
What side? I never heard of any side of ISS being the earth facing side.
NASA or anyone, would want to get the most amount of solar power, it can get.
60% of the time getting solar power, might seem like a lot to someone living on Earth, but it’s better to get more than 60%.
For instance, there are spots in the lunar polar region, which one can get, 85%.
And relative short distance, one get grid coverage of close to 100%.
What side? I never heard of any side of ISS being the earth facing side.
From Craig’s source: It’s important for the ISS to do this because it was designed to fly in this attitude. We need the communications and GPS antennae to point upwards, we need the meteor shielding to be in the front, and we need the Lab window to be facing down.”
“Is all this irrelevant argy-bargy due to your inability to describe the GHE?”
This particular argy-bargy is due to several people here not accepting the well documented fact that gravity doesn’t apply any angular momentum to objects. The Moon and the ISS only keep the same side to the Earth because both have angular momentum that rotates them once per orbit.
My general issue here is those same people won’t listen to anyone who disagrees with their views on science no matter how high the stack of evidence is against them. If you don’t like Dr. Spencer’s description of GHE or all the other scientists, I can’t describe it any better.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“If you dont like Dr. Spencers description of GHE or all the other scientists, I cant describe it any better.”
Dr Spencer has not described the GHE – which might explain why you can’t quite manage to write his description down, but can spend inordinate amounts of time trying to avoid facing the fact that nobody has described the GHE.
Hopefully, you are not being silly enough to imply there are many different descriptions of the GHE? One per scientist perhaps?
Of course not. If you could produce even one “description” of the GHE which didnt result in you becoming an object of ridicule, Im sure you would.
You can’t describe the GHE at all, can you? No better and no worse than anyone else.
Keep pretending. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, whether you accept it or not. No GHE – not even a little bit.
> Dr Spencer has not described the GHE
Step 1 – Pure Denial
More of Robert Frost answering questions on Quora:
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-ISS-actively-keep-its-cupola-and-therefore-its-orientation-pointed-towards-Earth-as-it-orbits-or-is-it-a-passive-phenomenon
Attitude control is actively done using four control moment gyroscopes (CMGs) and when mission requirements do not conflict, utilizing a torque equilibrium attitude (TEA). A TEA attitude is one that with deviations of up to 15 degrees results in the external torques caused by gravity and drag canceling (or nearly canceling) each other out, over an orbit. The CMGs then just have to produce the torques necessary to perfect that. If the CMGs are taken off-line, the ISS would quickly leave the commanded attitude due to those external influences.
We fly a local vertical, local horizontal (LVLH) TEA. To maintain a local vertical, local horizontal orientation, a four-degree per minute negative pitch (360 degrees in an orbit that takes approximately 90 minutes) must be enacted. That pitch rate is initiated by the Russian thrusters that maneuver the vehicle to an LVLH attitude and are then maintained by CMGs. CMGs are large spinning wheels that store angular momentum. Altering that momentum changes the angular momentum of ISS, itself, creating torques to counter unwanted torques.
“But ISS is in LEO, which means it is affected by the atmosphere, as weak as it is. So ISS must produce its own attitude and altitude adjustments to maintain its desired orbit and orientation.”
Frost made clear in his explanation the difference between adjusting for “external torques caused by gravity and drag” and the constant rotation to keep the ISS facing the same side toward Earth.
Sorry Crain, but he did no such thing.
Your beliefs cause you to see things that aren’t there. If you believe in ghosts, then you’re going to see ghosts.
TYPO alert!
Should be “Craig”.
Sorry.
Craig T,
Is all this irrelevant argy-bargy due to your inability to describe the GHE?
Typical for ignorant and fanatical GHE cultists.
Make sure your GHE description agrees with four and a half billion years of planetary cooling in continuous sunlight, and the fact that during the night the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
Only joking – you’re about to tell me that you’re not stupid enough to waste your time on an impossible task, aren’t you? You could always claim that you have a description – but you’re certainly not going to reveal it to a swine like me!
[laughing at reality-avoiding fantasist]
Mike Flynn,
You are at your very best when you are describing the greenhouse effect –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Whining Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/observatory/design/
“While operating in Earth orbit, the Hubble Space Telescope depends on a robust Pointing Control System to determine the direction in which it is pointing (called its attitude), to turn toward a celestial target, and to remain fixed on that target during observations.”
So, for an orbiting object to always keep one face oriented towards a distant star requires a Pointing Control System. Looks like the “Spinners” belief system is a bust, because that clearly can’t be “orbit without spin” if they have to keep spinning the HST to get it to remain oriented that way.
DREMT
You are still trapped in your Earth-centred reference frame.
The Hubble telescope uses its Pointing Control System to maintain a constant orientation during observations. By definition it is not rotating relative to the distant objects it observes, so is not rotating relative to the inertial reference frame.
The ISS needs to keep Earth observation instruments and the cupola pointing towards Earth, so it’s control system pitches the spacecraft 4 degrees per minute to complete a 360 degree rotation relative to the inertial reference frame every 90 minutes.
"You are still trapped in your Earth-centred reference frame."
Incorrect, as repeatedly explained to you. You may now disappear again, only to return a few days later making the exact same mistakes.
Entropic Man won’t listen, and can’t learn, so this is just for any of the more astute readers:
The "Non-Spinners" will quantify the rate of axial rotation of an orbiting object wrt a rotating reference frame. Of course, they have to, because their version of "orbit without spin" has the orbiting object always presenting the same face to the inside of the orbit.
The "Spinners" will quantify the rate of axial rotation of an orbiting object wrt an inertial reference frame. Of course, they have to, because their version of "orbit without spin" has the orbiting object always presenting the same face to some distant star.
"Non-Spinners" are not defining spin as wrt a rotating reference frame. They’re just keeping the motion "spin" separate from their version of the motion "orbit without spin".
"Spinners" are not defining spin as wrt an inertial reference frame. They’re just keeping the motion "spin" separate from their version of the motion "orbit without spin".
The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. The moon issue is resolved by which version of "orbit without spin" is correct. Without a viable, physical model of "orbit without spin", the "Spinners" are left with nothing.
“The “Non-Spinners” will quantify the rate of axial rotation of an orbiting object wrt a rotating reference frame.”
Without any science rationale for doing so.
“”Non-Spinners” are not defining spin as wrt a rotating reference frame.”
FALSE. One cannot quantify spin without an equation that DEFINES it mathematically.
” Theyre just keeping the motion “spin” separate from their version of the motion “orbit without spin”.”
Weak post-hoc rationalization.
Wrong Nate. No equation is needed for spin. Spin is either happening or not.
Spin does not happen for Moon. Moon only orbits. Earth both spins and orbits.
The simple ball-on-a-string only orbits, same as Moon.
“Wrong Nate. No equation is needed for spin. Spin is either happening or not.”
Brilliant.
Then it can’t be ‘quantified’ as DREMT claims it is.
And BTW, Clint, you were the one who let the cat out of the bag that what you call Spin of the Moon is measured relative to a rotating reference frame.
Here is where that happened.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1651342
Clint R says:
March 21, 2024 at 11:48 AM
The ball doesnt spin relative to its forward motion on its path, which is the correct reference frame.
Then Nate says:
“Which is indeed a rotating reference frame, since the forward direction is a vector that is ROTATING.”
and DREMT confirms:
“Yes, the ball doesnt spin relative to a rotating reference frame”
…the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. The moon issue is resolved by which version of "orbit without spin" is correct. Without a viable, physical model of "orbit without spin", the "Spinners" are left with nothing.
Exactly, Nate.
Exactly, DREMT.
They are done, toast, finito, kaput, etc.
If an object is not spinning in a rotating reference frame, then it must spin in an inertial reference frame.
” because that clearly cant be orbit without spin if they have to keep spinning the HST to get it to remain oriented that way.”
Yes, they need to cancel the spin due to its orbital motion.
” No equation is needed for spin. Spin is either happening or not.”
No need for numbers, you either have none of something or you have some of something.
I am sure you could find equations for spin if you opened your physics textbook.
And the correct version of orbit without spin is and always will be the Moon on the right, the one that points in the same direction as it revolves around the Earth.
"They are done, toast, finito, kaput, etc. If an object is not spinning in a rotating reference frame, then it must spin in an inertial reference frame."
bob, that the "Non-Spinners" quantify the spin rate of an orbiting object wrt a rotating reference frame is a consequence of the fact that their version of "orbit without spin" has the same face of the object always oriented towards the inside of the orbit. The consideration of what "orbit without spin" is comes first. "Spin" is then just separate to that motion.
You won’t understand, but that’s OK.
It’s as if Graham D. Warner had to pretend not to read Nate to continue with his gaslighting.
Obviously any variable that can be measured and quantified needs to be defined. Non spinners want to avoid defining it, but can tell you that is rotation measured wrt a frame rotating with the orbit.
Which brings up a question. If, as for the Moon, its orbit speeds up and slows down, then does it spin speed up and slow down?
It’s as if I live rent free in their heads.
DREMT, like Clint, has learned that saying ridiculous things attracts attention in the form of ridicule.
And they seem to crave it.
A short comment from Nate is usually just an insult or some kind of personal remark.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Same with Little Willy.
DREMPTY,
“You wont understand, but thats OK.”
You don’t seem to understand that I do indeed understand your argument, the problem is, that it does not agree with the evidence.
So off with it, into the circular file.
Flogiston = Moon no spin
If you had understood what I just explained to you, then you’d have conceded that reference frames don’t resolve the moon issue. So, I’ll go with you still not understanding, as I predicted. That’s OK.
“an insult or some kind of personal remark.”
Not unlike this:
“Its as if I live rent free in their heads.”
He’s still responding!
“I’m shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here.”
-Captain Renault in Casablanca
DREMPTY,
“If you had understood what I just explained to you, then youd have conceded that reference frames dont resolve the moon issue. So, Ill go with you still not understanding, as I predicted. Thats OK.”
Then why are you using a specific reference frame?
You are trying to use a reference frame to resolve the issue in your favor.
Incorrect, bob. The consideration of what "orbit without spin" is comes first. That is what determines the reference frame used to quantify the spin rate of an orbiting object…because "spin" must be kept separate from the motion "orbit without spin".
Like I said…you won’t understand.
And, it’s pointless talking to you about any subject, ever.
> The consideration of what “orbit without spin” is comes first. That is what determines the reference frame
The consideration of what is an orbit without spins determines the reference frame.
Graham D. Warner is a freaking genius.
Yes. If "orbit without spin" is motion where the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit, then obviously a rotating reference frame will be necessary to quantify the spin rate of the orbiting object. If "orbit without spin" is motion where the same side of the body always faces some distant, fixed star, then obviously an inertial reference frame will be necessary to quantify the spin rate of the orbiting object.
DREMPTY,
You got a load of hogwash there.
“Yes. If “orbit without spin” is motion where the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit, then obviously a rotating reference frame will be necessary to quantify the spin rate of the orbiting object. If “orbit without spin” is motion where the same side of the body always faces some distant, fixed star, then obviously an inertial reference frame will be necessary to quantify the spin rate of the orbiting object.”
The one and only way to measure the rate of rotation is with an inertial reference frame.
And not an Earth centered inertial reference frame.
And of course Graham D. Warner leaves to astute readers the homework of determining what’s a spin without any consideration of the frame of reference in which that determination is being made, thus returning to absolute motion but without mentioning it.
But then, if it’s an absolute motion, what is there to determine?
Geniuser and geniuser.
DREMPTY,
“Incorrect, bob. The consideration of what “orbit without spin” is comes first. That is what determines the reference frame used to quantify the spin rate of an orbiting objectbecause “spin” must be kept separate from the motion “orbit without spin”.”
We know what orbit without spin is.
It is the Moon on the right.
That’s the only viable model of orbit without spin for elliptical orbits.
And I thought you said reference frames do not resolve the issue, yet here you are, using reference frames to try to resolve the issue in your favor.
Wouldn’t be prudent.
"The one and only way to measure the rate of rotation is with an inertial reference frame."
Only if "orbit without spin" is motion in which one side of the object always remains oriented towards some distant, fixed star, bob. However, you "Spinners" have a bit of a problem in that you have no viable, physical model of "orbit without spin". That pretty much loses you the argument.
Non-spinners look up at the Moon, and based on their experience of seeing all sides of things that are spinning, they conclude it is not spinning.
This comes first.
Then they learn from astronomy that it IS spinning when viewed from the sun or anywhere else not centered on the Earth. And that it is only not spinning when observed from a rotating frame centered on the Earth.
SO THEN they decide to change “The consideration of what ‘orbit without spin’ is, based on their experience of planes, trains, and automobiles, none of which are relevant for objects in motion in space.
There are no roads, tracks or air to supply friction in space.
So there is no science rationale for their choice of how to define ‘orbit without spin’.
Yet they persist, stuck in their terrestrial thinking.
But they persist.
A long comment, so probably chock full of misrepresentations.
“Without a viable, physical model of “orbit without spin”, the “Spinners” are left with nothing.”
It seems occasionally non-spinners forget that spinners have some pretty darn good arguments that they cannot rebut.
Oh, and then there’s the fact that all of physics, astronomy, and aerospace engineering take the spinner side.
So it is quite laughable and rather path.etic that they would think spinners ‘are left with nothing’.
Motivated by his intense desire to get the last word, which he always projects onto others, Nate continues to respond to somebody who is not even reading his comments. That he will respond to this comment is absolutely without doubt.
Meanwhile, Graham D. Warner just necromanced a dozen of subthreads to PSTer.
…and rightly so.
“Motivated by his intense desire to get the last word”
Much much less intense than DREMTs, as the evidence of his many LAST WORDS show.
Which DREMT always projects onto others, as he does here.
Hypocrisy should be DREMTs middle name!
“Nate continues to respond to somebody who is not even reading his comments. That he will respond to this comment is absolutely without doubt.”
DREMT pretends that he alone is in this thread!
And my posts, unlike his, almost always have facts and logic that the TEAM cannot rebut, thus they try to attack the messenger, as he demonstrates so well here.
Sore losers are always sore.
And when DREMT attacks all Spinners: “‘Spinners’ are left with nothing.”
He is attacking me.
Yet he feels that HE should get the last word on that and spinners should not respond!
Yes, yes dear readers, you are right. He is quite a piece of sh*t.
Nate is very predictable.
We don’t need no stinking badges, and we don’t need no stinking model of orbital motion without axial rotation.
Because that’s off with the fairies and unicorns.
“Only if “orbit without spin” is motion in which one side of the object always remains oriented towards some distant, fixed star, bob. However, you “Spinners” have a bit of a problem in that you have no viable, physical model of “orbit without spin”. That pretty much loses you the argument.”
Orbit without spin is the Moon on the right.
Just like the caption says.
Go argue with the author of that caption if you dare.
I double dog dare you.
Since we have such a model, that pretty much wins the argument for the spinners.
No, bob. A physical model. Not just an animated moon.
It’s as if Graham D. Warner has never seen a Ferris wheel in his life.
Five years over this, and he can’t distinguish the rotation as a single object and a rotation within a system of independent parts.
Yeah, a car on a Ferris Wheel is objectively spinning, Little Willy. Your physical model needs to be of orbit without spin.
"Some of the largest modern Ferris wheels have cars mounted on the outside of the rim, with electric motors to independently rotate each car to keep it upright. These cars are often referred to as capsules or pods."
Graham D. Warner invents a new concept – “objective” spinning.
The point he’s trying to evade with it is that the Ferris wheel axle is independent from the car axles.
Very different than the CSA Truther’s trick!
DREMPTY doesn’t like his sammich and wants a different one.
“No, bob. A physical model. Not just an animated moon.”
Take two small motors that rotate an axle at the same rate.
Use one to revolve a stiff wire to simulate an orbit.
Mount the other one upside down, so it rotates the other direction, on the end of the stiff wire, and put a little cherry on top.
Now turn on both motors.
The resulting motion is the cherry revolving around an external axis while not rotating on its internal axis.
I could build you one, but that will cost you.
Something like that CSI video.
But then we don’t need no stinking model.
We got observations.
DREMPTY,
Also, do you realize that you just pitched your precious transmographer in the toilet?
bob comes up with another model that is objectively spinning.
No, nothing I have said contradicts what the transmographer shows.
DREMPTY,
You just rejected non physical models.
“No, bob. A physical model. Not just an animated moon.”
Isn’t the transmographer an animated model?
bob can never follow an argument. The “Non-Spinners” physical model of “orbit without spin” is the ball on a string. Not the transmographer.
DREMPTY,
That’s why in the space lab video of the ball on a string, the ball has different hemisphere colored differently, so you can see it spinning on its axis both before and after the release.
More simply, the ball on a string is a model of circular motion with axial rotation. Because you can see the ball rotate.
It’s not the model you are looking for.
Is Billy Gibbons guitar rotating on an axis when he’s playing it?
What if he joins YES on a rotating stage?
What about when Billy Gibbons stops playing and starts spinning his guitar, and then joins YES on the rotating stage.
Maybe you have a definition of axial rotation you would like to share.
Obviously that comes before defining orbital motion without axial rotation.
Not arguing with you about the ball on a string again, bob. What’s the point?
As you can’t come up with a viable physical model of “orbit without spin”, we’re done.
See for yourself, Bob:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE_VupU_8NQ
“No, bob. A physical model. Not just an animated moon.”
Oh? Why?
The physical models proposed by the non-spinners are all bad analogies: the ball on a sting, the model moon on a rotating arm.
None of these properly represent how gravity operates in space!
The spinners have a perfectly good physical model of orbits. Kepler observed it and Newton modeled it with physics, 300 years ago.
Astronomers, physicists, and aerospace engineers have confirmed this model repeatedly ever since.
Can’t help but notice that Nate is still responding. Why are these people so obsessed with me?
Exactly, Nate.
Too bad Graham D. Warner does “not” read your comments.
See what I mean!? Obsessed, I tell you.
“Why are these people so obsessed with me?”
Why do you keep posting ridiculous things? Are you seeking to bait people into giving you attention?
Willard,
“Graham D. Warner invents a new concept ‘objective’ spinning.”
It is truly bizarre isn’t it? Let’s ask people in the attached cars if they are spinning.
In fact we can see people in cars who want to be spinning are rocking their cars back and forth, trying to get them to spin!
The Ferris wheel is a perfectly good example of a physical mechanism that moves like the MOTR.
Thus the rules of the silly game are adjusted accordingly to reject it.
I think it’s all those arguments they’ve lost. That’s why I get under their skin so much.
Of course they are, Nate.
When Graham D. Warner loses on physics, he hides behind silly semantic games. When his silly semantic games are being spelled out and refuted, he returns to his silly contraptions.
As long as he can alternate between two positions, he always has something to add. And when he does not, he PSTers.
See what I mean?
The Race to Claim the Arctic – Claims, Icebreakers & Competition in the Far North
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGLZTgkIse8
Perun
–25,979 views 2 hours ago
The Arctic is pretty unique. It’s a place where allies like the US and Canada feud, Russia is still arguably the dominant power and the United States can casually announce a claim to an area more than twice the size of California. —
I just started listening to it.
I of course, immediately thought of ocean settlements- and greening the Sahara desert in regards to ice mining.
Normally I think of ocean settlement in more tropical locations, but you could make floating breakwater from polar sea ice.
Cinco De Mayo for me:
https://i.postimg.cc/MG4N1B7G/IMG-5357.jpg
Hope everyone is enjoying their Sunday.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Meteorologists in Cambodia say the country is facing its hottest temperatures in 170 years, reaching as high as 43 degrees Celsius (109 degrees Fahrenheit).
In Myanmar, weather experts said some parts of the country experienced record high temperatures in the past week. Several towns were included on lists of the hottest spots worldwide in April, in at least one case surpassing 48.2 C (118.8 F).
Parts of eastern India experienced their hottest April on record as a heat wave scorched the region amid a general election.
The recorded highs reflect only air temperature, the historical measure for hot and cold weather. They don’t factor in the debilitating effects of humidity, which can make it feel even hotter.
https://apnews.com/article/asia-heat-wave-photos-5c992950ed0a41606419e472a961b26e
Willard, please stop trolling.
” They don’t factor in the debilitating effects of humidity, which can make it feel even hotter. ”
Xctl!
One of my former colleagues had to leave Germany because his nice employer wanted him to work in the Asian corner. Sydney, Beijing, Manila, Jakarta were his successive stops.
He said already a decade ago:
” 35 C in Manila has NOTHING to do with 35 C in Frankfurt: it’s as if it were 50 C there instead. ”
Today it looks there more like 55 when I read ‘Le Monde’.
Having experienced heat in the Tropics, I put it down to two things: direct rays from the Sun which are much hotter, when absorbed by skin, than in Frankfurt, and there is much more WV in the air in Manila, increasing the heat content of the air.
Alternatively, Mr. Asshat could consider the wet bulb.
“Alternatively, Mr. Asshat could consider the wet bulb.”
Alternatively, you could consider finding a better GHE description than “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Alternatively, Mike Flynn, you could eat your own sammich:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
Mike Flynn,
You are right:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
This leads to your dribblings.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
You could provide an irrelevant and pointless link which doesn’t mention the GHE – and pretend it does!
That would be the mark of a complete loser, wouldn’t it?
Mike Flynn,
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Cheers.
Silly.
Sock.
Puppet.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
You could provide an irrelevant and pointless link which doesnt mention the GHE and pretend it does!
That would be the mark of a complete loser, wouldnt it?
Mike Flynn,
Silly sock puppet,
Here is you:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Cheers.
heck…we get 43C temps here in Canada. Lytton, BC averages at least 43C in summer.
Rough estimate of 8 inches of snow accumulation. When it snows here in May, it snows in the morning, is usually a dusting, and is gone by midday; it almost never accumulates past an inch.
A very memorable late spring snowstorm, even for my older relatives.
Walter R. Hogle likes to say irrelevant stuff.
Shut your dumb ass up, monkey.
Walter R. Hogle is channeling his inner Graham D. Warner.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner has no business here.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner comes as he is.
Little Stalker, please stop trolling.
Craig T
Thanks for your link to an excellent paper:
Verification and estimation of uncertainties of Tobias Mayer’s 18th century astronomical observations
Jaroslav Marek, Jiří Tuček (2023)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379722008282
Though this 27 equation stuff (mentioned over and over – e.g. by Carl Gauss himself, Siegmund Günther, Eric Gray Forbes, Gudrun Wolfschmidt) is imho by no means what matters the most in Mayer’s treatise, these two Czech guys really did an amazing work.
And – as opposed to the arrogant WUWT uncertainty mafia – they perfectly KNOW what is uncertainty, and how it has to be used.
No one is questioning the excellence of Mayer’s work in general. It’s unfortunate, however, that by the time he got it out, a very accurate clock had been invented to keep tract of longitude and Mayer’s work in that regard became obsolete.
I am still awaiting your proof, based om Mayer’s work, that the Moon rotates on a local axis.
With the laser distance panels left on the Moon the uncertainty is now down to a few centimeters. Here’s a link to a recent paper that studies lunar rotation close enough to get an idea what its inner core is like.
The Cassini State of the Moon’s Inner Core
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JE005607
Craig, you seem very confused. In your confusion you’re desperately throwing crap against the wall, not understanding any of it.
Let’s slow down and see if you even know how walking around a tree works.
If you walk around a tree, counterclockwise, does your left shoulder always face the inside of your path?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know. I’m a brain-dead cult id10t.
> Lets slow down and see i
As predicted, Puffman-the-Riddler has returned!
Whacky Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
The laser on the Moon does not help sailors navigate the oceans. That was the initial aim of Mayer, to supply accurate lunar tables to aid sailors in knowing their longitudinal deviation.
Cassini actually wanted to calculate Easter.
Is there anything Mr. Asshat can get right?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
Or you just dribble about Cassini and Easter.
Dribble away.
Mike Flynn,
If Cassini states were more related to Mayer than to Cassini, we would have called them Mayer states.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
Or you could just dribble about Cassini and Easter.
Dribble away.
Mike Flynn,
Have you lost your footing again or are you simply trying to deflect?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
Or you could just dribble about Cassini and Easter.
Dribble away.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
Or you could just dribble about Cassini and Easter.
Dribble away.
Robertson
” I am still awaiting your proof, based om Mayers work, that the Moon rotates on a local axis. ”
You are as always an incompetent, ignorant, lying boaster.
*
1. I have shown you many times during the last years that Mayer’s treatise contains a valuable proof of the lunar spin, based on a long observation and an outstanding evaluation of the observed data; a proof you are stypid enough to doubt, discredit and denigrate, though you are absolutely unable to scientifically contradict it.
*
2. I have explained often enough that Mayer’s lunar tables were the most accurate even 50 years after his death because, unlike all other scientists before him (including Flamsteed, Halley, Newton, Hadley, etc.), whose lunar tables were biased by the libration in longitude, Mayer was able, in a long, arduous work based on spherical trigonometry, to separate the orbital and rotational motion of the Moon and thus to calculate 100% selenographic, libration-indifferent coordinates of the lunar craters.
*
3. You are apparently too dumb to understand what it means that Mayer computed for the lunar spin period the same value (27.32166 days, down to the fifth digit after the decimal point) as is done today by using lunar laser ranging of the retroreflectors on the Moon – despite using no more than a simple telescope, a self-made micrometer with 1 arc minute precision and a primitive metronome.
Earlier, after AQ had criticised another commenter for his poor English skills, I endeavoured to show that AQ himself was quite capable of demonstrating his ineptitude in English expression.
AQ took exception, and complained that I had to change his words to make him look foolish
As usual, Antonin Qwerty refuses to provide data to back up his bizarre assertions – a direct quote of what supposedly had to change to make him look like and ignorant incomprehensible fool would have been expected – but no, just wild assertions.
Here’s what AQ claims he didn’t write +
“Only those of us in the middle who follow the real science of the IPCC understand that short term variation is not climate, whichever way it heads, and that only the centre of the distribution represents climate (applicable also to its effects).”
Of course, he is unable to change his earlier comment containing the words I copied, so has no choice but to claim I changed them!
I should point out that anybody who uses the term “follow the real science” is using the word incorrectly, implying that anyone who disagrees must be following unreal or false science, which is just silly.
Here’s what AQ claimed –
“My comment was perfectly understandable in context to anyone with at least a moderate understanding of the English language.”
I’m quite happy to leave others to form their own opinions.
In my opinion AQ is a fanatical GHE cultist, who cannot even describe the GHE, but who claims to “follow the real science of the IPCC”.
Yea, he’s a monkey.
You don’t mean to offend any monkeys by association, I’m sure.
not at all. I don’t think alarmists even know what monkeys are.
Here is one with a sword.
The only “monkeys” here are those that resort to these sorts of attacks.
AQ,
Attack? Do you “feel” attacks are taking place? How would you know if an “attack” was successful – or not? What is one of these “attacks” supposed to achieve?
Feel free to “attack” me, if you like. You won’t mind if I laugh loudly at your impotent attempts, will you?
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. Is that what the GHE is supposed to do?
You sound more donkey than monkey to me. Monkeys sometimes look intelligent.
Mike Flynn,
Still Just Asking Questions? Questions with mind probes? With a little incredulity? No, with a lot of incredulity? By you, the silliest sock puppet in the history of Climateball?
Nay not worry, only you should care about what you are braying. But are you, really?
Long live and prosper.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Just Asking Questions? Is this what you have referred to in the past as JAQing off?
A bit juvenile, don’t you think? You certainly seem obsessed with masturbatory and homosexual allusions, for some bizarre reasons. Nearly as bizarre as you continuously insisting on calling me Mike Flynn – as though it somehow supports your insistence that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”.
As to your fixation with something called Climateball (apparently some imaginary game played only by yourself or with yourself), once again, this has no stated purpose. Just another symptom of possible mental instability.
So keep on believing that you are being subjected to “mind probes”. An astute alien prober would quickly move his probe to more well endowed subjects after rapidly exhausting the limited probable capacity of your puny mind.
Carry on , Willard. By exerting yourself to the maximum, and with a lot of help from other fanatical GHE cultists, you could lift yourself from the ranks of the merely idiotic, to becoming a complete idiot.
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb once again:
Yes, you are JAQing off.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Just Asking Questions? Is this what you have referred to in the past as JAQing off?
A bit juvenile, dont you think? You certainly seem obsessed with masturbatory and homosexual allusions, for some bizarre reasons. Nearly as bizarre as you continuously insisting on calling me Mike Flynn as though it somehow supports your insistence that the GHE is not cooling, slower cooling.
As to your fixation with something called Climateball (apparently some imaginary game played only by yourself or with yourself), once again, this has no stated purpose. Just another symptom of possible mental instability.
So keep on believing that you are being subjected to “mind probes”. An astute alien prober would quickly move his probe to more well endowed subjects after rapidly exhausting the limited probable capacity of your puny mind.
Carry on , Willard. By exerting yourself to the maximum, and with a lot of help from other fanatical GHE cultists, you could lift yourself from the ranks of the merely idiotic, to becoming a complete idiot.
Swenson, or Mikey, or generic sock.
This is what is called in Climateball as an own goal.
Go on, keep scoring for the opposition.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Just Asking Questions? Is this what you have referred to in the past as JAQing off?
A bit juvenile, dont you think? You certainly seem obsessed with masturbatory and homosexual allusions, for some bizarre reasons. Nearly as bizarre as you continuously insisting on calling me Mike Flynn as though it somehow supports your insistence that the GHE is not cooling, slower cooling.
As to your fixation with something called Climateball (apparently some imaginary game played only by yourself or with yourself), once again, this has no stated purpose. Just another symptom of possible mental instability.
So keep on believing that you are being subjected to “mind probes”. An astute alien prober would quickly move his probe to more well endowed subjects after rapidly exhausting the limited probable capacity of your puny mind.
Carry on , Willard. By exerting yourself to the maximum, and with a lot of help from other fanatical GHE cultists, you could lift yourself from the ranks of the merely idiotic, to becoming a complete idiot.
Bumbling bobby is nearly there.
Mike Flynn,
Why are you poisoning the well of a fellow crank?
Silly sock puppet!
Swenson scores another own goal.
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner always ends up PSTering.
Craig t from May 4, 2024 at 7:14 PM…with a reply to Ark.
Pierrehumber reveals his ignorance of quantum physics…
Coupled vibrational and rotational states are the key players in IR absor*tion. An IR photon absorbed by a molecule knocks the molecule into a higher-energy quantum state. [T]he energy of the photon will almost always be assimilated by collisions into the general energy pool of the matter and establish a new MaxwellBoltzmann distribution at a slightly higher temperature. That is how radiation heats matter in the local thermodynamic equilibrium limit.
***
Quantum theory is based on the relationship of an electron in an atom with the nucleus. There is no reference in it to molecules or Maxwell-Boltzmann. Nothing Pierrehumbert mentions explains how ‘radiation heats matter’, as he puts it.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. It’s the name given to that particular KE. That is, the energy part of KE, the E, is heat. Call it thermal energy if you like, I call it heat.
When an electron is in a higher orbit, it has a higher KE. That KE translates to heat over all the atoms in a mass. When the electron drops to a lower orbit, it has to shed KE and it does so…somehow…by emitting EM(IR).
For Ark…once that heat is transformed to IR, it is gone…kaput!!! You cannot take heat produced later by GHGs absorbing surface IR, and equate that heat to the surface heat which has already been lost. There is nothing you can do to affect the rate of that heat loss by CO2 producing heat.
Furthermore, the entire surface is radiating and only 7% of that radiation is absorbed by CO2. Even if you could transfer that heat back to the surface, 7% won’t make up for the 93% lost to space.
Here’s the neat part re electrons in orbitals. An electron carries a charge hence an electric field. That electric field produces a magnetic field when it moves. Get it? E (electric field) and M (magnetic field) = electromagnetic energy. If the electron is orbiting at so many cycle per second (more likely bazzillions of cps), the generated E and M field has a corresponding frequency related to the angular orbital frequency of the electron.
I don’t particularly care for that theory even though it is the basis of electrical engineering theory because it is not explained how the electron got the momentum to remain in orbit. Nor does it explain why electrons are arranged neatly with so many electron allotted to particular orbitals.
Bohr did not think an electron moving in an orbit generated a magnetic field. I think he was full of it. Electron theory in the day was hardly known and since, no one has been able to locate and/or measure electron activity in an atom, so how the heck would they know? Bohr surely noted that an electron moving to a lower orbit generates both E and M so why would it not do it in an orbit. Probably too tiny to measure anyway.
So, there you have it, Pierrehumbert’s understanding of quantum theory is null and void. I have always regarded him as a bluff artist, he talks a good show for the good alarmist groupies.
“Quantum theory is based on the relationship of an electron in an atom with the nucleus. There is no reference in it to molecules or Maxwell-Boltzmann.”
You need to expand your knowledge of quantum theory. The vibrations within molecular bonds are as quantum as electron energy levels. Here’s an example:
Classical and quantum mechanical plane switching in CO2
In this article, we show that quantum plane switching exists in CO2: Based on our analytical solutions of the classical Hamilton’s equations of motion, we describe the dependence on vibrational angular momentum and energy of the frequency of switches and the plane switching angle.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0601008
craig t…”The vibrations within molecular bonds are as quantum as electron energy levels. Heres an example:”
***
There is no quantum theory for vibration. The entire theory is about electrons orbiting a nucleus of protons and neutrons in various orbitals. Quantum applies to the discrete orbital levels to which Bohr confined the electrons to orbit.
The outermost orbitals, called valence orbitals, or bands, have electron that can be shared with another atom. In the case of carbon and oxygen, each atoms shares electrons with the other and the linear bonds formed, that hold the atoms together to form a molecule, are shared electrons.
Any vibration is due to those electron bonds vibrating, either length-wise, or about the axis through the oxygen atoms and carbon.
The authors of your quote are speaking jargon. I am supplying you with the straight English-based quantum theory.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“The vibrations within molecular bonds are as quantum as electron energy levels.”
Completely meaningless and irrelevant to the GHE, but you wouldn’t realise that, would you?
That’s why nobody can describe the GHE – as soon as they try, they realise they can’t even make sense to themselves!
Keep flogging a dead horse, trying to convince others that you have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
“The vibrations [. . .] are as quantum as [. . . ]”.? If you are going to spout meaningless gibberish, at least understand what the words mean. You just keep lurching from crisis to catastrophe.
By the way, you didn’t realise that there is no experimental support for the authors’ speculations, did you? Typical for fanatical GHE cultists trying to appear intelligent.
Keep at it, and you might be able to say something, and find an authority to back you up. You aren’t doing particularly well so far, are you?
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for admitting that Mr. Asshat has no business in trying to lecture us on quantum theory.
For once you are useful, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Actually Swenson,
“Completely meaningless and irrelevant to the GHE, but you wouldnt realise that, would you?”
That’s actually the mechanism by which the Greenhouse effect works.
A CO2 molecule absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy of a certain energy/frequency/wavelength and starts vibrating.
Then it can transfer that energy elsewhere by emitting another quantum of electromagnetic energy or colliding with another molecule or atom.
The other part is that the CO2 molecule can start vibrating after a collision with another molecule, and then emit electromagnetic energy.
But that’s all hogwash because molecules don’t collide in your universe.
I can’t help you with your ignorance.
“Nothing Pierrehumbert mentions explains how radiation heats matter, as he puts it.”
Pierrehumbert was clear on how photon absor*tion becomes kinetic energy.
“An IR photon absorbed by a molecule knocks the molecule into a higher-energy quantum state. Those states have very long lifetimes, characterized by the spectroscopically measurable Einstein A coefficient. For example, for the CO2 transitions that are most significant in the thermal IR, the lifetimes tend to range from a few milli-seconds to a few tenths of a second. … Therefore, the energy of the photon will almost always be assimilated by collisions into the general energy pool of the matter and establish a new
MaxwellBoltzmann distribution at a slightly higher temperature.”
Craig T,
You quoted –
“An IR photon absorbed by a molecule knocks the molecule into a higher-energy quantum state.”
Ooooooh! That sounds sciency, doesn’t it?
Unfortunately, complete nonsense. Written by the ignorant and gullible for the even more ignorant and gullible. Feel free to demonstrate Im wrong. Make sure you include a valid description of “a higher energy quantum” in your demonstration.
Between you and Raymond Pierrehumbert, who knows less about physics? Or more, if you prefer I phrase it that way.
Neither of you can describe the GHE, which makes Pierrehumbert’s claim to explain something that can’t be described the work of a fool or a fraud.
“Feel free to demonstrate Im wrong. Make sure you include a valid description of a higher energy quantum in your demonstration.”
A higher energy quantum has more energy than it does at its resting state.
“The CO2 molecules have 3 modes of oscillations: symmetric stretching, symmetric bending and asymmetric stretching. The double degenerate bending mode is a ro-vibrational mode which posses rotational moment. Subsequently, the vibrationally excited state is described by 4 quantum numbers. The total number of different vibrational states of CO2 with energies below the dissociation limit Ediss = 5.5 eV is estimated to be ≈10^5.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6455/ab9d01
craig…all quantum states apply to electrons, not molecules. The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule where 2 O-atoms are joined to a C-atom by electron bonds. All the motion you describe are in the bonds and those are electrons.
No electrons, no bonds, no molecule.
craig…and I explained why Pierrehumbert is wrong. IR is not absorbed by molecules but by electrons in atoms. A molecule has no mechanism to absorb IR other than via the electrons in the atom making up the molecule.
Pierrehumbert’s explanation is aimed at kindergarten kids, the same as with the GHE and AGW theories.
In case you missed it, IR is electromagnetic energy, with an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. The only particle in an atom/molecule capable of interacting with EM is the electron.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“A higher energy quantum has more energy than it does at its resting state.”
You nitwit, there is no such thing as a “higher energy quantum”. This is what you get when you try to be smart by making stuff up. Maybe you really meant to say something else, but didn’t know what you were trying to say.
Linking to a an irrelevant paper, which you don’t understand, is not the cleverest thing you could do, is it? “Conversion of CO2 into CO in microwave gas discharges is extensively studied at present due to its potential significance for production of synthetic fuels and electrification of chemical industry . . . ” is not particularly relevant to anything at all you pretend to understand, is it?
Before you leap to a defence of the author’s speculation and assumptions, you might notice that the author points out in footnote (2) “The author has to admit that although all examples found in the literature fulfill this condition he could not find a formal proof of that property.”
At least the author appears to know what he is talking about, and is proposing a possibly more efficient approach to a seemingly difficult problem.
So no, you haven’t demonstrated that I’m wrong about anything. Colour me unsurprised.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
Who cares what you said.
Here are notes on quantum numbers for diatomic molecules:
http://vallance.chem.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/QuantumNumbersForDiatomics.pdf
Perhaps you could make yourself useful and tell us what Mr. Asshat is braying about?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Silly Willy,
You wrote –
“Here are notes on quantum numbers for diatomic molecules:”
You persist in posting links to things you don’t understand at all. Good for you!
You describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” which demonstrates your depth of scientific knowledge. Cooling is heating, is it? That’s novel!
Are you a complete idiot, or just trying hard to get to that level?
[laughing at fanatical GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn,
You persist in trying to cover for Mr. Asshat.
Do you think you will succeed on deflecting with your usual sammich request?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Gordon, you are wrong about quantum states. IR photons don’t have the energy to move an electron to a higher orbital. How could spectrography detect molecules if photons could only be absorbed by atoms? Look up quantum harmonic oscillator.
“The quantum harmonic oscillator has implications far beyond the simple diatomic molecule. It is the foundation for the understanding of complex modes of vibration in larger molecules, the motion of atoms in a solid lattice, the theory of heat capacity, etc.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hosc.html
Gordon,
I’ll fix this for you, since you have no clue about Quantum Mechanics.
You said
“In case you missed it, IR is electromagnetic energy, with an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. The only particle in an atom/molecule capable of interacting with EM is the electron.”
This would be wrong, and the following more correct.
“In case you missed it, IR is electromagnetic energy, with an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. The only particles in an atom/molecule capable of interacting with EM are the electrons.
Swenson,
Nice try but:
“Ooooooh! That sounds sciency, doesnt it?
Isn’t a very good rebuttal of a true statement.
You really don’t have a clue?
Geeze Gordon, you don’t fook around
You want to straight away start in the World Cup final?
With a couple of Physics degrees from Oxford, and a PhD from MIT, I think his version of Quantum Mechanics is closer to reality than yours, Gordon.
This message brought to you by the Global Climate Cult Society.
“If the electron is orbiting at so many cycle per second…”
Gordon, please don’t describe electrons as little planets orbiting a nucleus then pretend to know anything about quantum theory.
bobdroege, Kreg, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner lost his PSTering privilege.
Here’s some real T data from a century ago, with no GW going on.
Then, same data shown with a linear warming trend added.
https://tinyurl.com/672yabud
Has similar step features and pauses as today’s data.
Nate,
I guess you imagine you are communicating something of value.
Don’t be coy or shy – let the world know what it is! The world awaits with bated breath.
Mike Flynn,
You admit –
> I guess
Just speculation and guesswork, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“You admit ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
It’s unlikely Willard was born before the 1st or even 2nd decade of the 21st century. He’s likely a child whose parents let him on the internet.
Walter R. Hogle might recognize:
> Don’t be coy or shy – let the world know what it is! The world awaits with bated breath.
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Perhaps he, like Mike Flynn, believes that the world breathes?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb again.
Do continue, that’s what you do best.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
> You wrote.
Yes, I did.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wrong place, intended it to go in this thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1664926
Oh well.
Nate,
Oooooooh! A link!
What does it say?
Nate, please stop trolling.
Your mother said she is very disappointed in you.
“Your mother said she is very disappointed in you.”
And you are an idiot, if that’s the best you can come up with.
Please stop trolling.
“And you are an idiot, if thats the best you can come up with.”
Well considering that your post, as so often, had nothing substantive to say, other than a childish taunt, I think my response was quite appropriate.
And then, shockingly, we get another from you with no substance and a childish insult.
Your mother said if you nothing constructive to say, don’t post!
Oh and also she wants you out of her basement..
Here’s Antonin Qwerty’s woke excuse for being unable to control his emotions, so he blames it on someone else –
“Flynn believes that if A states that B issued insults in his direction, that A is claiming he felt insulted.
Typical sly language switcharoo by him.”
He’s responding to me, but presumably is endeavouring (and failing) to be insulting, by referring to me as someone else. What an inept peanut!
But to cut to the chase, if AQ or any other precious petal take it upon themselves to feel insulted, offended, slighted or annoyed – good for them! For all I care, the poor darlings can gnash their teeth, flagellate themselves with barbed wire flails, turn blue in the face, or run blubbering to their mummies (or Dr Spencer). My care factor is zero.
I generally decline to feel insulted, offended, etc. What good would it do me? Why should I care what weak minded idiots think? I leave such nonsense to the easily bruised egos which belong to the current crop of limp-wristed handwavers, who love to claim they “feel” that they are “offended”, or “insulted” – as though anybody else really gives a toss about their “feelings”.
My jocular advice would be stop being a girly-man, take a teaspoon of cement, and harden up. Nature doesnt give a fig for your “feelings”, and neither do I.
… as Flynnster plays the girly-man by whining for a page …
Heres Antonin Qwertys woke excuse for being unable to control his emotions, so he blames it on someone else
“Flynn believes that if A states that B issued insults in his direction, that A is claiming he felt insulted.
Typical sly language switcharoo by him.”
Hes responding to me, but presumably is endeavouring (and failing) to be insulting, by referring to me as someone else. What an inept peanut!
But to cut to the chase, if AQ or any other precious petal take it upon themselves to feel insulted, offended, slighted or annoyed good for them! For all I care, the poor darlings can gnash their teeth, flagellate themselves with barbed wire flails, turn blue in the face, or run blubbering to their mummies (or Dr Spencer). My care factor is zero.
I generally decline to feel insulted, offended, etc. What good would it do me? Why should I care what weak minded idiots think? I leave such nonsense to the easily bruised egos which belong to the current crop of limp-wristed handwavers, who love to claim they “feel” that they are “offended”, or “insulted” as though anybody else really gives a toss about their “feelings”.
My jocular advice would be stop being a girly-man, take a teaspoon of cement, and harden up. Nature doesn’t give a fig for your “feelings”, and neither do I.
AQ’s bizarre response –
” as Flynnster plays the girly-man by whining for a page “. Oooooooh, how masterful! How cutting! How completely pointless.
ant…to Christos…”And the synodic period is NOT the orbital around Earth period (to repeat your clumsy language).”
***
Both the synodic and the sidereal periods must be orbitals around the Earth. It’s not on to comment on Christos’ command of English, unless of course you are an ijit, which you are. Christos does really well and he is trying to write in a difficult language (English) which differs greatly from his native language of Greek.
The difference in the two orbital periods is the extra distance the Earth rotates due to its orbital motion. As it completes one orbit wrt the Sun, the Earth has moved a certain distance farther in its orbit and to align with the Sun again, it needs to move a little farther than it would if the stars are used as a reference point.
There, even i English it’s confusing.
Yes Gordon, thanks for explaining something everyone here already understood.
But thanks for supporting what I said … that the synodic period is NOT the “orbital around Earth period”. Perhaps tell it to someone who doesn’t understand, like Christos.
Thank you, Antonin, for your comment.
Of course, Moon’s orbital around Earth period is not Moon’s the synodic around Earth period.
For planet or moon to have a synodic orbital period the necessary condition is the planet or moon having an axial rotation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Of course, Moons orbital around Earth period is not Moons the synodic around Earth period.
For planet or moon to have a synodic period the necessary condition is the planet or moon having an axial rotation.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Scientists observe a single quantum vibration under ordinary conditions
https://news.mit.edu/2019/single-quantum-vibration-normal-1007
Vintage 2019.
Willards description of the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Not surprising that he thinks that a SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE is about some people who “found, with statistical significance, that they were able to create and detect a single quantum of vibration.”
Ah, the vagaries of the fanatical GHE cultist’s mental stability.
Mike Flynn puts his own description of the greenhouse effect into my mouth –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Silly sock puppet!
Willard’s description of the GHE not cooling, slower cooling.
Not surprising that he thinks that a SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE is about some people who “found, with statistical significance, that they were able to create and detect a single quantum of vibration.”
Ah, the vagaries of the fanatical GHE cultists mental stability.
He’ll probably claim Mike Flynn has described the GHE, which is quite ridiculous as Mike Flynn has stated on many occasions that there is no GHE. Just another instance of the troll trying to get others to waste their time clicking on irrelevant links.
What a nutter!
Mike Flynn plays dumb over the “SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE” title.
He might be a silly sock puppet, but he’s our silly sock puppet!
Whacky Wee Willy,
Trying to appear clever by providing more irrelevant and pointless links?
Your cleverness is demonstrated by your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Hardly a demonstration of outstanding intellectual achievement, is it?
Here, demonstrate your awesome brainpower and tell me Im Mike Flynn! That will impress people, I’m sure!
Dimwit.
Willards description of the GHE not cooling, slower cooling.
Not surprising that he thinks that a SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE is about some people who “found, with statistical significance, that they were able to create and detect a single quantum of vibration.”
Ah, the vagaries of the fanatical GHE cultists mental stability.
Hell probably claim Mike Flynn has described the GHE, which is quite ridiculous as Mike Flynn has stated on many occasions that there is no GHE. Just another instance of the troll trying to get others to waste their time clicking on irrelevant links.
What a nutter!
Looks like Mike Flynn forgot that he already responded with his usual braying.
A double whammy of irrelevancies for our silly sock puppet!
Too bad nobody reads them.
Aw diddums!
— Swenson says:
May 6, 2024 at 12:44 AM
Willards description of the GHE not cooling, slower cooling.–
It’s widely thought that the entire ocean [average temperature of about 3.5 C] as being colling for more than 5000 years. But recently it’s been warming.
So cooled quite a bit during “Little Ice Age”, and has been measured to warming in 20th and 21 Century.
And it seems to me, if say lower solar activity, does more than just effect global weather [or causes global cooling] the measured ocean temperature would have get colder.
And roughly I don’t think there is enough time, for this to happen.
Global warming and/or global cooling is a very slow process.
It is likely that UVB radiation in the troposphere, which can be absorbed by water vapor over the equator, is increasing. The decrease in ozone production may result in a decrease in temperature in the stratosphere and an increase in the upper troposphere, due to the increase in UV radiation.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.png
Earth magnetic field is getting weaker too. That means higher energy particles like UVB penetrate deeper into the atmosphere.
Ken
That turns out not to be the case.
Earth’s magnetic field reflects charged particles such as protons in the solar wind.
Electromagnetic radiation such as UVB is not affected by magnetic fields.
EM,
At least you are not as ignorant as Ken. That’s something. Not much, but something.
This blog is a microcosm ofwhat people call the factvalue problem.
Science concerns itself with facts, and with theories that turn facts into examples. Values are another kind of system, a human construct. Beginning from the same facts, we can arrive at different values.
You can see this in the comments. People like Craig T, Nate and myself argue from facts and theories.
Swenson, Clint R and Gordon Robertson reject the facts because they contradict their value systems. On a larger scale Republicans reject the facts of climate change because solving the problem requires them to move away from their values of free enterprise capitalism, individual freedom and social Darwinism.
What has politics to do with climate?
Troglodytes made AGW part of their political identity.
Five years ago I couldn’t imagine politics having anything to do with vaccines.
Climate is scientific facts and theories.
Climate change is modification of climate by human actions.
Politics is debating policy; deciding what, if anything , to do about it. For most people that decision is more about values than science.
I don’t really understand why people keep suggesting that our Moon must be rotating around an external axis through the Earth.
The observations clearly show that the change of orientation of the Moon, its ROTATION, is in one plane. And the motion of the Moon’s COM around the Earth, its ORBIT, is in a DIFFERENT plane.
And these planes are separated by 6.7 degrees of tilt!
Thus, it is impossible for the Moon’s ROTATION to be around an external axis through the Earth, because that would require its COM to move in the same plane as its rotation.
Thus, the Moon’s rotation can only be around an axis through the Moon’s COM.
And the motion of the Moon’s COM in its orbit, is in a different plane, and is an ellipse with one focus in the Earth.
This matches the spinner model.
QED
I bet Nate responded in the wrong place. I don’t read his comments, so I can’t be sure, but I suspect that he did.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Not in the least.
Ent, you’re such a phony you can’t even pontificate successfully.
How many passenger jets will fly backward yesterday? Last month? Last year? Ever?
How is the motion of a passenger jet remotely analogous to orbital motion? Orbital motion requires gravity to be the only force acting on the path of the object.
Who said a passenger jet was analogous to orbital motion, Craig?
You keep making up nonsense, having no clue about science, or the issues being discussed here.
You are very confused. In your confusion you’re desperately throwing crap against the wall, not understanding any of it. So much crap we don’t have time to address it all.
Let’s slow down and see if you even know how walking around a tree works.
If you walk around a tree, counterclockwise, does your left shoulder always face the inside of your path?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know. I’m a brain-dead cult id10t.
Your answer, please….
“If you walk around a tree, counterclockwise” do I turn always so that my left shoulder points inwards.
Sorry RLH, but knowing how to walk is part of the test.
If I walk around a tree anticlockwise holding a compass the needle is a stationary reference while the case and my body make a full anticlockwise rotation.
…about an axis in the tree, not on your own internal axis.
Ent answers “c”.
Why should I use the tree as my reference but not my compass? The compass gives me a much clearer indication of the direction in which my body is pointing.
Walking around the tree my body might start out facing North, then West, then South, then East and then back to North again.
For me making a 360 degree rotation relative to the Earth’s magnetic field, or even making a 360 degree rotation around the tree, is much more intuitive than walking in a 360 degree circle around the tree without rotating.
Does no rotation around a tree about once every 10 seconds or so, equal the Moon’s one rotation about its axis every month or so?
They are both rotating at a zero rate, right?
So their rotation rates are equivalent?
No effing way Clown Car Denizens.
"Why should I use the tree as my reference but not my compass?"
I didn’t say to use the tree as your reference. I said you’re rotating about an axis in the tree, not on your own internal axis.
Planets and moons don’t walk or fly like a plane. Do try to come up with better analogies.
“You keep making up nonsense, having no clue about science, or the issues being discussed here.”
I truly don’t understand why you keep bringing up passenger jets.
So you agree with me that the turning is part of the walking?
DREMT
Rotation is measured relative to a coordinate system. Why are you insisting that the extrinsic rotation relative to the tree is valid, but not the extrinsic rotation relative to the magnetic field or the intrinsic rotation relative to my inner ear?
What criteria are you using to judge which of the three coordinate systems should apply? And why should we necessarily accept your choice as the only correct one?
As Kipling once wrote
“There are nine and twenty ways to say the tribal lays; and every single one of them is right!”
This is what I was discussing earlier.
Matematically the rotation can be validly described using several different coordinate systems. But you have made a value judgement that the only valid coordinate systems are those which match your non-spinner beliefs.
Perfect! Another demonstration that it’s all about cult beliefs, NOT science.
Here again is the simple question:
If you walk around a tree, counterclockwise, does your left shoulder always face the inside of your path?
Notice the question does not mention “rotation”, “orbiting”, “passenger jets”, “compass needles”, or “Kipling”. All those are cult efforts to distract and pervert reality.
It’s a very simple question involving reality. The cult runs from it….
Oh, Entropic Man. You simply don’t listen, do you?
Have a reference frame where the origin goes through the tree, and the coordinate system axes are aligned with compass directions. Wrt that reference frame, you change orientation through 360 degrees as you circle the tree. All 360 degrees of that change in orientation are accounted for by the rotation about an external axis (located in the tree), leaving no change in orientation to be attributed to rotation about your own internal axis.
That’s all I’m saying.
Clint R is right though…this is all a bit of a distraction from a simple question, with a simple answer…
So Clint R agrees with me that the turning on your axis is part of the walking?
Sorry RLH, but you’re WRONG again.
Responsible adults would understand.
(Please don’t play in the street, or run with scissors.)
Puffman distracts and deflects because he can’t do the Pole Dance Experiment.
The performance from our Moon Dragon cranks is a bit sad, quite frankly.
DREMT
We’ve been letting our vocabulary get sloppy. External rotation should be called revolution. The person is revolving around the tree, not rotating around it. This can be in any orientation, keeping one shoulder towards the tree, or on Craig T’s frictionless platform or any combination.
Rotation is a separate motion relative to an internal axis.
Consider the Hubble telescope. It’s flight control system combines two modes.
One is the thrusters and gyros which rotate the spacecraft around its own roll, pitch and yaw axes relative to the inertial reference frame. These produce internal rotation.
The other is the Positioning system which aligns the spacecraft with the external coordinate system of Right Ascension and declination.
Any astronomical body such as the Moon will similarly have two types of circular motion, revolution around an external axis and rotation around an internal axis. The measured rates of revolution and rotation depend on what frame of reference you use to measure them.
For the Moon you can choose any one of three. As Cristos pointed out, you can measure revolution and/or rotation relative to the stars, the Sun or the Earth and get three different answers.
Which you choose depends on the use to which you want to put the information, or on your values, your belief system.
Entropic Man obviously cannot refute my last comment, so tries to make it all about semantics.
If you accept that the moon is rotating about an external axis (you can call this “revolving” if you wish) then you accept that the moon is not rotating about its own internal axis. It cannot possibly be doing both. All 360 degrees of the change in orientation of the moon wrt an inertial reference frame would be attributable to the rotation about an external axis, you see, leaving nothing for rotation about an internal axis.
That’s not to say that an object cannot rotate about an external axis and an internal axis simultaneously. It can, it’s just it will not result in movement like our moon.
The only possible way for movement like our moon to be comprised of two motions is if the “orbit without spin” motion is “curvilinear translation in a loop”. Then there could be “spin” added to that to get to movement like our moon.
> It cannot possibly be doing both.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
“Step 1 Pure Denial”
Willard, you’re an idiot.
Please stop trolling.
“Mike Flynn,
You obviously can deny having been served”
Willard has reverted to dribbling idiocy.
No wonder he blames his behavior on being subjected to a mind probe!
Mike Flynn keeps being a silly sock puppet:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Clint, you and DREMT keep bringing up passenger jets. Why?
You, and your cult, keep avoiding the simple question, Craig. Why?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665563
If I walk around a tree and turn while I walk my left shoulder would always be closest to the tree. If I don’t turn my body but step so I go around the tree all sides of me will face the tree at some point
Now set me on frictionless bearings and wheel me around the tree. No torque would turn me while going around the tree. The part of me closest to the tree would change while I went around the tree.
Sorry Craig, but the answer is either “yes” or “no”. There’s no need for directionless rambling. This is not an essay question.
Your inability to address that simple reality means you default to answer “c”.
You’re not alone….
Craig,
When Puffman responds to EM, he mentions passenger jets.
When Puffman responds to Tim, he mentions ice cubes.
When Puffman responds to Norman, he mentions cults.
Puffman has a very limited repertoire.
His main function is to irritate enough people to create a small moshpit in which Graham D. Warner can try to surf.
Which he does as well as he interprets Nirvana.
Silly willy is throwing another tantrum.
He just can’t stand reality.
“If you walk around a tree, counterclockwise, does your left shoulder always face the inside of your path?”
“There’s no need for directionless rambling.”
But direction is the important issue here. If you walk foreword but never turn you never go around the tree. If you travel around the tree but never turn you stay facing the same direction.
In space gyroscopes are useful tools to determine inertial direction. Gyroscopes, like spinning planets and moons, do not change orientation while following an orbital path.
In theory it’s possible for a non-spinning object to keep the same orientation while in orbit, but any slight nudge would start it spinning in some direction. That’s why Newton knew that the Moon had to be spinning on its axis while orbiting the Earth.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665428
Wrong again, Craig.
But I’m glad to see you accept being a brain-dead cult id10t. Some of your cult seems to resent their status. You don’t appear to have the same animus as silly willy, Norman, bob, and Bindi.
Actually accepting that you’re brain-dead is, at least, accepting some reality, huh?
ClintR
Any experienced debater will tell you that you should not resort to insult. It is a tell which signals that you have run out of rational arguments and have let the debate.
Craig T,
Amongst other things, you wrote –
“Gyroscopes, like spinning planets and moons, do not change orientation while following an orbital path.”
Orientation with respect to what? The Webb telescope orbits the Sun, but remains aligned with its current target. However, its orientation with respect to the Earth is constantly changing, unlike its orientation with respect to the fixed stars.
On the other hand, the Moon retains its orientation with respect to the Earth, in free fall towards the Earth, with its near face closest to the Earth’s centre of gravity, as it should be.
Do you have some point to make?
Ent, if you consider reality to be an insult, that’s your problem.
Button it up, son. You’ve got NOTHING.
EM,
You wrote –
“Any experienced debater will tell you that you should not resort to insult.”
Who cares what a debater thinks? You? How silly. If you choose to feel insulted by anything a5 all, that is your right.
I could choose to feel insulted by your description of the GHE as a “stack of blankets”, but I don’t. I find your statement humorous, rather than insulting.
Feel free to complain that you are feeling insulted, or offended, or something of that nature. You could join the strange Willard, and complain that you are being subjected to “mind probes”, if you think that will engender sympathy for your precarious state of self esteem.
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you? That particular subject doesn’t seem to be open to debate. How do you “feel” about that?
Let’s get more specific. Start 1 km away from the tree with your left arm closest. Walk around the tree in 90 minutes, keeping your left arm toward the tree. How many degrees did you turn toward the tree each minute.
The answer is 4 degrees, just like the ISS orbiting the Earth.
craig t…”But direction is the important issue here. If you walk foreword but never turn you never go around the tree. If you travel around the tree but never turn you stay facing the same direction”.
***
Draw a circle of 10 feet radius about the tree and walk around the tree using the line. If you follow the line, at no time are you rotating about a local axis. Your motion is the same as if the circle of circumference 2pi.r = 62.8 feet was stretched into a straight line. It’s true that you have to change direction to follow the circle but you are not rotating about a local axis
To demonstrate this, replace the tree with a pole that has a bearing on it that is free to turn independent of the pole. The bearing has a hook on it to which a rope can be attached. The other end of the rope is attached to a shoulder harness you are wearing. The rope attaches to a hook on the harness at your left side.
If you now follow the line of 10 foot radius CCW with the rope stretched taut you can freely follow the circle. However, the shoulder harness prevents you turning on a local axis. If you try to rotate, you must wrap yourself around the rope, meaning you cannot maintain the 10 foot radius. The same principle applies to the ball on a string.
I assume the rope represents gravity. If so, why strap it to my arm? Why not hook it to a bearing strapped to the top of my head? Gravity pulls on an object the same no matter its orientation.
Then I could turn as many degrees as I want while circling the tree or maintain my original orientation.
The point is the shoulder harness prevents you from being able to spin, meaning the resulting motion must be “orbit without spin”. If you went with your suggestion, Kreg, then – if you maintained the same orientation whilst circling – you would be orbiting whilst spinning, in opposite directions. You know that must be the case because “orbit without spin” was motion in which the same side of your body faces the centre of the circle throughout. Now that you are free to spin, if you are not following that “orbit without spin” motion, you must be spinning whilst orbiting.
Yes Craig, the ISS is orbiting. Very good. Irrelevant, however.
But, “irrelevant” is a sub-category of “wrong”, so you must enjoy being wrong as much as I enjoy being right.
As Swenson would say, carry on.
Clint, the ISS incredibly relevant. Just like the Moon it rotates 360 degrees per orbit.
DREMT, is the gravity pulling on the Moon different than the gravity pulling on the Earth? Why does the “rope” keep the Moon from rotating while the Earth spins?
Gordon, here is what Newton said in book 3 of the Principia:
“But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb; but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moons latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.”
Your rope attached to shoulder would never allow for the lunar libration in longitude. That only happens because the Moon rotates at a steady rate while traveling in an elipse.
“DREMT, is the gravity pulling on the Moon different than the gravity pulling on the Earth? Why does the “rope” keep the Moon from rotating while the Earth spins?”
Kreg, why do you work so hard to avoid understanding? I never said anything about gravity preventing anything from spinning.
“The point is the shoulder harness prevents you from being able to spin…”
If the harness prevents you from spinning, it’s not acting like gravity. More so the shoulder harness forces you to turn 360 degrees while traveling a circular path. The Moon isn’t forced to rotate but (like the ISS) it keeps the same side facing Earth because it rotates once per orbit.
Craig is becoming my favorite brain-dead cult id10t.
He’s clearly clueless but enjoys it, so he’s not belligerent like Norman, silly willy, bob, and some of the others.
It’s a nice change….
“Craig is becoming my favorite brain-dead cult id10t.”
Don’t tell Swenson. He’ll be crushed.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“Dont tell Swenson. Hell be crushed.”
You obviously can’t find a description of the GHE anywhere at all, but no matter.
Maybe you could explain the role of the undescribable GHE in the four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, in spite of continuous sunlight during that period. Magical CO2 perhaps?
Or like the fanatical GHE cultist Willard, maybe you could claim that alien mind probes have recently erased the GHE description which you had in front of you recently.
Only joking, you are just doing your best to save face. Keep trying. There is no GHE, of course. That’s why you can’t find a description anywhere! All you can do is claim someone else has one, but won’t let you copy it.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You obviously can deny having been served –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
And that includes your very sorry self, silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
“If the harness prevents you from spinning, it’s not acting like gravity.”
As I literally just said, “I never said anything about gravity preventing anything from spinning“. Maybe go back and read what I did say, instead.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665736
A stalker appears.
Tro.ll Handbook:
When your argument is shredded and you have no science answers, blame the messenger!
A harness does not prevent you from spinning if you use it to connect to something that is spinning.
In that case, the harness forces you to spin.
Sigh.
DREMPTY has no response other than to sigh, when the facts are against him.
If the something that the harness is connected to is rotating about some central axis, then you will be rotating about that central, external axis when you move, and not rotating on your own internal axis. You don’t understand rotation though, bob, so there’s no point us going through this again. Hence the sigh.
DREMPTY,
Sigh,
It’s not my understanding of rotation is wrong.
It’s yours.
Here, it’s quite simple, anything that is spinning like a top, that is spinning, is spinning, or rotating on an internal axis.
That applies to the Moon, the chalk circle on the merry go round, the ball on a string when being swung around, the tetherball in most circumstances, etc.
Is the Moon on the right spinning like a top?
No, it is not.
Is the Moon on the left spinning like a top?
Why yes it is.
bob says he understands rotation, then demonstrates that he doesn’t. Oh well, not my problem. Talking to bob is a waste of time.
Graham D. Warner says he understands absolute motion. He even pretends that the notion needs to be tweaked according to his Very Deep nuances. And then he presents an if-by-whiskey that reveals he knows NOTHING about any of this.
More than five years like that.
If you say so, Little Willy.
DREMPTY,
“bob says he understands rotation, then demonstrates that he doesnt. Oh well, not my problem. Talking to bob is a waste of time.”
You would have to demonstrate that you understand rotation around an internal axis, maybe by defining what you mean by rotation around an internal axis.
Yeah, talking to me is a waste of time, as I don’t speak luddite.
OK, bob.
DREMPTY,
So what’s your definition of rotation about an internal axis?
Sure, bob. Good one.
DREMPTY,
So you don’t have a definition of axial rotation?
Try Mahdavi fig, 2b
If you say so, bob.
DREMPTY,
It’ a no brainer to say the Moon can exhibit axial rotation without defining axial rotation.
Sure, sure.
ent…fact is also relative. In other words, fact to a deluded person is fact to him but may be false to others. I regard you as being deluded. Not only that,you are Irish, hence prone to blarney.
Mr. Asshat confuses fact and belief.
What else is new?
“Mr. Asshat confuses fact and belief.”
Willard, who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, also believes he is being subjected to (presumably alien) brain probes!
Someone may value Willard’s opinion – but they are not going to admit it in public, for fear of the laughter which would ensue.
Willard keeps trying to troll – not terribly well, of course.
Mike Flynn,
Facts are facts.
It is a fact that you are Mike Flynn.
It is another fact that you are a sock puppet.
Beliefs are beliefs, and it is my belief that you are being silly.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
“Mr. Asshat confuses fact and belief.”
Willard, who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, also believes he is being subjected to (presumably alien) brain probes!
Someone may value Willards opinion but they are not going to admit it in public, for fear of the laughter which would ensue.
Willard keeps trying to troll not terribly well, of course.
Mike Flynn,
I am not the one who describes the greenhouse effect as slower cooling.
You are –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
“I am not the one who describes the greenhouse effect as slower cooling.”
Of course you are, dummy. You initially claimed the GHE was “cooling”, I pointed out how stupid that sounded, and you responded “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Don’t you remember what you write? Been subjected to a mind probe recently?
That’s the best excuse Ive heard for a long time – you can’t blame Willard, the mind probe scrambled his brain!
Try posting another pointless and irrelevant link. Tell me I’m Mike Flynn. Hold your breath until you turn blue. Oh dear, you are still an idiot. Maybe you could try claiming that you are not an idiot. That might work!
[laughing]
Mike Flynn,
You assert –
> You initially claimed
I was not here in 2015:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
OK, I’m Mike Flynn. What now?
You’re still an idiot. Are you going to claim I’m lying, now?
[laughing at deranged dingleberry]
Mike Flynn,
Why would I say that you are lying when you say that you are Mike Flynn when it is obvious to everyone here that you are Mike Flynn?
Silly sock puppet!
EM,
You wrote –
“Climate is scientific facts and theories.”
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. You are just an ignorant GHE cultist if you believe otherwise.
The Earth has cooled. Accept reality.
Even the IPCC has stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states. I agree. I surmise that more “climate scientists” are likely to agree with me than you.
That would make you a loser, in fanatical GHE parlance.
Do you want to whine about your “feelings”? Go ahead, while I laugh at you.
Our Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
Since Moons sidereal rotation period 27,32 days (in reference to the stars) is the same as its orbital around Earth period, Moon definitely does not rotate on its own axis.
If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
****
Moons sidereal spin (in reference to the stars) is a sum of Moons around Earth orbital, Moon’s around sun orbital and Moons around its axis movements.
Since Moons sidereal spin is equal to the Moons around Earth orbital movement, Moons axial spin is zero Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
****
Planet Mercury rotates about its own axis.
Mercurys sidereal rotational period: 58,646 Earth days.
Mercury orbits sun in 87,97 Earth days.
Mercurys diurnal period is 176 Earth days.
***
Our Moon doesnt rotate about its own axis.
Moons sidereal rotation period is equal to its around Earth orbital period:
27,32 Earth days.
Moons diurnal period is 29,53 Earth days.
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is shorter than Moon’s diurnal period, because Moon also orbits sun.
Moon’s sidereal rotation spin = 1 /27,32 rot/day
Moon’s diurnal rotation spin = 1 /29,53 rot/day
Consequently, Moon spins faster in reference to the stars than it spins in reference to the sun!
Moon’s spin in reference to the stars is faster, than its spin in reference to the sun, because Moon’s spin in reference to the stars is a sum of two movements:
1. The Moon orbiting Earth.
2. The Moon orbiting sun.
–
There is not any movement of Moon around its own axis.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://www.noa.gr/
christos…the spinners are mistaking a 360 degree change in orientation of the Moon’s near face, wrt the stars, for a rotation about a local axis. A horse running around a track keeps the same face pointed to the inside of the track but it i not rotating on a local axis. Both motions are the same, curvilinear motion with no local rotation.
For the horse to rotate on its axis, the rider would have to stop the horse and force it to turn in a circle. For a car running on the track, the driver would have to slam on the brakes while turning the steering wheels to cause a 360 degree spin.
An ice skater can skate around an oval without spinning about a local axis. To perform such a spin, the skater has to leap in the air and rotate 360 degrees about a local axis.
Gordo, the self proclaimed engineer, wrote:
It’s not a mistake, it’s part of the definition of angular momentum, which involves the rate of rotation of a free body in inertial space. To quantify rotation, it must be measured in an inertial reference frame that is, wrt the stars. That motion does not involve translation, i.e., orbiting.
the No Spin Cult posting here either doesn’t get it or their interest is to disrupt any efforts to understand the science which this blog is supposed to represent.
So can the Earth rotate on its axis? In 24 hours the Earth travels 1.6 million miles. That makes the circumference of a track or ice rink look like nothing.
Sorry Swanson, but that’s wrong.
Spin angular momentum refers to spin around Center of Mass. Moon is not spinning, so zero spin angular momentum.
I did the math – the Earth travels 4.4 thousand miles per degree of rotation.
Grammie clone regurgitates the Cult’s mantra:
Grammie clone is blind to reality, as usual. The Moon rotates wrt the Sun and also wrt the stars. Grammie clone continues to assert otherwise, based on his view of the Moon from his yard, with no scientific proof for support. Perhaps he thinks he will impress other cultist who think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Grammie clone is a hopeless case of terminal ignorance.
Here we can see the contrast.
E. Swanson is like a grumpy old man, and Craig T is like an eight year-old kid playing in mud puddles. Both are clearly clueless about the science, but notice the difference in personality.
“Spin” is NOT in relation to anything you want it to be. Spin is ONLY in relation to the orbital path. As Moon always keeps one side facing its direction of travel, it is NOT spinning. Earth is always changing the side facing direction of travel.
Earth is both orbiting and spinning. Moon only orbits.
Neither Swanson nor Craig will understand, but Craig’s response will be funnier.
> Spin is ONLY in relation to the orbital path.
Puffman has NEVER heard of a spinning top.
If only he could do the Pole Dance Experiment.
“Spin is ONLY in relation to the orbital path.”
The Earth and Moon both rotate 360 degrees over 1.6 million miles of their orbital paths.
Here’s a thought experiment for you: Straighten the orbital path of the Moon and Earth and have them both travel 1.6 million miles. Draw the two bodies at the beginning, end and halfway down the path. Are they facing the same direction at the beginning and the middle? Remember that if the Moon orbits the Earth keeping the same face toward it the Moon has to have done a 180 degree rotation on its path.
The Moon has to have done a 180 degree rotation by the halfway point and a 360 by the time it reaches the end.
As predicted, Craig can’t understand. But, he enjoys being brain-dead.
He can’t understand the difference between “turning” and “spinning”. And, being brain-dead, he can’t learn. So this is just for responsible adults.
In “turning” only, opposite sides of the turning object move in the same direction. In “spinning”, opposite sides of the spinning object move in opposite directions.
It’s just that easy, unless you’re a brain-dead cult id10t.
(Watch now as Craig STILL won’t be able to understand. He has as much fun being brain-dead as I do pointing that out!)
Craig T,
I know that you cannot describe the GHE, so you wrote –
“The Moon has to have done a 180 degree rotation by the halfway point and a 360 by the time it reaches the end.”
And yet, the bottom of the Moon continues to point firmly at the Earth’s centre of gravity.
You might just as well say that a flagpole pointing straight up is rotating on its axis, as it points to different parts of the sky as the Earth rotates. Or every particle of everything on Earth, constantly changing their orientation with respect to the fixed stars.
All this spinning around my internal axis (which is apparently changing depending on whether Im standing, sitting, or lying down) is making me dizzy!
What about you?
Or are you too dim to realise that you are actually spinning around an internal axis while your feet are firmly on the ground?
This might explain why you cant provide a description of the GHE.
Mike Flynn,
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, you must be desperate indeed, if you are appealing to the authority of Mike Flynn – who has clearly stated there is no GHE.
I know you will claim that you are really appealing to my authority, which is equally ludicrous. There is no GHE, you peanut.
Go into a store with a ten dollar bill, and claim it is really a twenty.
Claim that you are really Dr Spencer, and you control this blog.
Claim that the description of the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Listen to the laughter of people agreeing with you that you are obviously right about being subjected to an alien mind probe.
Try gnashing your teeth because nobody values your opinions. I’ll bet you can’t gnash louder than I can laugh!
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
You probe again –
> You are desperate
I am desperately hoping the time that you’ll produce *one* intelligent response. One day it’ll come.
Keep trying to delay the inevitable, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, you must be desperate indeed, if you are appealing to the authority of Mike Flynn who has clearly stated there is no GHE.
I know you will claim that you are really appealing to my authority, which is equally ludicrous. There is no GHE, you peanut.
Go into a store with a ten dollar bill, and claim it is really a twenty.
Claim that you are really Dr Spencer, and you control this blog.
Claim that the description of the GHE is not cooling, slower cooling”.
Listen to the laughter of people agreeing with you that you are obviously right about being subjected to an alien mind probe.
Try gnashing your teeth because nobody values your opinions. I’ll bet you cant gnash louder than I can laugh!
[chortle]
Mike Flynn, please stop delaying the moment you’ll produce *one* intelligent response.
Christos – You say that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. You also say that the moon spins. Spinning and rotating are the same thing.
Global climate temperature is about a long duration of measured global temperature. Global climate is about long duration of time, +30 years. Regional climate changes in shorter time periods.
The region I live in, is hottest in the world, ie:
“Death Valley has been famous for being one of the hottest and driest places in North America. In fact, Death Valley holds the record for the world’s highest surface air temperature ever recorded: 134F observed at Greenland Ranch on July 10, 1913.”
I don’t live in Death Valley, but I am close enough, as far as I am concerned. Anyhow it’s climate has been wet and cold recently, though I didn’t get any snow in my town, this year or last. But lot in lower hills around me, whereas higher hills more often snow.
And California’s drought has ended, with dams at highest levels, ie:
“Shasta Lake water level (daily):
1061.60 feet elevation
Full lake is 1067 feet elevation above sea level.
Distance from capacity:
5.40 feet”
{I not sure why they are keeping it, so close to the top}.
https://i.ibb.co/zxKYxyW/ventusky-temperature-2m-20240507t1200-37n115w.jpg
Starship will be bigger than the Great Pyramids, Elon Musk says
The biggest rocket ever built is expected to launch later this month
https://www.independent.co.uk/space/starship-rocket-height-pyramids-spacex-musk-b2540185.html
It seems what we need in ocean rocket launches.
US Space Force should do something about it.
In addition to having a place for large rocket launches, it’s also related to suborbital rocket launches. And suborbital is perhaps could be seen as more a more pressing issue of US Space Force.
Whereas NASA in going to Moon and going to Mars, could be more concerned about having big rockets, and orbital refueling,
Long as NASA “supported” US military space, but US Space Force should be more interested in supporting NASA. NASA having budget issues {of their own making]. Or it’s good time, for Space Force do something in the national interest.
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/95069504/
“February 18, 1925,
Arctic Climate Getting Warmer, Glaciers Melting
The latest, investigations confirm the theory that the arctic climate has changed considerably in recent years.
The chief proof of the change in climate is the remarkable shrinkage of the glaciers which have retreated three to four miles, showing that the mild air has caused corrosion for a considerable time,
Owing to the altered conditions, Spitsbergen, which in former years was isolated by the heavy ice of the ocean from October to May, may become approachable in winter. And for the first time on record a ship has been dispatched there in February.”
https://maloof.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1016/files/documents/78maloof.pdf
Glacier ice mass loss in Spitzbergen since 1930’s
ent…” Earths magnetic field reflects charged particles such as protons in the solar wind.
Electromagnetic radiation such as UVB is not affected by magnetic fields”.
***
The Earth’s magnetic field ‘deflects’ charged particles like electrons and protons. Maybe that’s what you meant to say.
There is no reason why a magnetic field should not affect EM if the magnetic field strength is strong enough. Earth’s magnetic field is far too weak to influence EM like UV. I think the EM fields of the Sun may be strong enough to affect EM, however.
I don’t think this theory has been tested adequately. I wonder if anyone has tried to beam a ray of EM past a strong magnetic or electric field to see it it is deflected slightly.
Gordon Robertson
I hope to educate you in the world of actual science and not the blog version of crackpots.
You want to know why a magnetic field would not affect EM. It is because the EM has both magnetic field generated. One cycle could be pulled toward the magnet, the next cycle away. There would be no net change of direction of a photon.
The theory has been tested very many times in particle accelerators that produce both particles and high energy EMR.
Read this when you have time.
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/other/print-93-0553.pdf
If you look into this the magnets used to move particles are in the range of 1 or 2 Tesla. Light does not bend in these studies at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_(unit)
Here is a listing of different magnetic strength. The include the magnetic field on a solar sunspot. It is much greater than Earth’s but weaker than the magnets used in bubble chambers.
Einstein’s theories are correct. Your crackpot blogs lead you astray. Magnetic fields will not bend light. A curvature of space will. Einstein’s theories have been validated by actual observation. You just reject it in favor of crackpot science (not based upon any observation, experiment or fact, just some crackpot claim…biggest crackpots think Einstein was wrong)
Norman,
I assume that you cannot describe the GHE, either.
That would make your value nil, or somewhat less, in the fanatical GHE cultist population.
However, Einstein’s field equations, and the geodesic forms which can be obtained from them, show that magnetic fields can bend light.
Rotating light using magnets is easy. See the Faraday effect.
Or you could claim that I am lying, as usual.
Off you go, Norman, marshal your army of true believers. Yes, I’m having a laugh at your expense. You just aren’t bright enough to know whether I’m making stuff up or not, are you?
Mike Flynn,
I assume you already got served –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
By your very sorry self.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Willard,
Linking to someone who says quite plainly that there is no GHE definitely supports your belief that you have been subjected to a mind probe (although why anybody would bother is beyond me).
Your description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling” is as stupid as most.
Norman can’t find a description at all – maybe you could sell him yours. He seems gullible enough to fall for it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
I did not link to *someone* saying &c.
I linked to you.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard,
Linking to someone (if you say the author is Mike Flynn, I believe you) who says quite plainly that there is no GHE definitely supports your belief that you have been subjected to a mind probe (although why anybody would bother is beyond me).
Your description of the GHE not cooling, slower cooling is as stupid as most.
Norman cant find a description at all maybe you could sell him yours. He seems gullible enough to fall for it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Rotating light using magnets is easy. See the Faraday effect.”
The Faraday effect reinforces Norman’s point that “one cycle could be pulled toward the magnet, the next cycle away.” Magnetic fields affect the polarization of light but not its direction.
Norman,
I assume that you cannot describe the GHE, either.
That would make your value nil, or somewhat less, in the fanatical GHE cultist population.
However, Einsteins field equations, and the geodesic forms which can be obtained from them, show that magnetic fields can bend light.
Rotating light using magnets is easy. See the Faraday effect.
Or you could claim that I am lying, as usual.
Off you go, Norman, marshal your army of true believers. Yes, Im having a laugh at your expense. You just arent bright enough to know whether Im making stuff up or not, are you?
Craig T is about as bright as you, it seems. Neither of you can describe the GHE, but are convinced you should be believed over Einstein. Good luck with convincing anyone who is not insane.
Mike Flynn,
I assume you already got served –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
By your very sorry self.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
“Craig T is about as bright as you, it seems. Neither of you can describe the GHE, but are convinced you should be believed over Einstein.”
Einstein said curved spacetime can change light’s direction. The Faraday effect has nothing to do with general relativity. It’s Gordon that has a problem with Einstein, not Norman.
Norman,
I assume that you cannot describe the GHE, either.
That would make your value nil, or somewhat less, in the fanatical GHE cultist population.
However, Einsteins field equations, and the geodesic forms which can be obtained from them, show that magnetic fields can bend light.
Rotating light using magnets is easy. See the Faraday effect.
Or you could claim that I am lying, as usual.
Off you go, Norman, marshal your army of true believers. Yes, Im having a laugh at your expense. You just arent bright enough to know whether Im making stuff up or not, are you?
Craig T is about as bright as you, it seems. Neither of you can describe the GHE, but are convinced you should be believed over Einstein. Good luck with convincing anyone who is not insane.
For all of the believers in the moon not rotating provide just one website that agrees with that.
For those that believe in the moon not rotating or spinning. Provide one website that says that the moon does not rotate or spin on its axis
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
More than 100 temperature records fell across Vietnam in April, according to official data, as a deadly heat wave scorches South and Southeast Asia.
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-vietnam-temperature.html
Willard, please stop trolling.
Stating an expected forecast of warmer conditions than the previous using an exact numerical value doesn’t convey a clear picture for the Vietnamese public of what to expect for the remainder of the month.
Walter R. Hogle returns to
Step 2 – Saying Stuff
“Step 2 Saying Stuff.”
This from a dimwit who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, which dictates that AGW is certainly not due to a mythical GHE – which Willard claims makes things colder, not hotter!
He’s right – his belief that someone used a mind probe on him has addled his brain.
He’s a fool.
Unclear forecasting begs the question as to whether the agency’s definition of a heatwave effectively conveys the real situation. The criteria for a heatwave vary among many meteorological agencies around the world.
Your link also suggests a similar situation occurred in 1954.
Swenson,
Heat waves are normal in this region.
From a newspaper dated 1935:
“HEAT WAVE IN INDIA
Record Temperatures
Heavy Toll of Life
CALCUTTA, June 7.
An unprecedented heat wave has
taken heavy toll of life in South India. Numerous fatal cases of sunstroke have been reported, and many persons have perished as a result of village fires, the thatched roofs having ignited.
Thermometers in Hyderabad have registered a record shade temperature of 124 degrees, and temperatures of 118 are common over a wide area. Eleven deaths from the heat occurred in Lucknow yesterday, and there were 200 fatal cases in adjoining villages. Animals and birds are dying in thousands. In Assam, on the contrary, heavy rain has fallen. At Cherrapunji, the
wettest place in the world, 23 inches fell in one day.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/30090056/1827504
Mike Flynn,
You don’t seem to realize that Walter R. Hogle just rediscovered teh Goddard. But then, you don’t even realize that the “slower cooling” line is yours:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Silly sock puppet!
It doesn’t look like your link contains the words “slower cooling”, does it?
You lose again.
Thanks for trying to appeal to my authority. I appreciate your grovelling supplication, but have to disavow any acknowledgement that a GHE exists.
Go on, tell me you’re in love with me! You are definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
> It doesn’t look like
Have you looked, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Willard, you nitwit,
You wrote –
“Have you looked”
What, at something you claim I wrote? Why would I not look at what I wrote?
How would i know what I wrote, if I didn’t look at it?
Are you insane?
The world isnt READY for Starship! #spacex #starship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcG1EVwTWdo
Well, one could backup, and ask what is Starship.
It’s more than 1000 launches a year, with payload of 200 tons.
Musk talks about a million launches to get a city on Mars.
But 1000 launches per year is Starship, and that going to take a while. Before that Starship is going to be NASA’s lunar lander and get pay 3 billion dollars to do that. And that would only require about 50 launches per year. And before that, got to test refueling in orbit, which might need 20 launches per year, and probably use raptor 2 engine at that point and not doing 200 tons to orbit,
Anyhow 20 launches a year of a large rocket [Saturn V, SLS, Space Shuttle, or even a Falcon Heavy] is stuff of wild dreams of space cadets.
But by this time, that Starship is doing 20 launches per year, other launch companies could *also* doing stuff which the world isn’t ready for.
Equatorial Upper-Ocean Heat Anomalieshttps://i.ibb.co/qN4TjjT/Screenshot-2024-05-07-07-57-36.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
Your link doesn’t work.
https://i.ibb.co/qN4TjjT/Screenshot-2024-05-07-07-57-36.png
Bumbling bobdroege tries to appear intelligent. He wrote –
“Actually Swenson,
Completely meaningless and irrelevant to the GHE, but you wouldn’t realise that, would you?
Thats actually the mechanism by which the Greenhouse effect works.
A CO2 molecule absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy of a certain energy/frequency/wavelength and starts vibrating.
Then it can transfer that energy elsewhere by emitting another quantum of electromagnetic energy or colliding with another molecule or atom.
The other part is that the CO2 molecule can start vibrating after a collision with another molecule, and then emit electromagnetic energy.
But thats all hogwash because molecules dont collide in your universe.
I cant help you with your ignorance.”
I’ll start with blundering bobby writing “Thats actually the mechanism by which the Greenhouse effect works.” He can’t actually describe the GHE, but claims to know how a mythical effect “works”. Here’s one of bobdroege’s idiotic attempts at a description “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
He’ll probably claim he was only trolling, and the dog ate the real description.
All fanatical GHE cultists completely refuse to believe that CO2 can interact with photons of infinite energy levels, just like all other matter in the universe. They positively refuse to accept that CO2 can be heated by simple compression, for example, to temperatures of 500 C, say, and will cool all the way to absolute zero, if allowed to do so, emitting photons of progressively longer wavelengths proportional to its absolute temperature.
But all this is irrelevant – there is no GHE, and the Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago, four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight notwithstanding.
He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed, is bobdroege. Refuses to accept reality. Barking mad.
“He cant actually describe the GHE, but claims to know how a mythical effect ‘works’.”
Bobdroege wrote:
“A CO2 molecule absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy of a certain energy/frequency/wavelength and starts vibrating.
Then it can transfer that energy elsewhere by emitting another quantum of electromagnetic energy or colliding with another molecule or atom.
The other part is that the CO2 molecule can start vibrating after a collision with another molecule, and then emit electromagnetic energy.
But that’s all hogwash because molecules don’t collide in your universe.”
Ignore the part about molecules not colliding, you suggested that.
GHE is the Earth retaining more of the energy from the sun through that mechanism.
Craig T,
There is no GHE, you ninny.
You wrote –
“Ignore the part about molecules not colliding, you suggested that.
GHE is the Earth retaining more of the energy from the sun through that mechanism.”
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. The surface cannot even retain the energy of the Sun overnight.
You must live in an alternate fantasy universe. You fanatical GHE cultists are a strange lot – you point-blank refuse to accept that there is no GHE, even going so far as to say that I have described a GHE (there is no GHE), and have described how it works!
What a pack of insane fantasists. Accept reality – there is no GHE. Or reject reality, if you wish. Neither reality nor I care.
Unless you can come up with a fact or two to support your GHE fantasy, you will come across looking like you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Carry on,
Craig believes: “GHE is the Earth retaining more of the energy from the sun through that mechanism.”
Sorry Craig, but that nonsense is NOT the bogus GHE. That mechanism is referring to “heat capacity”, as in all matter, including strawberries and bananas, retaining thermal energy. The bogus GHE claims CO2 raises Earth’s surface temperature. CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
It’s okay that you don’t understand your own cult’s nonsense. No one in your cult understands it either. That’s why you’re all id10ts. And, you can’t learn. That’s because you’re brain-dead.
Prove me wrong.
Clint, are you saying 12 cm microwave photons can’t raise the temperature of 288K leftover pizza?
No Craig. I’m saying you don’t have a clue.
A microwave oven is a manmade device, with the ability, by design, to over-excite molecules. Microwave ovens do not exist in the atmosphere. Responsible adults can study “entropy”.
Us usual, you won’t be able to understand any of this. You can’t learn.
Clint R
You are far from correct when you think GHE means Photons from CO2 warm the Earth surface. Many times you are corrected and yet you do not understand the GHE. It is allowing the solar input to force a higher surface temperature because of a reduction in radiant heat lost by the surface due to GHG. It is similar why the air in a car on a sunny day gets much warmer than air outside the car. I don’t think you will ever be able to correctly understand how the GHE works.
“Microwave ovens do not exist in the atmosphere.”
The laws of physics are different in kitchens than in the atmosphere, claims Clint.
Because in the atmosphere, photons too low in energy cannot possibly raise the temperature of surfaces that are warmer.
But in kitchens that is allowed!
That’s ok because fake physics doesnt need to be consistent.
Wrong again, Norman.
A parked car in sun could easily warm to over 130F. That’s due to the high energy photons from Sun. But, at night the sky could NOT warm the car to any such level. No GHE.
You don’t understand, and you can’t learn. You should take a lesson from Craig. He enjoys being a brain-dead cult id10t. He doesn’t use all the cult tactics, like you.
Clint R
Again you demonstrate you cannot understand the GHE. In the real GHE it is still the Sun as the heat source for the surface. The GHE works like insulation but of radiant energy not conduction. With the GHE the sky will not warm the ground at night but will slow the cooling rate. When you claim I am wrong at least attempt to follow my line of logic.
Norman, that only amounts to “slowed cooling is warming”. If that’s the best you can do for the bogus GHE, then you’ve got nothing.
You better check in with your cult however. They teach CO2 can increase surface temperatures. That ain’t science.
Clint R
I am not sure what is wrong with your thought process. It seems you can’t process information.
Read this and try to understand it before you mindlessly post an insulting comment.
A HEATED object (caps so you can take it in) will generally reach a higher temperature if you reduce the amount of heat loss by insulation.
If you not agree with this, no one can help you!
Wrong again, Norman.
It depends on how the object is “heated”. You can NOT boil water with ice cubes, for example.
Rather than you tr0lling here endlessly, why not submit your statement of your believed GHE nonsense. Just put down in words how you believe CO2 can warm the planet. Make sure you will stick with your statement. No alterations, amendments, or revisions are allowed. If you believe in your nonsense, you should be able to state it.
Then, I will show you the violations of the principles of physics.
Go for it….
“Norman, that only amounts to ‘slowed cooling is warming'”.
That’s why I asked if you ever wore a coat. A coat keeps you warm by reducing the rate of cooling.
The Earth is heated by shortwave radiation passing through the atmosphere. It cools by longwave radiation leaving the atmosphere. When some of that radiation is converted back to heat before leaving the Earth the planet cools slower.
This is why Craig is my favorite cultist: “When some of that radiation is converted back to heat before leaving the Earth the planet cools slower.”
Gosh, if we could only “convert” cold back into “heat”.
Clint R
I have already described the GHE to you. I guess you want it again.
Solar energy is the primary heat source for the Planet Earth Surface. There is some geothermal energy but it is not significant.
Some IR solar energy is absorbed by the atmosphere on its way to the surface. The majority reaches the surface.
The mostly visible solar spectrum EMR is absorbed by the surface and is converted into thermal energy. The surface emits lower frequency IR which a significant quantity is absorbed by the atmosphere. The atmosphere returns IR to the surface which reduces the amount of HEAT the surface will lose as the surface absorbs the IR reducing the rate of internal heat loss. This allows the solar input to achieve a higher surface temperature.
Now it is your turn. Why is the air inside a car hotter than the air outside the car on a sunny summer day?
“Gosh, if we could only ‘convert’ cold back into ‘heat'”.
Is that what your coat does?
Norman, you had one chance, and you blew it.
Your task was:
Rather than you tr0lling here endlessly, why not submit your statement of your believed GHE nonsense. Just put down in words how you believe CO2 can warm the planet. Make sure you will stick with your statement. No alterations, amendments, or revisions are allowed. If you believe in your nonsense, you should be able to state it.
Your first attempt did not even mention CO2. CO2 is the “heart and soul” of your cult’s GHE nonsense. Do you even understand your cult’s nonsense?
You don’t understand any more than Craig. You’re just more antagonistic and belligerent.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“A coat keeps you warm by reducing the rate of cooling.”
Not unless you are alive. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, regardless of “planetary insulation”.
Are you thick, or just pretending? No wonder you don’t even try to describe the mythical GHE!
You can’t even figure out how it cooled the Earth!
Nutty Norman,
You wrote –
“You are far from correct when you think GHE means Photons from CO2 warm the Earth surface.”
There is no GHE. That’s why you can’t describe it.
You come up with nonsense implying that you can describe the GHE. Like “It is similar why the air in a car on a sunny day gets much warmer than air outside the car.”
No it’s not, you idiot. There is no GHE. Try and describe it – you can’t. Nobody can.
Carry on babbling nonsense.
> Prove me wrong.
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Another idiotic utterance from Willard –
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
What can you expect from a dingleberry who claims cooling is warming?
Where did I claim that cooling was warming, Mike?
“All fanatical GHE cultists completely refuse to believe that CO2 can interact with photons of infinite energy levels, just like all other matter in the universe.”
On a sunny day, only the light in the shadows interacted with matter. The rest passed through the atmosphere as easily as a vacuum.
Pure nonsense, Craig.
But funny….
Craig T,
According to NASA (and Tyndall) the atmosphere absorbs (interacts with) about 35% of the Sun’s radiation.
Maybe you could say something idiotic like “On a sunny day, only the light in the shadows interacted with matter. The rest passed through the atmosphere as easily as a vacuum.”
Did you have put a lot of effort into looking foolish, or does it come naturally?
Maybe you could try really, really, hard, and devise a foolish description of the GHE. Here’s one by bobdroege – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Can you improve on that?
All matter interacts with EM whether in the shade or not. Ever hear of scattering. Ever wonder why the sky appears blue, the oceans different colours, or why there are different colours at sunset?
“All matter interacts with EM whether in the shade or not. Ever hear of scattering. Ever wonder why the sky appears blue, the oceans different colours, or why there are different colours at sunset?”
I was talking about the light that interacted with matter before it reached the ground. Shadows on Earth are not as dark as on the Moon because of the scattering.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“On a sunny day, only the light in the shadows interacted with matter. The rest passed through the atmosphere as easily as a vacuum.”, then, after you were caught out denying reality, tried to wriggle out of what you said, by writing –
“I was talking about the light that interacted with matter before it reached the ground.”
That doesn’t work, either. The atmosphere consists of matter, whether you accept it or not.
You can’t avoid the fact that the GHE is a myth by demonstrating your ignorance of physics in general. Keep wriggling – you are just another ignorant and fanatical GHE cultist.
Keep waffling – the more you do it, the more evasive you appear.
Swenson,
Riddle me this:
You can see CO2 when in its solid form, but you can’t see it when in its gaseous form.
I’ll give you the answer.
50 bucks.
Swenson,
“All fanatical GHE cultists completely refuse to believe that CO2 can interact with photons of infinite energy levels, just like all other matter in the universe.”
If by interact you mean CO2 transmits photons of certain energies, then yes, that statement is correct.
But no, matter is selective about which photons energy levels that the matter interacts with.
CO2 as a gas is transparent (ie transmits) photons of most energies, but is opaque (abzorbs) to certain energy levels.
You insult me, but you get the science wrong.
One thing chemists can do, that troglodytes like Swenson can’t do, is identify matter by the way it interacts with various wavelengths of light.
As an analytical chemist, that’s what I do for a living.
bobdroege, you mentioned before that you read meters and push buttons.
“As an analytical chemist, thats what I do for a living.”
Unfortunately, as you have also admitted before, it is quite easy for me to ask questions that you cannot answer – they require actual thought, and cannot just be looked up on the internet.
You cannot describe the GHE, nor can Craig T, nor any other fanatical GHE cultists – because you are trying to describe something that doesnt exist. You cannot even say whether this mythical GHE is supposed to make thermometers hotter or colder, can you?
As to the possibility of CO2 interacting with photons of any wavelength at all, I will wager that you cannot specify a photon wavelength with which CO2 will not interact under any circumstances. For example CO2 at 1 K will interact with very low energy 2 K photons, but not the other way round. So much for CO2 only absorbing photos of particular frequencies!
The photons from a surface at 20 C will be absorbed by CO2 at 10 C, raising the temperature of the CO2. CO2 at 10 C will not, however, will not raise the temperature of a 20 C object – unless in some fanatical GHE cultist’s fantasy.
As I mentioned before, CO2 at 20 C can be raised to a temperature of 500 C merely by smartly compressing it. It then radiates photons of wavelengths proportional to that temperature, which interact with the matter comprising the walls of the cylinder, regardless of composition. Don’t try raising CO2 to a temperature of 500 C in a plastic cylinder which melts at 350 C!
CO2 can both absorb and emit photons of any wavelength at all, consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. Obviously, CO2 at 20 C cannot absorb 15u photons emitted by a body colder than 20 C. Ice at -80 C will not raise the temperature of CO2 at 20 C, no matter how many 15 u photons it emits.
You still cant even say what the GHE has s supposed to do, can you? That’s because you are both ignorant and gullible. Demonstrate Im wrong – tell me what the GHE is supposed to do. Obviously not heating the Earth – the Earth is cooler now than four and a half billion years ago.
Go on, display your vast analytical chemical knowledge!
“As to the possibility of CO2 interacting with photons of any wavelength at all, I will wager that you cannot specify a photon wavelength with which CO2 will not interact under any circumstances.”
Swenson, this is an infrared spectrum of carbon dioxide gas.
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
A transmitance of 1 means that wavelength passed through the gas unaffected. Notice the specific wavelengths that CO2 absorbs and the large range of wavelengths it will not.
This spectrum is part of the NIST Standard Reference Database to aid analytical chemists in identifying chemicals in unknown samples.
When can Bobdroege collect?
I wrote –
“I will wager that you cannot specify a photon wavelength with which CO2 will not interact under any circumstances.”
You haven’t, have you? Once again, like all ignorant and fanatical GHE cultists, you link to a source which supports me.
You cannot specify a photon wavelength with which CO2 will not interact under any circumstances. If you are not a fool, you are doing a tolerably good imitation of one.
Carry on.
Swenson,
Unfortunately for you, you need a basic science competency to understand the physics involved, you have not displayed such competency.
“You cannot describe the GHE, nor can Craig T, nor any other fanatical GHE cultists because you are trying to describe something that doesnt exist. You cannot even say whether this mythical GHE is supposed to make thermometers hotter or colder, can you?”
Well, it depends on where the thermometers are, the GHE makes the surface warmer and the upper atmosphere cooler.
“As to the possibility of CO2 interacting with photons of any wavelength at all, I will wager that you cannot specify a photon wavelength with which CO2 will not interact under any circumstances. For example CO2 at 1 K will interact with very low energy 2 K photons, but not the other way round. So much for CO2 only absorbing photos of particular frequencies!”
I could, but first we need to clear up your misunderstanding that photons have a temperature, they don’t. Stop making stuff up and drooling in your Maypo.
“The photons from a surface at 20 C will be absorbed by CO2 at 10 C, raising the temperature of the CO2. CO2 at 10 C will not, however, will not raise the temperature of a 20 C object unless in some fanatical GHE cultists fantasy.”
So you say, do you have any evidence, other than the Maypo on your chin?
“As I mentioned before, CO2 at 20 C can be raised to a temperature of 500 C merely by smartly compressing it. It then radiates photons of wavelengths proportional to that temperature, which interact with the matter comprising the walls of the cylinder, regardless of composition. Dont try raising CO2 to a temperature of 500 C in a plastic cylinder which melts at 350 C!”
Not true again. If you can compress the CO2, it must be in the gaseous state, which means it does not emit like a blackbody, but only emits the frequencies allowed by the available molecular transitions available.
“CO2 can both absorb and emit photons of any wavelength at all, consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. Obviously, CO2 at 20 C cannot absorb 15u photons emitted by a body colder than 20 C. Ice at -80 C will not raise the temperature of CO2 at 20 C, no matter how many 15 u photons it emits.”
When a photon interacts with a CO2 molecule, it carries no information related to the temperature of the molecule that emitted it.
“You still cant even say what the GHE has s supposed to do, can you? Thats because you are both ignorant and gullible. Demonstrate Im wrong tell me what the GHE is supposed to do. Obviously not heating the Earth the Earth is cooler now than four and a half billion years ago.”
The Earth is warmer than it was in 1979 when the graph at the top of the page starts.
Maybe we could have a substantial conversation if you get your facts straight.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY,
Stop feeding the trxlls
#2
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
The CO2 is a trace gas in the Earth’s actually thin atmosphere
(1 bar at sea level).
One should use the spectroscopy methods to accurately measure the existence of ~ 400 ppm CO2, or 1 molecule CO2 in 2500 molecules of air.
–
It is a scientific achievement the CO2 was ever detected, and its content measured in the Earth’s thin air.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s right.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2024.png
That’s right.
Also they visualise the CO2 interaction with upgoing IR EM energy as some tiny billiard balls (photons) striking some other tiny billiard balls (the CO2 molecules).
By doing so, by visualising, they inevitably conclude, that surely, at their path through the atmosphere, all the 15μ photons should met with and collide with some CO2 molecule, which molecule happens somewhere along the path blocking the passage to the 15μ photon.
It is a mistaken thing to do – visualising the EM energy /matter interaction process.
Molecules are not balls, and photons are not balls either.
The EM energy is a wave. Molecules is the matter. What they do is to interact – they do not collide as some billiard balls do.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes it must be a wave, because in the lower mesosphere and upper stratosphere, where the pressure drops below 0.0004 bar, the amount of air particles is very low, but in this layer UV radiation below 240 nm produces ozone.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
“Titan’s atmosphere is more massive than that on Earth, and the surface pressure is comparable at around 1.5 bar. The average surface temperature is around 95 K. Titan is the only known body in our solar system, apart from Earth, where an active weather system is present with a full cycle of evaporation from the surface, formation of clouds and precipitation (rain). While on Earth it is water that follows this cycle, on Titan it is primarily Methane.”
http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~ingomw/Home_Page/Titan.html
Also,
Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)
“The atmosphere of Titan is largely nitrogen; minor components lead to the formation of methane and ethane clouds and heavy organonitrogen haze. The climateincluding wind and raincreates surface features similar to those of Earth, such as dunes, rivers, lakes, seas (probably of liquid methane and ethane), and deltas, and is dominated by seasonal weather patterns as on Earth. With its liquids (both surface and subsurface) and robust nitrogen atmosphere, Titan’s methane cycle bears a striking similarity to Earth’s water cycle, albeit at the much lower temperature of about 94 K (−179 C; −290 F).”
Massive Update: SpaceX’s Next Starship is ready! Flight 4 in 3 weeks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcWESQE8cdM
What about it!?
421K subscribers
At the end, it talks about SpaceX spacesuit.
Back to future, using earlier Gemini design spacesuit [using tethered life support].
I was think if using a lot vehicles with Moon and Mars, it seems crew could use this on lunar and Mars surface.
The other thing, it reminded me they going to a fairly high LEO orbit. I hope they do some radiation measurements while they are so high.
The Rotational Warming is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON, because what we have discovered is that for all planets and moons the average surface temperatures, measured by satellites (Tsat) RELATE, (everything else equals), as their respective (N*cp) product in SIXTEENTH ROOT.
(Tsat.planet.1) /(Tsat.planet.2) =
= [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ] ^1/16
Where:
Tsat – Kelvin, is the planet’s average surface temperature
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
**********************
Example: Planet 2 rotates twice as fast as Planet 1.
(N2) = 2*(N1) everything else equals,
(T1) /(T2)= [ (N1) /(N2) ] ^1/16
(T2) = (21/16)*(T1) = 1,0443*(T1)
If (T1) = 250K,
(T2) = 1,0443*250K =
= 261K
**************
Also, we have corrected their respective Blackbody Effective Temperatures (Te),because we concluded that planets and moons with smooth surface have a STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Io orbits Jupiter at a distance of 421,700 km (262,000 mi) from Jupiter’s center and 350,000 km (217,000 mi) from its cloudtops. It is the innermost of the Galilean satellites of Jupiter, its orbit lying between those of Thebe and Europa. Including Jupiter’s inner satellites, Io is the fifth moon out from Jupiter. It takes Io about 42.5 hours (1.77 days) to complete one orbit around Jupiter (fast enough for its motion to be observed over a single night of observation). Io is in a 2:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Europa and a 4:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Ganymede, completing two orbits of Jupiter for every one orbit completed by Europa, and four orbits for every one completed by Ganymede. This resonance helps maintain Io’s orbital eccentricity (0.0041), which in turn provides the primary heating source for its geologic activity. Without this forced eccentricity, Io’s orbit would circularize through tidal dissipation, leading to a less geologically active world.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)
So, Earth shine, shines on nearside of the Moon. And Jupiter shine shines on the nearside of Io.
Io would have other moon’s shine on it’s farside.
Io is similar to our Moon, it slightly more gravity and doesn’t have much water. Though Io is very volcanic as compared to the Moon.
Oh, but also Io has a fairly short day as compared to our Moon.
Earth appears quite big on the Moon, but Jupiter would appear much bigger from Io.
Jupiter would block the sun and sun is quite small at that distance- At Jupiter distance the sunlight is 55.8 watts per square meter to 45.9 watts per square meter [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight].
It gets less solar energy than Antarctica, but it would get more viable solar power than Antarctica.
So, a daunting question, does Io have more viable solar energy than Germany.
One question is can you solar energy from the reflected sunlight from Jupiter.
And such question is related to question, which is better, the nearside of Io vs the farside side Io.
Also got Jupiter, providing light on nearside and not getting that “moonlight” on the farside, but you get the moonlight of the many moons of Jupiterpm the farside, and Europa being closest and it’s large and it’s covered in bright ice {unlike our dark colored moon].
“It takes Io about 42.5 hours (1.77 days) to complete one orbit around Jupiter (fast enough for its motion to be observed over a single night of observation). Io is in a 2:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Europa ”
–
Io is in a 2:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Europa,
also Io average surface specific heat is cp = 0,145 cal/gr*oC, whereas Europa is cp = 1 cal/gr*oC.
Thus, Io rotates twice as fast, but Io has 1/0,145 = 6,89 smaller average surface cp.
Both Io and Europa have the same Albedo a = 0,63
Io has warming factor =(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴= 1,8647
Io has average surface temperature measured by satellite
Tsat.io = 110K
Europa has Tsat.europa = 102K
And has Europa warming factor =(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴= 2,5494
But also Europa is characterized as the smoothest object in entire solar system.
So Φeuropa = 0,47 vs Φio = 1.
Let’s compare:
[(1,8647 /2,5494) /0,47 ]∕ ⁴ = 1,116
110K /102K = 1,07
the 1,116 and 1,07 are very close ~ 3% difference.
And that is why Io is warmer than Europa
(Tsat.io = 110K vs Tsat.europa = 102K)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Thus, Io rotates twice as fast, but Io has 1/0,145 = 6,89 smaller average surface cp.”
To make it clear, Io is in lower orbit, each orbit, goes a shorter distance and at a higher orbiting velocity.
But also Europa is characterized as the smoothest object in entire solar system.
So Φ.europa = 0,47 vs Φ.io = 1.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
DREMT
DREMT
The Moon rotates on its axis and revolves around Earth in its orbit. Measured over a complete orbit they have the same period.
You can demonstrate that there are two motions because at some points in the orbit the rotation rate and the revolution rate diverge.
At apogee in its elliptical orbit the angular revolution rate is slower than the angular rotation rate and the Moon is seen to rotate anticlockwise from a viewpoint on Earth’s surface.
At perigee the angular revolution rate is faster than the angular rotation rate and the Moon is seen to rotate clockwise.
You’ll recognise this effect as libration in longitude. It would not occur if the the Moon moved in the same way as the man walking around the tree. Scrap that analogy.
Wrong as usual, Ent.
Moon only orbits. If it spun we would see all sides of it from Earth. Study the simple ball-on-a-string, if you’re confused.
You would see the same effect if the man was walking around a large enough ellipse while carry a placard that he kept aimed along a radial line to the elliptical path. A viewer located at one focal point would see more of the placard face as the man walked around the elliptical path.
That’s not proof that the Moon is rotating about a local axis.
When Mr. Asshat walks around the table he is rotating his body on its axis. He could easily know this by observing his feet. As he picks his foot up he must rotate it to keep walking around the table. If he does not rotate his feet and body he walks in a straight line away from the table. Not only can’t he understand this he also can’t observe it. His mind is stuck in closed mind mud spinning his wheels endlessly but not moving.
H/T Norman.
If I walked for a bit, stopped, and turned in a circle on the spot, that would be rotating about a local axis. Wee willy doesn’t know the difference between rotating about an axis, and essentially walking along a line.
On the other hand, if you took the ellipse, stretched it into a straight line, and walked along it, you’d be performing exactly the same motion…translation without rotating.
Try not to take on an engineer with silly arguments, wee willy.
Mr. Asshat basically doesn’t understand that when he walks around his kitchen table he isn’t walking along a line, but an ellipse.
It is as if he believed that his kitchen table was the center of a spherical universe or something.
“It is as if he believed that his kitchen table was the center of a spherical universe or something.”
As Einstein (as reported by Richard Muller) said, that’s a perfectly valid way of looking at the universe.
You know better, of course, don’t you, Willard?
In your strange fantasy world, anyway.
By the way, I claim that I am Mike Flynn. What are you going to do about it?
Donkey.
You live down under, Mike.
Why would you take a table in Vancouver as the center of the universe?
Take a top, spin it and observe.
Does it stay in one spot?
Well sometimes is does, but sometimes it moves.
When it moves, does it stop rotating around its axis?
By the way, I am at the center of the observable universe, which is indeed spherical.
But then there are parts of the universe that are not visible to us.
Swenson,
“As Einstein (as reported by Richard Muller) said, thats a perfectly valid way of looking at the universe.”
Einstein would have said part of the universe.
The observable part, which is smaller than the whole universe.
The Moon rotates at a constant rate relative to the inertial reference frame, with a constant angular momentum. That is possible.
Relative to the Earth, the Moon’s rotation speeds up and slows down, requiring constant changes in angular momentum. This is impossible.
As Feynman said “If it doesn’t agree with experiment it’s wrong”.
As a character in 3BodyProblem said “If you see something impossible, it’s either an illusion of a scam.”
So, DREMT, is the non-spinner hypothesis an illusion of a scam?
Wrong again, Ent.
Moon does NOT rotate at a constant rate. It does NOT “rotate” at all. It doesn’t even “revolve” at a constant rate. Its linear velocity changes as it orbits.
And, Moon has NO angular momentum. You must prefer astrology over physics.
You don’t understand ANY of this. You don’t even know how passenger jets fly. You’re known as a “brain-dead cult id10t”, posing as a phony intellectual.
“And, Moon has NO angular momentum. You must prefer astrology over physics.
You dont understand ANY of this.”
Yes its true. The twisted made-up fizuks of Clint is difficult to understand.
Even he can’t explain it.
Its principles seem designed only to get negative attention in the form of ridicule.
Again child Nate tr0lls in, having NOTHING.
Puffman keeps proving that cranks have contrarians have little else than the three steps!
Entropic Man, we were up to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665644
Then you disappeared, only to reappear down here ignoring every word said to you. That’s a recurring theme with you. Again, the moon cannot possibly be rotating about both an external axis, and an internal axis. That would produce movement different to how our moon moves. The only way our moon’s movement could be comprised of two motions is if one of those motions is translation in a loop. You “Spinners” need “orbit without spin” to be translation in a loop, and not rotation about an external axis. OK?
Nothing you have said down here changes those facts. If anything, some “Spinners” would tell you, it only reinforces them.
In your version of reality the man walking around a tree would move in exactly the same way if he were “orbiting without spin”, translating on a loop or rotating once per revolution.
How do you distinguish between them?
As to why I’m down here, one can only go around the “no-spinner merry-go-round before losing the will to live, so I took the day off.
If you want a reply to your earlier bullshit, the rocking back and forth of the Moon in your model is impossible because it requires the Moon’s rotation to accelerate and decelerate twice a month.
If you see it, then it must be an illusion. If part of the motion the non-spinner model describes is an illusion, then probably the whole model is an illusion.
Ent, you don’t know the difference between “illusion” and “reality”.
You actually believe passenger jets fly backward.
See?
Puffman, you still cling to your Skies-Shooting-Down-Cold-Rays fantasy, and you have yet to do the Baseball-Basketball Experiment.
See?
Such childishness is all you’ve got, silly willy. Science-wise, you’ve got NOTHING.
Thanks for proving me right, again.
“In your version of reality the man walking around a tree would move in exactly the same way if he were “orbiting without spin”, translating on a loop or rotating once per revolution.“
That’s wrong, Entropic Man. Study Fig. 2(a) and 2(b) from the following reference:
https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
You should be able to figure out, from that, that rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) is movement like the “moon on the left” (MOTL) in the GIF below, and translation in a loop (with no rotation about an internal axis) is movement like the “moon on the right” (MOTR):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Let me know when you have got that far.
Psst, Puffman –
> This paper discusses two alternative models to the Restricted Three Body Problem (RTBP) for the motion of a massless particle in the Earth-Moon system. These models are the Bicircular Problem (BCP) and the Quasi-Bicircular Problem (QBCP). While the RTBP is autonomous, the BCP and the QBCP are periodically time dependent due to the inclusion of the Sun’s gravitational potential. Each of the two alternative models is suitable for certain regions of the phase space. More concretely, we show that the BCP is more adequate to study the dynamics near the triangular points while the QBCP is more adequate for the dynamics near the collinear points.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fams.2018.00032/full
Here, two models for the price of one.
What do Moon Dragon cranks got, a piece of cardbox clued to the arm of a clock?
That’s NOTHING.
Silly willy found a link that has NOTHING to do with the fact that Moon Is not spinning.
He proves me right, again.
DREMT, as you’ve seen the cult STILL can’t distinguish between “turning” (changing direction) and “spinning”. So in the example of walking around a tree, they erroneously believe the person walking is “spinning”. But, he is only “turning”.
An easy way to tell the difference if for one of the cult id10ts to have a pole vertically inserted through his body’s center of mass. Now, as he walks around the tree he will see the pole (axis) turns with his body. His body is NOT spinning around the axis.
We just need a cult id10t to volunteer….
MOTL is rotating around an internal axis perpendicular to the screen and revolving around the centre of the circle. The two motions are at the same rpm, similar to the ISS pitching 360 degrees per orbit.
MOTR is not rotating, while revolving around the centre of the circle. This is a similar motion to the Hubble telescope.
Gyroscopes and accelerometers on both spacecraft confirm that the ISS is rotating and the Hubble is not.
The Moon is moving in a similar way to the ISS, in a higher orbit. It is therefore moving as MOTL, completing one rotation on its axis per revolution around its orbit.
No, Entropic Man…once again, you’re not listening. So, this is just for anyone who has the capacity to listen, and learn…
Since the Madhavi reference shows us that rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) is movement like the MOTL, and translation in a loop (with no rotation about an internal axis) is movement like the MOTR, we can describe the movement of the MOTL in two ways:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Similarly, we can describe the movement of the MOTR in two ways:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions.
b) Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Since the GIF is just an animation, we don’t and can’t know anything about the mechanics behind the motion, and so we can’t choose between the a) and b) descriptions. Either could apply, for each one. For real objects, it’s a different story…
Yes, Clint R…they can’t learn, and I’m probably making it too complicated…but, hopefully, someone out there gets it. We know the "Spinners" who comment here never will, so I don’t really do it for their benefit, anyway.
Ent’s gyroscope would prove him wrong.
Hold a spinning gyroscope in your hand and walk around a tree. The gyroscope would be both orbiting and spinning, just like Earth. Then walk around the tree with the gyroscope stopped. The gyroscope would be orbiting but not spinning, just like Moon.
DREMPTY,
Orbits are not rotations.
Orbits are not rotations.
How many times do I have to say that?
Take it up with the “Spinners” who disagree with you, bob…once the discussion has moved on to orbits, that is.
Graham D. Warner prudently omits to mention who from Team Science hold that an orbit is a rotation.
Antonin Qwerty, Tim S, Entropic Man. All have described an orbit as a rotation about an external axis. bob did himself, once upon a time.
Rotation and revolution are not the same.
https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-rotation-and-revolution.html
Your “rotation around an external axis” is revolution, a separate process from rotation.
It is quite possible for the Moon to be revolving around the Earth-Moon barycentre while simultaneously rotating on its own axis.
See? Entropic Man thinks “revolution” (orbit) is “rotation about an external axis”.
He thinks our moon could be rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis. He’s wrong about that, but I know he cannot be reached through facts or logic, just like the rest of them.
Again, Entropic Man…if you think our moon’s movement is comprised of two motions, that would have to be translation in a loop, plus rotation about an internal axis. Your “revolution” would have to be translation in a loop, and not rotation about an external axis. OK?
Semantic nonsense.
Goodnight DREMT. I’m off to bed.
DREMPTY,
“For real objects, its a different story”
Yes, because the Moon revolves in an ellipse with the Earth at one of the focal points, to be a rotation, the Earth would have to be at the crossing of the major and minor axes of the ellipse.
Not semantics, Entropic Man. Rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) and translation in a loop (with no rotation about an internal axis) are two different motions, not to be confused with one another. The former is like the MOTL, the latter is like the MOTR. Learning is hard for you, huh?
“It is quite possible for the Moon to be revolving around the Earth-Moon barycentre while simultaneously rotating on its own axis.”
Eman is clearly stating one revolution and one rotation. Two different things.
Why are some people dishonestly misrepresenting that as two rotations?
And lets be absolutely clear here. Revolution or orbital motion, means motion of the COM of a body moving around a center.
And for our Moon, that is clearly happening in the orbital plane.
Then we have the Moon’s rotation. And it defined to be a circular motion of all parts of the Moon around an axis. And since that rotation is OBSERVED to be in a plane TILTED at 6.7 degrees to the orbital plane, then the axis of rotation CANNOT be through the Earth center, since that would require the Moon’s COM to also be moving in that SAME TILTED plane, which it is not.
Thus the rotational axis must be through the Moon’s COM.
It should be obvious to anyone even slightly intelligent that this observed motion of the Moon is simply inconsistent with the Non-Spinner model.
That SHOULD indicate the end of the road for the Non-spinners argument.
But that would be too sensible.
Learning is obviously so hard for Entropic Man, that he’s disappeared again.
Peekaboo, DREMT.
You’ve shown that you don’t understand the vocabulary of the physics. You’ve lost.
You have that exactly backwards, Entropic Man. Oh well.
> Semantic nonsense
Exactly, EM.
As far as formal stuff is concerned, Graham D. Warner has little else.
Not semantics, Little Willy. As I tried to explain to Entropic Man, but he was unable to learn, rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) and translation in a loop (with no rotation about an internal axis) are two different motions, not to be confused with one another. The former is like the MOTL, the latter is like the MOTR. That’s just basic kinematics. Far from “not understanding the vocabulary of the physics”, I was actually trying to teach Entropic Man the basics of the argument, but he refused to understand the vocabulary of the physics, or the fundamental difference between the motions. Having won another argument, I’m forced to accept that some people just don’t have the capacity to mentally add two motions together. Oh well.
If they could, they would understand that we can describe the movement of the MOTL in two ways:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Similarly, we can describe the movement of the MOTR in two ways:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions. b) Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Since the GIF is just an animation, we don’t and can’t know anything about the mechanics behind the motion, and so we can’t choose between the a) and b) descriptions. Either could apply, for each one. For real objects, it’s a different story…
> Thats just basic kinematics.
Graham D. Warner omits to say that these are *definitions*, which when formalized belong to semantics. He also omits to mention that these definitions apply to rigid objects, which the Moon-Earth system is not. And he also omits to say that a rotation preserves isometry, which would only work if the orbit was purely circular.
Graham D. Warner omits so many semantic details so often that after a few years it must be concluded that he is lying.
I am not yet talking about the moon, Little Willy. Still just trying to get Entropic Man to understand the motion of objects like the ball on a string.
The standard model Astronomy and Spinners use to describe planetary motion, and the motion of the Moon, has always been a sum of Orbital and Rotational motions.
But some people just dont have the capacity to mentally add two motions together!
So, as I was saying…for real objects, it’s a different story…
…the ball on a string moves as per the MOTL. So, it could be:
a) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
To choose between a) and b) depends on what the "base motion" is. Looking at the mechanics behind the motion, the ball is being swung about a central axis on a string, so the "base motion" is chosen for us. It’s "rotation about an external axis". That means a) is the correct answer for the ball on a string.
That means the OPR (Objective Physical Reality) for the ball on a string is that it’s not rotating on its own internal axis. So, that remains true, regardless of how it might appear to be moving wrt certain reference frames. We can also say that the ball on a string is objectively not spinning.
Next, we can move on to how the ball on a string is the "Non-Spinner’s" viable physical model of "orbit without spin"…
Graham D. Warner almost concedes –
> for real objects, its a different story
That puts him in a bind. Either kinematics deal with pure abstractions, like geometry. Or he’s stuck in a loop of silly semantic games.
Astute readers will recall that kinematics has been invented expressly to account for celestial objects…
The only person playing silly semantic games is Little Willy, as we all know. I’m just trying to make sense of the world around me as best I can.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting:
https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Semantics
Five years and he still can’t get his mind around the simplest of notions.
No gaslighting here. If two motions are different, they’re different. That’s not "semantics". What you call those two motions might be "semantics", but that’s kind of irrelevant to my overall point. The two motions (MOTL and MOTR) are fundamentally different. They’re different no matter what reference frame you choose, or what words you use to describe them. Adding "spin", at different rates, and in different directions, to either of those two motions, produces different results.
So, where was I?
Oh yes, the "Non-Spinners" viable physical model of "orbit without spin" is the ball on a string. Now, let’s take a look at one of the "Spinners" suggested models, the yo-yo with a frictionless axle. Running through the same process as before, the yo-yo with a frictionless axle is moving like the MOTR, so it could be described as:
a) Rotating about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions.
b) Translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
To choose between a) and b) depends on what the "base motion" is. Looking at the mechanics behind the motion, the yo-yo is being swung about a central axis on a string, so the "base motion" is chosen for us. It’s "rotation about an external axis". That means a) is the correct answer for the yo-yo with a frictionless axle.
That means the OPR (Objective Physical Reality) for the yo-yo with a frictionless axle is that it is rotating on its own internal axis. So, that remains true, regardless of how it might appear to be moving wrt certain reference frames. We can also say that the yo-yo with a frictionless axle is objectively spinning.
So, it fails at being a model of "orbit without spin".
“Looking at the mechanics behind the motion, the yo-yo is being swung about a central axis on a string, so the “base motion” is chosen for us. Its “rotation about an external axis”.
The mechanics of the the yo-yo and BOS are different, one is not constrained in its rotation, the other is constrained to rotate with the string, yet somehow, they end up with the same ‘base motion’.
Thus the ‘base motion’ is revealed to be arbitrary.
DREMT 5:03 pm means the OPR (Objective Physical Reality) for Earth’s Moon with a frictionless axle is that it is rotating on its own internal axis. So, that remains true, regardless of how it might appear to be moving wrt certain reference frames. We can also say that Earth’s Moon with a frictionless axle is objectively spinning.
So, it fails at being a model of “orbit without spin”.
Of course, not everyone’s going to be capable of understanding, but it’s pretty straightforward for any honest, rational people. Another type of model the "Spinners" often propose involves an XY plotter. Now, an XY plotter does translate the pen, so "translation in a circle" will be the "base motion" for that model. So, is it a viable physical model of "orbit without spin"? Of course not! There’s nothing with the XY plotter to represent gravity. That’s why that model fails.
You’ll find that if you’re capable of thinking things through for yourself, that just about everything you can think of as an example of "orbit without spin" for the "Spinners" ultimately falls into one of those two categories – either it’s objectively spinning, or it has nothing to represent gravity.
Graham D. Warner is trying to make sense of the world around me as best he can by not yet talking about the Moon.
Pure genius.
We’re onto the moon now, Little Willy. As soon as "orbit without spin" is mentioned, you know we’re talking about orbiting objects. Try to keep up.
I assume that astute readers are able to join the dots from where I’d got up to, to understanding that "orbit without spin" must be movement like the MOTL.
With yet another victory under my belt, I guess I’d better call it a day.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Here’s where he bridges his motte-and-bailey:
It’s really not hard to see that he’s just playing semantic games.
That quote was absolutely correct, and many “Spinners” would agree.
“Theres nothing with the XY plotter to represent gravity. Thats why that model fails.”
The idea is to produce a motion, not a force.
In any case the string in BOS does not mimic gravity, since gravity does not constrain the distance or orientation of objects the way the string does.
No matter the facts, non-spinners find a way to spin it to match their narrative.
Needless to say, some will resist understanding until their dying day. Oh well, not my problem.
Needless to say that when Graham D. Warner gets caught trying to segregate formal and material modes for his silly Motte-and-Bailey, he will continue to gaslight.
Complete gibberish from one of the worst trolls on the internet.
Graham D. Warner does not always gaslight, but when he does sometimes he displays his ignorance on the most basic stuff:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095829131
None of what you say about me is ever correct.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
His Motte is his pet GIF, his Bailey is his claim that this proves something about the Moon.
The Motte is pure formalism, a mere definition he keeps misapplying because the Earth-Moon system isn’t an object.
The Bailey is his usual gibberish centered around Objective Reality, balls on string, and orbits without spin, which is refuted by the fact that all celestial objects known to manking are spinning.
Moon Dragon cranks soldier on, come what may.
Little Willy wants to have his cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, he challenges me if I say the moon can’t be rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis. On the other hand, he frequently argues that the moon cannot be described as rotating about an external axis, because the orbit is elliptical and not circular! So he wants to both argue that the moon can be described as rotating about an external axis, and that it can’t be!
It’s just because he will say anything to contradict anything I say, no matter what. As he shows with every comment.
DR EMPTY,
I’m afraid willie has you
“On the one hand, he challenges me if I say the moon cant be rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis. On the other hand, he frequently argues that the moon cannot be described as rotating about an external axis, because the orbit is elliptical and not circular!”
He says the Moon can’t be rotating around an external axis both times.
No, bob. Little Willy has argued that the moon can be described as rotating about an external axis and an internal axis at the same time. Then, he has argued that the moon cannot be described as rotating about an external axis because the orbit is elliptical and not circular. So, he has directly contradicted himself. Of course, you will try to defend him.
DREMPTY,
Will you agree that the Moon is not rotating around an external axis?
I agree that Little Willy has contradicted himself, that you’re trying to change the subject from that, that Little Willy is one of the worst tr0lls on the internet, and that you are an enabler.
DR EMPTY,
He made two different arguments that both stated that orbits are not rotations.
And I didn’t change the topic, you have moved on to discussing the orbit and rotation of the Moon.
Which we can argue is not an external rotation with an internal rotation.
Or we can argue that the orbit is a translation with the Moon rotating on an internal axis.
And we can argue both statements are true and not contradictory.
Little Willy completely contradicted himself.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting. He’s also trying to have it both ways with his pet GIF and the CSA Truther’s gimmick, which has nothing to do with any objective reality.
In reality, the pet GIF explains why the CSA Truther runs a con with his gimmick:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
And so Bob wins another argument with him.
Little Willy completely contradicted himself, and he and bob are now desperate to try and pretend that did not happen.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting, caught between the rock of a formalism he misrepresents and the hard place of a reality in which every celestial objects known to mankind spin.
Really desperate.
(ESTR) Every celestial objects known to mankind spin.
(VLAD) Really desperate.
Really, really desperate.
Desperate DR EMPTY,
Please stop drooling.
They really can’t stand to be caught out.
Tired of the lunatics endlessly debating the moon’s motion?
Try reading facts such as:
“The May 2023-Apr 2024 period (12 months) was the warmest May-Apr period on record for both the Contiguous U.S. and for Canada individually. In Canada, a remarkable 62% of the country had the #1 ranked May-Apr period.”
You will not be disappointed (unless you are a cooker).
Nice cherry picking.
Amazing what you do with statistics. As Mark Twain said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics’.
Perhaps, DMT, but have you seen Walter R. Hogle’s rediscovery of teh Goddard’s clippings?
Examining history is not cherry picking.
[WALTER R. HOGLE, RESPONDING TO THE FACT THAT CONUS HAD THE WARMEST MAY-APR PERIOD ON RECORD] Nice cherry picking.
[ALSO WALTER R. HOGLE] Here is some random newsie I won’t tell you comes from teh Goddard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re an idiot.
Willard is a monkey.
DMT,
Obviously not nearly as hot as when the surface was molten; or at any time hotter than the present.
The surface has cooled to its present temperature. If you believe otherwise, you might suggest a reason.
I’ll have a bit of a snigger while I wait.
Suggest away.
Relevance? None.
Maybe next you’ll tell us your favorite Taylor Swift song.
We breathlessly await.
christos…”It is a mistaken thing to do visualising the EM energy /matter interaction process.
Molecules are not balls, and photons are not balls either.
The EM energy is a wave. Molecules is the matter. What they do is to interact they do not collide as some billiard balls do”.
***
Most scientists don’t understand the interaction, even some trained in quantum theory. That’s because they learn quantum theory from a purely mathematical perspective hence are unable to relate to the protons and electrons that are the basis of quantum theory.
Quantum theory is also the basis of electronics theory and several other disciplines like chemistry, semiconductors, etc. In those disciplines, mathematics is not enough, in fact, it is irrelevant once the theory is learned. It is far more helpful to visualize the interaction of the electrons and protons.
I was lucky enough to approach the theory fro a perspective of electrons and their relationship to EM. I realized early that electrons have charges and that the charges produce an electric field. When the electron moves with its electric field, a magnetic field is produced. If the electrons move back and forth rapidly in a conductor (alternating current) an electromagnetic field is produced that can radiate long distances.
Therefore, in my mind, there is a solid foundation for the direct relationship between electrons, both those bound to atoms and those free to move in a conductor, to electromagnetic energy. Even at that, it was not till more recently that I got right into Bohr’s theory and realized how electrons produce EM, and how EM can affect electrons, both by electrons absorbing it in atoms and electrons being diverted by it in conductors.
That is basically why I cannot buy into the theory of photons. Electrons and protons are particles with mass and they both carry charges. A photon is a theory created to give the illusion of light as particles similar to electrons and protons. Electrons and protons, having mass, can have momentum but it’s plain silly to me to claim that a photon, with no mass, can have momentum.
Photons cannot collide with molecules because photon have no mass. Even molecules don’t collide with other molecules as two masses would collide. That’s because molecules are made of atoms and each atom has electrons orbiting it, therefore there is a negative field around each atom. It is unlikely that the solid part of the atoms would collide since that would displace the electrons and cause the atom to disintegrate.
I don’t think atoms or molecules get any closer to each other than the electron layer. The repelling charges of the electrons layers on each atom would repel the atoms/molecules before they got close enough to do damage.
The theories I read about this, from scientists, is often too immature to consider. I would venture that most scientists simply don’t understand basic quantum theory or basic electrostatic theory.
Gordon,
Feynman wrote “The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She isabsurd”
If it fully agrees with experiment, that’s good enough for me.
Gordon, look up the photoelectric effect. Einstein’s explanation won him a Nobel prize.
And Feynman won’t make any sense unless you consider photons the carriers of electromagnetic force between electrons.
Craig T,
“And Feynman wont make any sense unless you consider photons the carriers of electromagnetic force between electrons.”
Appealing to your own vast knowledge of QED, are you?
Feynman wrote –
“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics”, which makes sense to me, without having to consider photons the carriers of electromagnetic force between electrons. Now is the time for you to say that you really meant to say something else – equally idiotic to what you said before.
It makes no difference – you still can’t describe the GHE, because you are an ignorant fanatical GHE cultist, who refuses to accept that the GHE doesn’t exist – as evidenced by the fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Go on, tell me what Feynman said about being able to predict a future state of the atmosphere! Don’t forget to consider photons the carriers of electromagnetic force between electrons. You nitwit, that’s what happens when you try to look clever.
If you are not a fool, you are doing your best to look like one.
“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics, which makes sense to me, without having to consider photons the carriers of electromagnetic force between electrons. ”
which Feynman certainly did consider in QED.
Obviously Swenson never actually learned about Feynman’s work on QED.
Gordon,
“I dont think atoms or molecules get any closer to each other than the electron layer.”
You might want to look up Ernest Rutherford’s famous experiment.
You might want to look up Ernest Rutherfords famous experiment yourself.
What Swenson,
Rutherford showed that nuclei can collide with nuclei.
High energy particles can collide with nuclei
definition of high-energy particle:
an atomic or subatomic particle with energy greater than 100 MeV
Used in sentence: “She studied cosmic rays high-energy particles flying all over the universe at approaching the speed of light.”
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/high-energy-particle
“Rutherford showed that nuclei can collide with nuclei.”
Not quite molecules or atoms colliding with each other, then.
Cant you find anything to support your babbling?
Try the Ideal Gas Law then, it’s based on atoms colliding with each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Norman wakes up from a nap in a confused state of mind…
“The atmosphere returns IR to the surface which reduces the amount of HEAT the surface will lose as the surface absorbs the IR reducing the rate of internal heat loss. This allows the solar input to achieve a higher surface temperature”.
***
The atmosphere generally ranges in temperature from being in thermal equilibrium with the surface to being colder. The 2nd law states that heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body. How, exactly, does IR in colder space create heat in the surface?
Besides, GHGs only absorb about 7% of surface radiation. That means 93% of the heat lost at the surface via radiation has to be made up. How does 7% make up that 93% loss?
That 7% depends on all of the radiation captured by GHGs being returned but we know most of it is radiated in a direction other than the surface. So, how does 3% of the original radiation make up for the 93%?
Gordon Robertson
where do you pull the 7% from. You just made that up and try to pass it off as some sort of verified fact. Why do you think this gives your posts credibility?
The actual value is about 90% of the IR emitted by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere. I guess if you want to make up your own facts to attempt to win an argument you are free to do so. It is a strange way of winning an argument or debate, but each to his own I guess.
“GHGs only absorb about 7% of surface radiation.”
That’s 7% more than DREMT, Clint or Swenson would admit.
Those sound like numbers from an atmospheric energy budget. Can you share your source and/or list the rest of the values? What percent of incoming solar energy do you show as reaching the Earth?
Nutty Norman,
You wrote –
“The actual value is about 90% of the IR emitted by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere.”
Irrelevant and pointless. The Earth has cooled. The surface cools each night, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
You can’t describe the GHE because it doesn’t exist.
“That’s 7% more than DREMT, Clint or Swenson would admit.”
Incorrect, Kreg. GHGs absorb (and emit) radiation from the surface. In all the time I’ve been commenting here, I’ve never once suggested otherwise.
Craig T,
You ask –
“What percent of incoming solar energy do you show as reaching the Earth?”
Where? What percentage would you believe? Are you totally incompetent? Cant you find an authority to tell you?
At night, zero solar energy reaches the surface. I’m sure you can find surface measurements of solar irradiance, but that won’t help you to describe the mythical GHE, will it?
You do ask some ridiculous gotchas, don’t you?
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb again –
> Where?
On the Earth, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, you donkey – where on Earth? The unlit side? The poles in winter? Normal to the sun in a cloudless arid desert?
No wonder you describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
I’m Mike Flynn, and I have pointed out previously pointed out that slower cooling is not heating. What is your pathetically pointless GHE supposed to do? Can’t say? Won’t say? People will think you are just another ignorant, fanatical GHE cultist, lashing out because nobody wants to share your fantasies.
Mike Flynn,
From the Sun, the Earth is just a dot.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Willard, you donkey where on Earth? The unlit side? The poles in winter? Normal to the sun in a cloudless arid desert?
No wonder you describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
I’m Mike Flynn, and I have pointed out previously pointed out that slower cooling is not heating. What is your pathetically pointless GHE supposed to do? Can’t say? Won’t say? People will think you are just another ignorant, fanatical GHE cultist, lashing out because nobody wants to share your fantasies.
“Irrelevant and pointless. The Earth has cooled. The surface cools each night, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths internal heat.”
Again, Swenson declares something demonstrably FALSE. The Earth is currently in a warming period over the last century. And before that it warmed a great deal from the peak of the glaciation 20,000 years ago.
So obviously the Earth goes through periods where the Earth does not lose ‘all the heat of the day’ every night.
Undoubtedly Swenson will keep shamelessly repeating this erroneous idea.
Why? Nobody knows.
Did Norman really say –
“HEAT the surface will lose as the surface absorbs the IR reducing the rate of internal heat loss. This allows the solar input to achieve a higher surface temperature”.
This is why the Earth is cooler now than it was four and a half billion years ago?
And, of course, why surface temperatures due to the Sun vary between about -90 C and +90 C, not to mention why the surface loses all the heat of the day e@ch night!
He’s not attached to reality, is he?
I suppose he can’t bring himself to describe the GHE – because sane people would laugh at him.
What a strange fanatical GHE cultist he is.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “How, exactly, does IR in colder space create heat in the surface?”
It doesn’t. It reduces the rate of heat loss. It is like insulation.
Insulation does not add any heat to your home in winter. None at all. But it will reduce the RATE of heat loss of your home to the cold environment allowing your heating unit to maintain a warmer more comfortable temperature than your house would be with no insulation.
Nutty Norman,
“It doesnt. It reduces the rate of heat loss. It is like insulation.”
Heat loss means cooling – falling temperature. Burbling about a heating unit is pointless. The Earth has cooled. No wonder you don’t want to talk about the GHE.
You can bang on about greenhouses, hot cars, overcoats – whatever you like. You still can’t describe the GHE – because it doesn’t exist!
If you don’t agree, just describe it!
> If you dont agree, just describe it!
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Has anyone ever built a house with too much insulation- or a dangerous amount of insulation.
We in an Ice Age. More insulation, please.
“Step 2 Sammich Request.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Insulation works because closed air is a very poor conductor of heat. It even works in a wool sweater.
Which is why it is impossible to insulate spacecrafts in space mission.
Parker Solar Probe has flown dozen times “into the sun”- and spacecraft apparently can’t insulate.
A problem with satellite is they don’t have uniform temperature or parts of them over heat. Satellite can get a lot solar energy, that electrical power does something which will create heat, therefore to make satellite cool or have a more uniform temperature, they can plumbing which can evaporationally cool and/or can convectively.
Or have heat pipe:
— What are the heat pipes used in space?
Heat Pipes in Space: CCHPs used at the System-Level …
CCHPs are well known to the experienced Satellite Designer, and the term generally refers to the use of aluminum-ammonia heat pipes in satellites to transfer heat from the electronics payloads to radiator panels.–
> and spacecraft apparently can’t insulate.
Is there air in space, gb?
If there is and insulation is possible, the revise ren’s conception of isolation!
Willard,
No, no insulation known will prevent a spacecraft burning up if it gets too close to the Sun.
You try to appear intelligent by writing “Is there air in space, gb?”, but all you do is look like a patronising idiot.
Either you dont know the answer to your question, which makes you ignorant, or you do know, and are trying to make somebody look stupid. Either way, you lose, don’t you?
I am Mike Flynn, and your stupid description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is about as useless a description of the GHE as is possible.
You could always link to a previous comment of mine, wher I point out that cooling is not heating, if that is what you are slyly trying to imply, without actually saying so. You still come out looking like an idiot.
Got any more asinine gotchas to fire off?
Mike Flynn,
You deny another irrelevancy –
> No, no insulation known will prevent a spacecraft burning up if it gets too close to the Sun.
Does that mean you believe insulation can work where there’s no air?
That would spell doom on Ren’s conception of insulation, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Whining Wee Willy,
Ooooooh! A gotcha!
You wrote –
“Does that mean you believe insulation can work where theres no air?”
Why do you ask? Do my beliefs weigh heavily on your mind?
I believe only an idiot would describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, as you did, but you might believe differently – because you are an idiot.
Feel free to demonstrate that you have a better description of the GHE.
[yes, he’s not the brightest bulb in the box, is he]
Mike Flynn,
You assert –
> A gotcha
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Whining Wee Willy,
Ooooooh! A gotcha!
You wrote
“Does that mean you believe insulation can work where theres no air?”
Why do you ask? Do my beliefs weigh heavily on your mind?
I believe only an idiot would describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” , as you did, but you might believe differently because you are an idiot.
Feel free to demonstrate that you have a better description of the GHE.
[yes, he’s not the brightest bulb in the box, is he]
Mike Flynn,
You express admiration –
> Ohhhh
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Gordon, you defy basic physics. Molecules do not stop emitting radiant energy just because they are also receiving it from some source. Further, molecules do not stop receiving radiant energy because they are at a higher temperature than the source. You just failed your final exam, which in your case, probably makes you proud.
Tim S,
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
How silly are you trying to look – “You just failed your final exam . . . “.
Here’s an exam question that no fanatical GHE cultist has ever answered successfully – “Describe the GHE.”
You fail, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
tim…
1)molecules don’t radiate EM per se, electrons in atoms do. Molecules have no separate mechanism for radiating and absorbing EM.
2)electrons do stop absorbing EM if the frequency of the EM does not resonate with their angular frequency. They are very selective little critters and absorb only 1 frequency per orbital energy level. They also emit only one frequency.
The temperature of colder masses radiate EM that has a frequency too low to be absorbed by electrons in a hotter mass.
Gordon Robertson
I have attempted to correct your incorrect science. It is most difficult task.
Here you claim:
“1)molecules dont radiate EM per se, electrons in atoms do. Molecules have no separate mechanism for radiating and absorbing EM.”
Yes they do. It is having permanent charged dipoles that vibrate. A vibrating electric charge will produce EM. This is what produces most EMR in the IR band. It has been experimentally validated by the whole science of IR spectroscopy where molecules are of unknown compounds can be identified by the IR spectrum they produce. Science has built up a library of IR spectrum to aid in the identification process.
The frequency of the vibrating dipole of different molecules matches the frequency of IR emitted or absorbed by the molecule.
When the IR is absorbed by the molecule the amplitude of the vibrating dipoles increase. When an IR photon is emitted the amplitude of the vibrating dipole decreases. The energy is stored in the distance the dipoles vibrate. This is solid verified science.
I have linked you to it several times in the past.
https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/spectrpy/infrared/infrared.htm
For the second time today, I have to remind people that photons don’t carry the information of the temperature of the body that emits them.
3 pieces of information are carried by photons, their energy, that’s one, and their direction, that’s the other two.
bob…photons do carry the required information re emission temperature in their frequency/wavelength. There is a direct correlation between the frequency of the EM and the emitting surface temperature.
That’s how IR thermometers work. They detect the frequency of IR radiation and correlate it to a temperature worked out in a lab and stored in thermometer’s memory.
norman…”Yes they do. It is having permanent charged dipoles that vibrate. A vibrating electric charge will produce EM. This is what produces most EMR in the IR band”.
***
Norman, how do I get it through the immense density of your brain barrier that electric charge comes from orbiting electrons? The dipoles you mention are formed by electron orbitals that serve as the bonds between the central carbon atom ad the two associated oxygen atoms.
The dipole is due to the difference in electronegativity between the O-atoms and the C-atom. Electronegativity is the ability of an atom to attract electrons and because the O-atom is more electronegative, the bonding electrons tend to gather at the O-end of the bond. That makes the O-end more negative than the C-end, hence the dipole.
O=====C=====O
The dashed lines represent the double electron bond.
When that electron bond changes length, or angle with the common axis through the atoms, that is vibration. Ergo, the vibration is a vibration of electron bonds, hence the varying charge, which only the electron possesses.
Gordon,
An IR thermometer only gives a reading after abzorbing a multitude of photons. Not from the information from one photon.
Gordon, what about when the CO2 molecule looks like this
O O
C
Like when it’s not linear because its vibrating.
Waffling Bobby,
You wrote –
“An IR thermometer only gives a reading after abzorbing a multitude of photons. Not from the information from one photon.”
Well, that’s shattering news. I suspect that is old information Bobby, even if it’s wrong. Go on, ask me why it’s wrong. You won’t will you?
I much prefer your description of the GHE –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
That pretty much sums up your intellectual level, doesn’t it?
Carry on.
Mikey Flynn,
You want me to calculate the energy in one photon of IR light?
I just posted that a few days ago.
You think you can buy or build an IR thermometer that could detect that?
“Go on, ask me why its wrong.”
I am asking, but I am sure you won’t be able to do that.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“You want me to calculate the energy in one photon of IR light?”
No, why would I?
And then you wrote –
“You think you can buy or build an IR thermometer that could detect that?”
Of course a single photon can be detected. Do you imagine otherwise?
“I am asking, but I am sure you wont be able to do that.” Of course I can. First, admit you don’t know the answer yourself, then demonstrate your efforts to find out for yourself.
Then I will tell you. I must admit that I misjudged your willingness to accept my authority, and admit your ignorance. Good for you! You’re learning.
Swenson,
Yes, one photon can be detected, but we are talking about the response of an IR thermometer to one photon of infrared light.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
So there’s been no warming since 1988 er I mean 1998 er I mean 2017 er I mean 2024? It’s just cycles right?
Circulation in the tropopause (direction of jet currents) indicates an influx of Arctic air into the eastern US and eastern Europe on May 12.
https://i.ibb.co/hfxTPC8/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
testing…
norman…fibreglass (or r-rated) insulation has zero effect against heat loss by radiation. You need a reflective metallic foil to do that. Most homes till recently incor.porated nothing to reduce heat loss by radiation and the fibreglass insulation worked fine.
GHGs in the atmosphere have zero effect on heat loss at the surface. The heat is lost at the instant the radiation is emitted, so trapping IR later has no effect on the heat loss. All that can effect the rate of heat loss is the temperature differential between the air and the surface and that is controhled by the majority gases N2 and O2.
On planets with an atmosphere, the tropopause is at 100 hPa. Below this value, the air is very dilute and there the EM radiation is decided. The denser the atmosphere, the more particle collisions. Heat loss depends on the density of the troposphere. It also depends, of course, on the rotational speed of the planet, which determines the amount of energy loss at night.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2021.png
ren…not sure that I understand your post.
We are talking about surface heat loss. There are three mechanisms involved: conduction, convection, and radiation. According to Shula, conduction/convection is 260 times more effective at removing heat from the surface.
Shula has a Masters degree in theoretical physics and he explains the difference in heat dissipation as the vast number of air molecules available to individually accept heat from the surface. There are something like 10^27 molecules per square surface metre. Naturally, when a molecule receives heat from the surface, it gains energy and rises.
Heat loss would be increased by a more dense atmosphere since there would be more molecules per square metre absorbing heat. However, radiation at terrestrial temperatures is 260 times less effective at dissipating heat. NOAA believes the opposite is true and they are misinformed. The energy budget theory is clearly wrong since it weights radiation as being 95% more effective than conduction/convection at dissipating heat.
The temperature zones in your diagram are related to conduction/convection, not EM radiation. The radiation intensity will be related to the temperature of the surface, although the T^4 relationship of S-B does not apply at terrestrial temperatures. Nevertheless, there is a relationship.
The surface temperature will be affected by the atmosphere’s temperature. Normally, it would be in thermal equilibrium with the surface and we know that heat cannot be transferred at equilibrium. However, heated air rises and is replaced by cooler air and that disturbs the equilibrium temporarily till that cooler air is heated and rises.
It would seem then that the rate of heat dissipation depends on the rate at which cooler air from above is warmed and rises. That would depend on how cold or warm the air is from above.
— Gordon Robertson says:
May 8, 2024 at 4:08 PM
rennot sure that I understand your post.
We are talking about surface heat loss. There are three mechanisms involved: conduction, convection, and radiation. According to Shula, conduction/convection is 260 times more effective at removing heat from the surface.–
In order to have a high ground temperature. Or to try to cook eggs on the sidewalk, you need a high air temperature.
Or ground surface temperature of 70 C is possible on land, but not if air surface temperature is cooler, like say 30 C. Or to get 70 C, need air temperature of about 40 C.
Ocean surface air temperature rarely get above 30 C.
So if got high air temperature, you get less convective heat loss, which allows a higher ground temperature. Or lower the air temperature, the higher convectional/evaporative heat loss, and less radiative heat loss.
Since average global air is 15 C, radiatant heat is a small factor.
Or as I say a lot ocean warms, land cools.
The most important thing for life is oxygen in the stratosphere, which absorbs the sun’s deadly UV radiation. Earth’s magnetic field protects against galactic and solar protons.
Therefore, we should focus on the production of oxygen through photosynthesis and not worry about the increase in CO2 by an average of a few molecules.
Burning fossil fuels takes oxygen out of the atmosphere.
Burning is the process of turning O2 into CO2. That CO2 then becomes food for plants to then use the “C” to make plant parts, while returning the O2 to the atmosphere.
The more CO2, the more plants, the more O2.
From the Global Climate Cult subdivision in Cambridge Massachusetts.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-will-future-warming-and-co2-emissions-affect-oxygen-concentrations#:~:text=Oxygen%20levels%20are%20declining%20due%20to%20the%20burning,ecosystems%20are%20much%20more%20impacted%2C%20especially%20aquatic%20ones.
Clint takes his foot out of his mouth, and puts the other one in.
Less than .03 % of it.
Oh more than that as it also makes water of the O2, and burning Methane makes a lot more water.
bob, from your cult link: “As the planet gets hotter due to increased CO2 concentrations…”
Notice they can’t describe how CO2 can warm the planet. It’s just a belief. A cult belief.
That ain’t science.
Some say more than 80% [how much more?] of it warms our cold 3.5 C ocean.
Records indicate over 100 years ago it was hottest.
But global warming is all about creating a more uniform global surface air temperature. Which is thought to have an average of 15 C.
And obviously, 15 C air temperature is cold.
Puffman,
From Bob’s link –
> When we burn fossil fuels, carbon (C) combines with oxygen molecules (O2) to make carbon dioxide (CO2), which is a greenhouse gas that is the main contributor to climate change.
Aren’t you supposed to be a better sock puppet than Mike Flynn?
Clint,
Are you aware of the difference between can’t and didn’t.
“Notice they cant describe how CO2 can warm the planet. Its just a belief. A cult belief.”
Don’t call MIT a cult, because you couldn’t get in.
Keep proving me right, silly willy.
I can take it.
More from MIT,
Possibly down to Clints level of education.
https://climate.mit.edu/what-we-know-about-climate-change
bob…MIT holds diametrically oppose views on climate. The one you posted is obviously from the Kerry Emmanuel side of MIT, a load of twisted alarmist whiners. Richard Lindzen leads the truthful side and he is far more scientific than any of the drivel output by Emmanuel.
Once again, the MIT nonsense is nothing more than invalid, unsupportable beliefs.
The same claims could be made about the number of ice cream stores since 1850 — hockey schtick and all….
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
Puffman keeps working for his contrarian hat trick!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Step 3 Saying Stuff
Puffman keeps working for his contrarian hat trick!”
I’m Mike Flynn (whose authority you repeatedly appeal to), and I say you are mentally unbalanced.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for finally admitting that you’re now using a silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
Clint,
“The same claims could be made about the number of ice cream stores since 1850 hockey schtick and all.”
That’s correlation without causation.
With CO2 and the hockey stick, we have correlation and causation.
I just posted the mechanism.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Thank you for finally admitting that youre now using a silly sock puppet.”
No, I am Mike Flynn – or Swenson or Napoleon – whichever allows you to sleep soundly. I’ll respond to anything I feel like.
And theres nothing you can do about it, is there?
So sad, you’ll have to go back to trying to convince people that the description of the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”. Is that supposed to cause AGW?
Donkey.
Gordan said “Richard Lindzen leads the truthful side and he is far more scientific than any of the drivel output by Emmanuel.”
Lindzen (like Spencer) truthfully believes that the GHE reduces outgoing longwave radiation and warms the planet.
“The surface temperature response to increased CO2 involves important implicit contributions from the dynamics. The basic mechanism underlying the clear-sky greenhouse effect is that increasing absorber amounts changes the longwave optical properties of the atmosphere without changing the top of the atmosphere longwave or shortwave net radiative fluxes. The increased absorber amount causes the OLR to originate from a higher-tropospheric layer. Since the tropospheric temperature
decreases with height, raising the emission level would cause reduced OLR if the temperature did not change. The temperature of the emitting layer must then rise to preserve the radiative balance.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/56/11/1520-0469_1999_056_1649_twvacs_2.0.co_2.xml
Craig T,
What a pathetic attempt at appealing to authority.
You wrote –
“Lindzen (like Spencer) truthfully believes that the GHE reduces outgoing longwave radiation and warms the planet.”
There’s a minor problem of fact to deal with. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, not warmed.
Maybe that’s why neither of your two authorities has managed to provide GHE description which can quote. I truthfully believe you are a deranged GHE cultist.
Must be true, then?
Mike Flynn,
That factoid of yours is irrelevant.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
We have 100% confidence that sea level is rising because humans are heating the planet. And higher sea levels mean today’s [tropical cyclones] do more damage than an identical tropical cyclone in a cooler climate because the storm surge is riding on a higher sea level.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-change-is-making-hurricanes-09e
REAL scientists have 100% confidence you can’t show how humans are “heating the planet”.
Step 1 and 2 – Pure Denial and Sammich Request
Well done, silly sock puppet!
The cult child responds with cult childishness, proving me right again.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
And Puffman completes the hat trick!
Come on, Wee Willy.
“Step 3 Saying Stuff
And Puffman completes the hat trick!”
Is that the best you can do? Really? Even a novice troll has more imagination than that!
I’ve made it easy for you by agreeing that I’m Mike Flynn, so you can continuously appeal to my authority, and I can tell you that there is no GHE.
It’s pretty sad when even your authority Mike Flynn (me) says that you’re an idiot, isn’t it?
Oh dear, what will you do now?
[no foul humouring madman, is it]
Mike Flynn,
You worry –
> Is that the best you can do?
No, it’s not.
Do Sky Dragon cranks deserve my best?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Come on, Wee Willy.
“Step 3 Saying Stuff
And Puffman completes the hat trick!”
Is that the best you can do? Really? Even a novice troll has more imagination than that!
You wrote “Do Sky Dragon cranks deserve my best?”. You are mindlessly gibbbering again, aren’t you? Your best is just an ineffectual as the rest of you. Completely inept and impotent. Sad, but true.
I’ve made it easy for you by agreeing that Im Mike Flynn, so you can continuously appeal to my authority, and I can tell you that there is no GHE.
Its pretty sad when even your authority Mike Flynn (me) says that youre an idiot, isnt it?
Oh dear, what will you do now?
[no foul humouring madman, is it]
Mike Flynn,
You say –
> I am Mike Flynn.
You sure are, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Come on, Wee Willy.
“Step 3 Saying Stuff
And Puffman completes the hat trick!”
Is that the best you can do? Really? Even a novice troll has more imagination than that!
You wrote “Do Sky Dragon cranks deserve my best?” You are mindlessly gibbbering again, arent you? Your best is just an ineffectual as the rest of you. Completely inept and impotent. Sad, but true.
I’ve made it easy for you by agreeing that Im Mike Flynn, so you can continuously appeal to my authority, and I can tell you that there is no GHE.
Its pretty sad when even your authority Mike Flynn (me) says that youre an idiot, isnt it?
Oh dear, what will you do now?
At least you are agreeing with me. Or are you going to accuse me of lying about using the synonym Mike Flynn? You never know, I might be!
[no foul humouring madman, is it]
Mike Flynn,
You finally concede
> I am Mike Flynn.
You sure are, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Glad to see that you agree with me.
Freudian slip?
100% confidence is not proof, it is sheer speculation by ijits, as reported by a major ijit.
Mr. Asshat is 100% asshat, I’m 150% sure of that!
Weepy Wee Willy,
I’m Mike Flynn, and you are deranged.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Worried Wee Willy,
Im Mike Flynn, and you are deranged.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
> Im
“Im”?
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
I’m Mike Flynn, and you are deranged.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You finally admit –
> I’m Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
Im Mike Flynn, and you are deranged.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You’re in my thread.
Silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
In the following days, a powerful patch of Arctic air over Russia, with ground frosts.
https://i.ibb.co/zQjCy5k/ventusky-temperature-500hpa-20240509t1500.jpg
Gordon,
“Photons cannot collide with molecules because photon have no mass. Even molecules dont collide with other molecules as two masses would collide. Thats because molecules are made of atoms and each atom has electrons orbiting it, therefore there is a negative field around each atom. It is unlikely that the solid part of the atoms would collide since that would displace the electrons and cause the atom to disintegrate.”
–
Thank you, Gordon. I think photon is yet another abstraction which “helps visualizing” the complex physical phenomena.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Mark Twain….what gets us into trouble is not what we dont know, its what we know for sure that just aint so.
Like climate change denial.
EM,
Are you mad? Name someone who denies that the climate changes.
Next thing you’ll be running around waving a placard saying “Stop Climate Change!”.
Whos denying what? You’re denying the reality that climate is ever-changing. Your attempts to link the lack of a GHE to the Holocaust (Holocaust “denial”, and Hansen’s “trains of death)) just make you look like a fanatical GHE cultist – who csn’t even describe the GHE!
You are just gullible and ignorant, not necessarily stupid.
Accept reality. The Earth has cooled.
Mike Flynn,
You play your silly semantic games again –
> Name someone who denies that the climate changes.
“Climate change denial” refers to denial of the A, the G, or the W part of AGW.
Since you deny the greenhouse effect, you go above and beyond that.
That makes you a crank.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, you dimwitted clod, you wrote –
“Climate change denial refers to denial of the A, the G, or the W part of AGW.
Since you deny the greenhouse effect, you go above and beyond that.
That makes you a crank.”
Are you trying to say that “climate change denial” has nothing to do with climate? You must be insane if so! Maybe you could name someone who denies “the A, the G, or the W part of AGW.”?
Of course you can’t, because you’re an idiot.
There is no greenhouse effect, you donkey. You claim the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”. That relates to “the A, the G, or the W part of AGW.” precisely how? Not at all?
[laughing at thoroughly confused cultist]
Mike Flynn,
Are you trying to suggest that you don’t know that AGW is related to climate change?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker,
“Are you trying to suggest that you dont know that AGW is related to climate change?”
I’m not suggesting that at all. Are you? AGW (that is, man-made heat) will affect temperatures of thermometers exposed to such heat.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather, so that if meteorological thermometers respond to man-made heat, the variations will affect the derived statistics.
You have things back to front, by the look of things, but given your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, any connection between AGW and the mythical GHE, is purely in your imagination.
Maybe you could try to describe the GHE in a way that involves increasing temperatures, perhaps?
Only joking – you can’t, can you?
Mike Flynn,
You go for Step 1, Pure Denial –
> Im not suggesting that at all.
Yes, you actually do. Here:
If AGW is related to climate change, why would you ask that silly question?
Silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, the ignorant and bumbling bobdroege wrote –
“For the second time today, I have to remind people that photons dont carry the information of the temperature of the body that emits them.”
He’s talking through his rear passage, appealing to the darkness within.
He’s one of those idiots who believes that objects interact with all photons which impinge upon them. The inevitable consequences of his bizarre fantasy is that photons emitted by ice can be absorbed by water, raising its temperature, and that the Earth’s surface can be heated by the radiation from a colder atmosphere.
Bobby is so ignorant that he refuses to believe that even when the atmosphere is warmer than the surface at night (low level inversion), the surface still cools. Even photons from a hotter atmosphere won’t raise the surface temperature in this case!
But bumbling Bobby has it all worked out. His description of the GHE “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Luckily, his ignorance here does nobody any harm. Anybody selling bumbling Bobbys advice about financial planning or brake repairs deserves all they get.
Swenson,
What other information can you get from a photon?
Here is the mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect, a nice description if you will, but you won’t understand it.
“A CO2 molecule absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy of a certain energy/frequency/wavelength and starts vibrating.
Then it can transfer that energy elsewhere by emitting another quantum of electromagnetic energy or colliding with another molecule or atom.
The other part is that the CO2 molecule can start vibrating after a collision with another molecule, and then emit electromagnetic energy.
Swenson, here is a quote from you.
“Hes one of those idiots who believes that objects interact with all photons which impinge upon them.”
I believe you were the one who said CO2 interacts with all wavelengths of photons.
But have you been outside lately, grass is green and the sky is blue, and CO2 doesn’t interact with those wavelengths, so you actually see the blue and green colors.
Brain-dead bob, your “mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect” describes warming the atmosphere, which is reality. So, you need to contact your cult HQ for more indoctrination. Your cult claims CO2 can warm the SURFACE, which is nonsense.
Clint,
You do understand the meaning of the word elsewhere?
If my description warms the atmosphere, which is in contact with the surface, then it warms the surface as well.
Or the radiation emitted by the CO2 in the second part, meets the surface and adds its energy there.
Objection overruled
Babbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“If my description warms the atmosphere, which is in contact with the surface, then it warms the surface as well”
Well no, it won’t. An example is radiation frost, where the surface is cold enough to freeze water, in spite of the atmosphere some distance above being well above freezing.
Do you take ignorance pills on a regular basis, or are you just naturally thick?
By the way, a description warms nothing. Here’s one of your descriptions of the GHE –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Is that your best effort, or do you intend to surpass yourself in the future?
Carry on fantasising.
Sorry bob, but you’ve got the same energy doing all the warming!
It’s like saying two ice cubes can raise the temperature more than one.
See why you’re brain-dead?
That’s astute of you Clint,
It does all the warming because it can’t escape.
Bereft of brain bobby,
You burbled –
“It does all the warming because it cant escape.”
What are you burbling about? What can’t escape? Your alleged brain may have escaped from your cranium, leaving your mouth in nonsense-dribbling mode.
Have you considered quitting while you’re behind?
[what an incoherent nutter]
Swenson,
Maybe you could find a hidden word, in Clint’s post, before the phrase “all the warming” in the same position as “it”
That is only if you are having trouble with your reading comprehension.
Bereft of brain bobby,
You burbled
“It does all the warming because it cant escape.”
What are you burbling about? What cant escape? Your alleged brain may have escaped from your cranium, leaving your mouth in nonsense-dribbling mode.
Have you considered quitting while youre behind?
[what an incoherent nutter]
Swenson,
Try reading Clint’s and my post again, it’s obvious what “it” was referring to.
Lazy and dumb.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Bobdroege, you bumblin* incompetent.
You wrote –
“Here is the mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect, a nice description if you will, but you wont understand it.”. You fool, a description is not a mechanism, and your previous description of the mythical GHE – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”, shows the level of your understanding of either.
Bananas, oxygen, and all matter in the universe can absorb IR. So can CO2.
You also tried to mislead readers in typical fanatical GHE cultis5 fashion, by writing “I believe you were the one who said CO2 interacts with all wavelengths of photons.”
You are too terrified to quote me directly, aren’t you? Like the usual run of gutless “believers”, you imply that your “beliefs” are superior to reality! They aren’t.
Maybe you could try to to describe the GHE in some way which agrees with reality. Is it supposed to heat the planet, do you think? It doesn’t seem so, even after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the Earth’s surface seems to have cooled – as it does every night.
Your latest babbling “A CO2 molecule absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy of a certain energy/frequency/wavelength and starts vibrating.” has nothing to do with the GHE, does it? A molecule of anything at all behaves the same way! Actually, photons only interact with electrons, but Ill make allowances for your obvious ignorance, and lower myself to your level.
Bad luck, babbling Bobby, your demonstration of your intellectual prowess seems to have fallen at the first hurdle. At least you now accept that photons can travel though solid substances (like glass) without significant interaction. Maybe you now accept that photons from ice don’t interact with water?
Or maybe not.
Carry on.
Swenson,
You are listening to Gordon again, not the best source for science.
“Actually, photons only interact with electrons, but Ill make allowances for your obvious ignorance, and lower myself to your level.”
“Photons act as individual quanta and interact with individual electrons, atoms, molecules, and so on. The energy a photon carries is, thus, crucial to the effects it has.”
You can google “what do photons interact with”
To get that quote, because the link has bad lettering.
“A molecule of anything at all behaves the same way!”
No, a molecule of oxygen does not behave like a molecule of CO2, it that is what you are trying to say.
Oxygen will support a fire, while CO2 will suppress a fire.
Skipped the chance to study Chemistry in school, did you.
Enough already, I don’t have to argue with a luddite who doesn’t have a clue.
Photons interact with electrons.
There are no special CO2 electrons.
All molecules act exactly the same way in their interactions with photons, because photons interact with electrons.
You don’t understand this sort of thing, do you?
And yes, CO2 and O2 have different properties. Why do you find that surprising?
You wrote –
“No, a molecule of oxygen does not behave like a molecule of CO2, it that is what you are trying to say.” When it comes to the wavelength of the radiation they emit due to temperature, yes they do. That’s why objects at the same temperature are the same temperature.
I know you can’t understand that – many people can’t.
Still, you can’t describe the GHE at all. Why is that?
Mike Flynn,
You pontificate –
> objects at the same temperature are the same temperature.
Objects are temperature?
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
“Photons interact with electrons.
There are no special CO2 electrons.
All molecules act exactly the same way in their interactions with photons, because photons interact with electrons.”
Ugghh. Why can’t we get better skeptics?
Clearly when picking teams, whoever chose Swenson and friends must’ve picked last!
Photons interact with electrons.
There are no special CO2 electrons.
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, of course.
No wonder you can’t even describe the GHE!
Wonky Wee Willy,
If you dont accept that objects at the same temperature are the same temperature, just say so.
Is your description of the GHE still “not cooling, slower cooling”?
It would be odd if you described AGW as anthropogenic global cooling, wouldn’t it?
I suppose you hope that people are stupid enough to believe that your “not cooling, slower cooling” causes warming! Good luck with that!
Carry on.
“Photons interact with electrons.
There are no special CO2 electrons.”
These useless skeptics always screw up basic science facts. Why?
Photons interact with molecules, which are electrons and atomic nuclei bound together in different configurations.
Thus CO2 molecules behave differently than O2 molecules when interacting with IR photons.
Swenson,
Somewhere up thread is where you said this
” I will wager that you cannot specify a photon wavelength with which CO2 will not interact under any circumstances. ”
So I was not directly quoting you, but I got the gist of it, when I said this.
” I believe you were the one who said CO2 interacts with all wavelengths of photons.
Still out in the woods dancing with the fairies, woodnymphs, and especially Pan.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
“Your latest babbling A CO2 molecule absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy of a certain energy/frequency/wavelength and starts vibrating. has nothing to do with the GHE, does it?”
Like I said, it’s the mechanism, so yes it has all to do with the Greenhouse Effect.
And now this
“A molecule of anything at all behaves the same way! Actually, photons only interact with electrons, but Ill make allowances for your obvious ignorance, and lower myself to your level.”
Well no, different molecules behave differently.
And photons only interact with electrons, googly moogly, don’t take what Gordon posts as the truth.
“Individual electrons, atoms, molecules
Photons act as individual quanta and interact with individual electrons, atoms, molecules, and so on. The energy a photon carries is, thus, crucial to the effects it has.”
from
a link with bad letters
And you mean raise yourself to my level.
But that would take some science education.
Babbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“Like I said, its the mechanism, so yes it has all to do with the Greenhouse Effect.”
Unfortunately, you can’t describe the greenhouse effect, can you?
Your previous description “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” is complete nonsense, as even Bindidon agreed.
Maybe you prefer the bizarre Willard description “not cooling, slower cooling”? You might even be silly enough to claim the GHE makes the planet hotter! You are not that stupid, are you?
What’s your latest silly attempt at a description of the GHE?
[bumbling Bobby seems confused]
“Unfortunately, you cant describe the greenhouse effect, can you?”
Said in response to Bobdroege describing the greenhouse effect.
And before you say it, the GHE wouldn’t stop the newly formed Earth from cooling. It did warm the Earth after the last Ice Age. So please stop being a dag.
Craig T,
This is bumbling bobdroege’s description of the GHE “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
No Im not joking. You are free to agree if you like.
I can laugh just as hard at two idiots as one.
Why don’t you stop beating around the bush, and just describe the GHE?
Because you can’t that’s why! It doesn’t exist.
Warming is caused by heat, you donkey.
Carry on.
Remember Mikey Flynn,
“Your previous description Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better. is complete nonsense, as even Bindidon agreed.
Remember, I wrote that to make fun of your attempt to discredit the greenhouse effect.
It didn’t work, and I am still laughing at you every time you repeat it.
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“Remember, I wrote that to make fun of your attempt to discredit the greenhouse effect.”
This would be the greenhouse effect that you cannot describe? The greenhouse effect that doesn’t exist?
At least you agree that increasing the amount of CO2 between Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. As Bindidon said, that’s just nonsense.
You are obviously one of those strange GHE cultists who gets caught out saying something particularly stupid, and then claims they were really just trolling!
I can’t discredit something that doesn’t exist, you donkey. It doesn’t exist. You can’t even say what it’s supposed to do. Your latest effort seems to imply that the Earth warms up and cools down for no reason at all, apparently having got hot enough to melt the interior – but not the surface!
I suppose you are now going to say you were only trolling, and you didn’t really mean it.
Carry on lurching from crisis to catastrophe.
Swengoolie,
“Your latest effort seems to imply that the Earth warms up and cools down for no reason at all,”
I wasn’t implying that at all, you are denying that there are periods of warming and cooling in the history of the Earth.
There are a number of things that can warm or cool the Earth.
Take a science class if you are interested.
“At least you agree that increasing the amount of CO2 between Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. As Bindidon said, thats just nonsense.”
Not hardly, I still believe that.
But maybe you could post the whole quote and not just a part of it.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“There are a number of things that can warm or cool the Earth.”
Pity you can’t name any. Pixie dust, magic spells?
Not found in any science text that I am aware of.
When I wrote “at least you agree that increasing the amount of CO2 between Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. As Bindidon said, that’s just nonsense.”
You responded –
“Not hardly, I still believe that”. What, that increasing the amount of CO2 between Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. Or “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”
So which is it, bumbling bobby – does increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer make the thermometer hotter or colder?
You won’t say, will you?
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“There are a number of things that can warm or cool the Earth.”
Pity you can’t quote any.
When I wrote “at least you agree that increasing the amount of CO2 between Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. As Bindidon said, that’s just nonsense.”
You responded –
“Not hardly, I still believe that”. What, that increasing the amount of CO2 between Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. Or “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”
So which is it, bumbling bobby – does increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer make the thermometer hotter or colder?
You won’t say, will you?
Swenson,
“Pity you cant name any. Pixie dust, magic spells?
Not found in any science text that I am aware of.”
So you are not aware of any science texts that deal with global temperatures.
So you admit your ignorance.
Try the IPCC reports.
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
“Pity you cant name any. Pixie dust, magic spells?
Not found in any science text that I am aware of.”
So you are not aware of any science texts that deal with global temperatures.
So you admit your ignorance.
Try the IPCC reports.
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/”
You are an idiot if you think the IPCC reports is a “scientific text”.
You’re an idiot anyway, you believe in a GHE which even the IPCC can’t describe!
Keep trying.
Mike Flynn,
You infer –
> So you are not aware of any science texts that deal with global temperatures.
So after having admitted being Mike Flynn, you now admit not knowing any science text that deal with global temperatures.
Silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
“You are an idiot if you think the IPCC reports is a scientific text.
How would you know?
Have you read any of them or all of them?
Do you have sufficient science training to be able to figure that out?
I think you still eat Maypo, and are not ready for solid food nor scientific texts.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Record-Matching Sun Flyby
Posted on 2024-04-03 17:02:47
“NASA’s Parker Solar Probe completed its 19th close approach to the Sun on March 30, matching its own distance record by coming about 4.51 million miles (7.26 million kilometers) of the solar surface.”
…
Parker is on track to swing around the Sun from the same distance and at the same speed two more times this year – on June 30 and Sept. 30 – before making the first of its three final, closest approaches on Dec. 24. At that point, with its orbit shaped by the mission’s final Venus gravity assist-flyby on Nov. 6, the spacecraft will zoom just 3.8 million miles from the solar surface, moving about 430,000 miles per hour. ”
https://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
Aphelion: May 15, 2024, 03:04 UTC
6 days 1 hr 17 min
Your current UTC time: 2024-05-09T01:47:38.146Z
Speed of Spacecraft: 49,132 kph
49,132 / 3600 seconds is 13.647777778 km/sec
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
State of the Climate in Latin America and the Caribbean 2023
Warmest year on record
Drought, heatwaves, rainfall and floods undermine economic development
Sea level rise threatens coastal areas and glacier retreat accelerates
LAC region lags in providing weather and climate services
Integrated climate and health strategies making progress
https://wmo.int/publication-series/state-of-climate-latin-america-and-caribbean-2023
Weepy Wee Willy,
Rewriting another definition, are you?
“State of the Climate in Latin America and the Caribbean 2023
Warmest year on record”
You can’t even describe the “Climate in Latin America and the Caribbean 2023”, can you?
You’re insane – living in some bizarre fantasy.
Good for laughs, though.
Mike Flynn,
More silly semantic games –
> Rewriting another definition
What definition would that be, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bumbling bobdroege wrote –
“With CO2 and the hockey stick, we have correlation and causation.
I just posted the mechanism.”
Unfortunately, the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of an atmosphere, and continuous sunlight during that time.
You burble about a hockey stick, which indicates your inability to both face the reality of four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, mythical GHE notwithstanding, and your blind acceptance of the creation of a meaningless hockey stick by a known fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat.
CO2 creates no heat. None, not a bit even.
Dr Spencer is one of many researchers who is examining the correlation between humans, their energy production and consumption, and hotter thermometers. You may think he is misguided. I don’t. Thermometers respond to heat, not CO2. You are free to reject reality if you wish. Reality doesnt care, and neither do I.
I should repeat your stated mechanism (or is it a description?) –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Carry on.
Dr. Spencer is also one of many researchers that has described the greenhouse effect. He’s joined by Richard Lindzen. Raising your antiwarming rants to their level would be a massive improvement in your credibility.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“Dr. Spencer is also one of many researchers that has described the greenhouse effect.”
It’s a great pity you can’t post it here, isn’t it?
Won’t Dr Spencer let you have a copy, or a you one of the crop of fanatical GHE cultists who claims someone else has described the GHE, but you are not allowed to quote their description?
You aren’t reall6 that stupid, are you?
Craig, trying to hide behind Dr. Spencer is one of your funnier, and worthless, cult tactics. Dr. Spencer completely rejects any drastic warming from CO2. He doesn’t argue against the physics of the GHE because physics isn’t his field of expertise. He argues against it from his knowledge of climate.
You need to watch the video of NASA (your cult HQ) Gavin Schmidt running from Spencer. Why do you think so many cult tr0lls are here trying to clog this blog?
“Dr. Spencer completely rejects any drastic warming from CO2.”
True, but he’s educated enough to not deny the greenhouse effect.
“The Greenhouse Effect Decreases the Rate of Energy Loss by the Earths Surface”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/
You might want to search the website, because Roy did an article listing ten arguments skeptics have against the Greenhouse Effect and debunked them all.
That’s some egg on your faces.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“The Greenhouse Effect Decreases the Rate of Energy Loss by the Earths Surface”, which still cools. Is that what are appealing to? The GHE results in temperatures dropping?
Are you like other fanatical GHE who claim that slow cooling is really heating?
From your link –
“So, heres my latest attempt at explaining temperature change, the “greenhouse effect” (yes, I know its not like a real greenhouse, but thanks for the tip), and why alternative theories cannot yet replace greenhouse theory.”
That’s new. The greenhouse effect is temperature change? I don’t think so, but you can believe what you like.
Dr Spencer hasn’t described the greenhouse effect – nor has anybody else. Thst’s why you are reduced to providing links which dont contain any description of the greenhouse effect?
You’re looking more inept as time goes by.
Keep it up!
Bumbling bobby,
You tried an appeal to authority –
“You might want to search the website, because Roy did an article listing ten arguments skeptics have against the Greenhouse Effect and debunked them all.”
Your appeal failed. You can’t even describe the mythical GHE – hard to debunk something that doesn’t exist, because it doesn’t exist. No debunking required or necessary.
Are you sticking with “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”, or were you just saying that trying to annoy somebody?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You declare –
> Your appeal failed.
How so, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
What’s the matter, you couldn’t find Dr Roy’s article?
Just crank up the belligerence to cover up your incompetence.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Whats the matter, you couldnt find Dr Roys article?”
Which article is that? I’m unaware of Dr Spencer or anyone else describing the GHE in any way that reflects reality.
Maybe you could quote the description which you claim exists?
No? Why am I not surprised?
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb again –
> Which article is that?
It lists the ten crankiest arguments that doesn’t help the contrarian cause.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote
“Whats the matter, you couldnt find Dr Roys article.”
Which article is that? Im unaware of Dr Spencer or anyone else describing the GHE in any way that reflects reality.
Maybe you could quote the description which you claim exists?
No? Why am I not surprised?
Mike Flynn,
You really are having a problem with copy pasting links on your iPad.
Have you considered asking a youngster nearby?
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Swenson,
“Which article is that? Im unaware of Dr Spencer or anyone else describing the GHE in any way that reflects reality.”
How about a pretty please with sugar on top.
Assholes don’t get free sammiches from my shop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33zJvKNYv2c
Swenson,
Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no such thing as 4 1/2 billion years of cooling.
The planet has warmed and cooled over various intervals since it formed out of cold space dust.
See the graph at the top of the page for the latest data and trends.
You should note that it goes up and down.
Bumbling Bobby,
Your imagination is running away with you again. You wrote –
“The planet has warmed and cooled over various intervals since it formed out of cold space dust.”
Only in your fantasies, Bobby, only in your fantasies. You are free to believe that the Earth’s surface was never molten, and free to believe the interior is still cold. I am free to laugh at you.
Even your stupid description of the GHE “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”, doesn’t quite gel with the rest of your fantasy, does it?
Maybe you could provide the authority for your assertion “The planet has warmed and cooled over various intervals since it formed out of cold space dust.”, particularly the “cold space dust” part? Did you read that inscribed on a wall in the Arkham Insane Asylum, or did you make it up yourself?
[what a guy, away with the fairies]
Swenson Mikey Flynn
“Only in your fantasies, Bobby, only in your fantasies. You are free to believe that the Earths surface was never molten, and free to believe the interior is still cold. I am free to laugh at you.”
You don’t have it in you to actually read what someone posts.
Otherwise you would know that I never posted that the Earth’s surface was never molten.
The Earth has warmed since the Cryogenian about 700 million years ago.
Also I never mentioned the temperature of the interior because that wasn’t part of my statement.
Maybe a fairy told you that, because you think fairies are talking to you.
Bumbling Bobby,
I merely said you were free to believe that the Earths surface was never molten. I suppose you are now going to say that it was molten at one time, is that it?
You are free to believe the interior is not molten, if you wish. You refuse to commit yourself, and won’t deny it, so it must be true. That’s the problem with trying t9 be clever by saying nothing – you get caught out, and have to claim that you were only trolling!
You still can’t (or won’t) describe the GHE.
After saying that “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” was nonsense, and you were just trolling, you wrote –
“Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”
Which is it, idiot? More CO2 makes thermometers hotter, or more CO2 doesn’t make thermometers hotter? Or do you think the Earth started off cold, heated up and melted, cooled off, heated up again, and so on? You refuse to say, because you’d look really, really, stupid!
It doesn’t matter Bobby, it’s obvious that you are really, really, stupid – no matter what you say or don’t say.
You really have no clue how to appear intelligent, do you?
Swenson,
“You really have no clue how to appear intelligent, do you?”
Is that what I am trying to do?
Yes, the greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere.
You seem to have a problem with that, take two science classes and call me in the morning.
“Yes, the greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere.”
Except where research papers say it is negative, is that it?
So it warms and cools the surface, and cools and warms the atmosphere, at the same time, does it?
You do keep up with NASA research published in Nature, do you?
All complete nonsense, of course, but I’m surprised at your mythical GHE ignorance.
Swenson,
Would you like a nice vacation where the greenhouse effect is negative?
That can be arranged, but will cost you.
So are you saying that the greenhouse effect is negative somewhere?
You think you found something in your internet browsing that we are not aware of?
So if you think it is negative somewhere, then you must think it is real.
And the overall effect is positive, so what I said is still true.
“Yes, the greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere.”
Except where research papers say it is negative, is that it?
So it warms and cools the surface, and cools and warms the atmosphere, at the same time, does it?
You do keep up with NASA research published in Nature, do you?
All complete nonsense, of course, but Im surprised at your mythical GHE ignorance.
Maybe you could avoid reality, and start babbling.
Swenson,
I can repeat myself too.
The greenhouse effect warms the surface, most everywhere, the high antarctica plateau being an exception, and cools the stratosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Hey DR EMPTY,
You missed one.
You wish.
Earlier, some wishful thinker wrote –
“Further, molecules do not stop receiving radiant energy because they are at a higher temperature than the source.”
Well yes, they do, if by “receiving” you mean interacting in such a way that the temperature of the “receiving” object will rise.
That’s clearly nonsense, and about as silly as believing that a colder atmosphere can cause a warmer surface to rise in temperature. The surface cools at night, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat. This has resulted in the Earth itself cooling over the past four and a half billion years.
Of course, facts have no discernible impact on the fevered imaginations of fanatical GHE cultists, who can’t quite describe what they believe in, but are sure it will bring doom eventually!
They are quite mad.
Mike Flynn,
More silly semantic games from your part –
> if by “receiving” you mean
Are you the silliest sock puppet Sky Dragon cranks got?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, some deranged wishful thinker wrote –
“Further, molecules do not stop receiving radiant energy because they are at a higher temperature than the source.”
Well, if they are molecules of liquid water totally surrounded by ice (or something even colder), of course they do!
He is probably stupid enough to believe that warmer objects absorb photons from colder ones – and magically get hotter! Unfortunately, his fevered imagination is not reality.
GHE believers cannot describe the mythical GHE, which makes them look pretty dimwitted by comparison with even the most unschooled children , who can at least describe unicorns, fairies and so on.
Mike Flynn,
You’re repeating your silly semantic game.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
NOAA vs UAH
13-month running averages (12 and two halves)
NOAA anomalies converted to UAH baseline (1991-2020)
UAH has one more month than NOAA at the end (Apr 2024)
https://tinyurl.com/NOAA-vs-UAH
I meant … 11 and two halves.
Here is NOAA vs UAH with the same baseline (1991-2020) AND both data sets detrended so that we can see only the ENSO events (and Pinatubo/El Chichon):
https://tinyurl.com/NOAA-vs-UAH-detrended
We can see here what I stated earlier … that UAH over-represents the extreme events relative to NOAA … warmer for El Nino and cooler for La Nina.
The difference we are seeing now is actually no different to 1998. But for some reason we didn’t see that disparity in 2016.
Of course when the deniers here say this should be “fixed”, they mean only reduce the effect of El Ninos, but leave La Ninas untouched.
Finally, just for the sake of completeness, this is NOAA vs UAH for the same baseline, the same zero trend, AND the same spread (standard deviation):
https://tinyurl.com/NOAA-vs-UAH-same-SD
Not sure what if anything can be read into this one though.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Whiffling Wee Willy at his finest, full comment –
“Puffman keeps proving that cranks have contrarians have little else than the three steps!”
I doubt that Willard can take three consecutive steps without tripping over the foot he keeps putting on his mouth!
He’s the joke that never stops.
Mike Flynn,
Here is one step –
“Mike Flynn.”
Here is a second step –
“Silly sock puppet!”
And here is a third one –
“Cheers.”
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Eastern Europe is experiencing unusually cold weather for May. In Russia, temperatures are significantly below average. The Baltic states report record-breaking morning frosts, which have destroyed fruit trees. See temperature anomaly map:
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=56.6;44.3;4&l=temperature-anomaly-2m
Thank you, Ren, for bringing attention to cold events. It’s so refreshing given all of the constant news about anomalous heat. We live on a healthy, beautiful planet.
Meanwhile, outside cycle nuts’ la-la-land:
UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2024: +1.05 deg. C
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
In frantic desperation, the cult id10ts are trying to use Drs. Spencer and Lindzen to support their GHE alarmist nonsense. Both have clearly refuted the alarmism. Lindzen has even used the word “cult”.
If the cult is this desperate at the peak of the natural warming trend, just imagine how frantic they will be when the cooling trend develops.
Remember, the cult STILL can’t even describe/define the bogus GHE.
Clint,
Your science incompetence is showing.
Yes the cult can describe the greenhouse effect, there are even books and published papers on the subject.
Use your google.
I recently posted the mechanism, how CO2 interacts with infrared.
Sorry bob, but your “mechanism” was incomplete. We know CO2 can absorb/emit 15μ photons. You must show how those photons can warm the surface, without violating principles of physics.
This is about science, not your beliefs.
Clint,
The photons add their energy to the surface of the Earth.
Dry ice (frozen CO2) has a temperature of -79C. The peak emission of a black body at that temperature is 15μ photons.
Since atmospheric CO2 must be above -79C, and “we know CO2 can absorb/emit 15μ photons”, we know the temperature of the source of a photon and the absorbing molecule is not relevant.
Try heating water with CO2 at -79 C.
Try heating anything at all with colder CO2.
Are you really that ignorant, or just pretending? Maybe you could pretend that someone has described the mythical GHE? Norman, perhaps who describes the GHE as “insulation”. Pointless, but admirably brief.
Off you go, demonstrate your ignorance and gullibility.
Shut up, Puffman.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Sorry again bob, but adding energy does NOT always result in a higher temperature. Adding more ice to a system does not increase the temperature above 32F, no matter how much ice is added. This has been explained to you before, but you can’t learn.
Norman had a chance to provide a viable description/definition of the bogus GHE, but failed. Your entire cult has failed. You have failed also.
Thanks for playing.
Clint,
“Sorry again bob, but adding energy does NOT always result in a higher temperature.”
You got them weasel words in there, “not always”
But in the case where the surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun, then the added energy from photons from CO2 do indeed result in a temperature increase.
Obviously, if a comet hits the Earth, and adds its energy, you get an increase in temperature. A comet being a dirty iceball.
We are not adding ice to the surface of the Earth with the greenhouse effect, so your ice analogy fails epically.
Try an analogy that agrees with reality.
Responsible adults know I wasn’t referring to comets, bob. You’re just trying to pervert my simple analogy. That’s what you have to do since you have NOTHING. Your cult has no viable description/definition of the bogus GHE. Your cult has no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. Your cult doesn’t even know how to walk around a tree!
That’s why I limit the time I waste with you cult id10ts.
And, your time is up….
Clint,
Photons add energy but not mass…
So draw your own conclusion about your bricks analogy.
Hint: It’s dumber than a sack of bricks.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Photons add energy but not mass.”
Einstein said e=mc2. The m is for mass. e is for energy.
You don’t understand anything, do you?
You also wrote –
“But in the case where the surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun, then the added energy from photons from CO2 do indeed result in a temperature increase.”
Are you going to deny that the Earth once had a molten surface, and has cooled to its present temperature?
You are definitely strange.
Carry on.
Swenson,
“Are you going to deny that the Earth once had a molten surface, and has cooled to its present temperature?”
That’s irrelevant to the greenhouse effect, but I don’t deny that, never did.
Do you deny that there are periods of warming and cooling in Earth’s history.
Do you think the early molten Earth cooled linearly to today’s temperatures, or do you think it might have cooled according to Newton’s law of cooling?
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote
“Photons add energy but not mass.”
Einstein said e=mc2. The m is for mass. e is for energy.
You dont understand anything, do you?
You also wrote
“But in the case where the surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun, then the added energy from photons from CO2 do indeed result in a temperature increase.”
Are you going to deny that the Earth once had a molten surface, and has cooled to its present temperature? No?
That’s good to hear. Rather negates any warming if it cooled.
You are definitely strange.
Carry on.
Swenson,
When an infrared photon interacts with the surface of the Earth, it’ energy is not converted into mass.
“Photons add energy but not mass.
Einstein said e=mc2. The m is for mass. e is for energy.
You dont understand anything, do you?”
You just quoted an equation, yet you have no understanding of what that means.
And you should write the equation correctly, like
E=mc^2
Clint R
You are wrong. I provided a correct version of GHE. You inability to understand what I provided is your flaw not mine. 0
Read and weep, Norman.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665817
Clint,
“Adding more ice to a system does not increase the temperature above 32F, no matter how much ice is added.”
You did say no matter how much ice is added, so I suggested added a whole bunch at a very high speed.
Kablooey!
bob…please stop being silly.
About what you’d expect from an idiotic and fanatical GHE enthusiast who can’t describe the GHE!
He’s stupid enough to believe that reducing the amount of sunlight reaching a thermometer makes it hotter! Even at night, he said!
Not my experience, but bumbling bobby has convinced himself that the Earth was created cold, and got hotter, then colder, then hotter, . . .
Ah, the wonders of Bobbys fantasy are amazing to behold!
Mike Flynn,
Don’t you remember that one of your silly talking points involve desert nights?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666338
Weary Wee Willy,
Thanks for the support. Are you too frightened to quote me, or can’t you figure out how?
Here you go, Ill help you –
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
See? How easy it is.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote
“You did say no matter how much ice is added, so I suggested added a whole bunch at a very high speed.
Kablooey”
Off you go then. Translate your fantasy into reality. Does your stupidity have any bounds at all?
Mike Flynn,
You express gratitude –
> Thanks for the support.
It is my duty to make sure everyone gets that you are a silly sock puppet who keeps repeating the same tired tropes that have nothing to do with anything!
Cheers.
Swenson,
Sorry but comets have been observed colliding with planets.
Shoemaker-Levy 9
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Shut up, Puffman.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
New York Times Article – Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point nutty. He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.
Nutty old Clint
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666196
Have you actually read Lindzen on the GHE? He claims it is an immature theory, essentially aimed at the kindergarten level. Lindzen’s explanation of the GHE is totally different than the accepted definition.
In fact, in his article on the GHE, he claims the warming produced by CO2 is naturally limited to a few tenths of a degree C.
G,
“Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point nutty.”
Feynman agrees with me –
“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.”
There are no “tenets of climate science”, because climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Science?
Obviously Dr Lindzen believes that the Earth was created cold, and has been heated up since.
He can’t describe the GHE either. Why is that, do you think? Because it doesn’t exist, that’s why!
Find another authority to appeal to.
I wish all of that was true. Lindzen had this Iris theory that increased cloud cover would counteract the CO2 warming. Please link if Lindzen changed his tune.
I found Galaxy’s reference, it’s from 2012. Lindzen did say CO2 was warming the planet but he expected his Iris idea would protect us.
Craig T,
“I found Galaxys reference, its from 2012. Lindzen did say CO2 was warming the planet but he expected his Iris idea would protect us.”
Lindzen is wrong, then. CO2 warms nothing, not even a tiny bit. Grab hold of some frozen CO2 emitting 15u photons. Tell me how warm it feels.
You are an idiot if you are stupid enough to believe that dry ice can make water (or anything else hotter than dry ice) even hotter!
Go on, try and describe the GHE!
Iris hypothesis, wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis
In terms of my commenting on it.
I agree with everyone, we don’t understand clouds.
But in terms of general aspect, I tend to believe the tropic ocean is limited in it’s surface waters temperature and related to vapor pressure of water:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water
Generally, the most important aspect of global climate, is that we are in an Ice Age.
And in terms of global average temperature, it’s determined by the global surface temperature. And most of Earth surface is ocean area.
We can talk about the rocky surface, most of it, has an ocean above it. And rocky surface of the ocean, is very young rocky surface- and we know very little about it.
And one also talk about the land’s rocky surface, and the change topography of land surface, has been largely blamed for why we are in an Ice Age.
A reason we perhaps know more about the rocky land surface, is due to the general interest in mining it.
BTW…hot off the press is Loeb et al. 2024 – Observational Assessment of Changes in Earths Energy Imbalance Since 2000 which I think adequately falsifies Lindzen’s iris hypothesis.
“I agree with everyone, we dont understand clouds.”
Especially not Judy Collins.
“Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?”
“The calculations show that such a change in the Tropics could lead to a negative feedback in the global climate, with a feedback factor of about -1.1, which if correct, would more than cancel all the positive feedbacks in the more sensitive current climate models. Even if regions of high humidity were not coupled to cloudiness, the feedback factor due to the clouds alone would still amount to about -0.45, which would cancel model water vapor feedback in almost all models.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/82/3/1520-0477_2001_082_0417_dtehaa_2_3_co_2.xml
“We find that large decreases in stratocumulus and middle clouds over the sub-tropics and decreases in low and middle clouds at mid latitudes are the primary reasons for increasing [absorbed solar radiation] trends in the northern hemisphere (NH). These changes are especially large over the eastern and northern Pacific Ocean, and coincide with large increases in sea-surface temperature (SST).”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-024-09838-8
Exactly. And it’s not just this Loeb et al. 2024 publication presenting evidence that clouds have actually decreased resulting in higher ASR. I just posted it because it was published 2 days ago and because Bob Weber up higher felt Loeb’s CERES dataset was good enough to use.
How could a fictitious energy budget displace Lindzen’s theory?
Lindzen’s Adaptive Infrared Iris paper depended on working with energy budget models.
“We assume the current value of moist fractional area to be 0.25, and choose the remaining parameters so as to be consistent with the global mean temperature being 288 K, and match Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERB) observations.”
Loeb’s 2024 paper depended only on observations.
“We examine the global, zonal and regional variations and trends in TOA radiation both for the entire CERES period and sub-periods corresponding to the hiatus (20002010), transition-to-El Nino (20102016), and post-El Nino (20162022) to highlight TOA radiation changes across periods of markedly different internal variability. We also use the new CERES FluxByCldTyp (FBCT) data product to quantify the contribution to TOA radiation changes by different cloud types using a cloud classification scheme based upon cloud types provided in FBCT. Finally, we discuss some of the challenges associated with isolating the underlying processes that contribute to changes in TOA radiation from observations alone.”
“BTWhot off the press is Loeb et al. 2024 Observational Assessment of Changes in Earths Energy Imbalance Since 2000 which I think adequately falsifies Lindzens iris hypothesis.”
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. More energy out than in, obviously.
The surface cools at night. More energy out than in.
The Earth is big blob of stuff, mostly hot enough to glow, slowly cooling.
Good luck with heating it up.
What a pack of fools!
Mike Flynn,
How can clear nights be colder than cloudy nights if the Earth has cooled down since the dawn of times?
Silly sock puppet, cheers.
“How can clear nights be colder than cloudy nights if the Earth has cooled down since the dawn of times?”
Look it up.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Look up what, Mike Flynn?
That’s easy:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/24/environmentalism-versus-science/#comment-746492
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Weepyy Wee Willy,
If I say something, and you appeal to my authority, it must be worthwhile saying it again –
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
I’m glad you agree. No GHE to be seen.
Willard,
Maybe you were referring to this, but were too frightened to post it –
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
No GHE present or necessary. Thanks for appealing to my authority. I appreciate the support.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Too frightened to post? I’ll help you –
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
No GHE. Thanks for the support. Feel free to quote me as much as you like.
Mike Flynn,
Too frightend to post what?
This –
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/24/environmentalism-versus-science/#comment-746492
You’re quite right.
I’m shaking, silly sock puppet!
Worried Wee Willy,
See? It’s not that hard, is it?
Just like this –
“Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.”
No silly links needed.
Feel free to quote me as many times as you want. I appreciate your support.
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb again –
> No silly links needed.
Have you ever heard of the concept of citation?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
See? Its not that hard, is it?
Just like this
.Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.”
No silly links needed.
Feel free to quote me as many times as you want. I appreciate your support.
Mike Flynn,
You challenge me to quote you right after I did.
You must have simply lost your your footing in the threads, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666229
Clint, you haven’t said anything about my comment pointing out that you admitted atmospheric CO2 could absorb a photon from dry ice. (See link above)
Craig T,
Ooooooooh! An irrelevant link, is it?
Yes, if the atmosphere is colder than the CO2, it will be capable of absorbing photons from the warmer. It is called “heating”.
By the same process, liquid nitrogen can be heated by using frozen CO2 emitting 15u photons.
Anything colder can be heated by exposing it to the radiation from something hotter. Not the other way round, of course.
I’m surprised you didnt know theses facts. Only joking, Im not surprised at all. You are possibly stupid enough to believe the ground is warmed by the atmosphere!
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE!
craig…from your link…
“Since atmospheric CO2 must be above -79C, and we know CO2 can absorb/emit 15μ photons, we know the temperature of the source of a photon and the absorbing molecule is not relevant”.
***
CO2 ‘can’ absorb 15u photons but there are other rules governing whether or not it will. Atmospheric CO2 will absorb 15u photon from the surface only because the CO2 is in a region of the atmosphere that is colder than the surface. If the CO2 is at a higher temperature than the surface, it ill not absorb the surface radiation.
I am adding the obvious because 15u is not a magic number. CO2 that absorbs 15u energy from the surface will radiate energy to the surface at a different frequency/wavelength. That’s why the surface will not absorb it.
The temperature of the CO2 molecules determines the frequency/wavelength.
“I am adding the obvious because 15u is not a magic number. CO2 that absorbs 15u energy from the surface will radiate energy to the surface at a different frequency/wavelength.”
It’s true that 15u is not a magic number. But light with a 15u wavelength matches the activation energy to create a vibration in the CO2 molecule. This happens at room temperature.
“The deformation vibration of the CO2 molecule at 667 cm-1 [15u] is already thermally obtainable at room temperature, meaning that some of the molecules vibrate even when they are not irradiated with infrared light.”
https://wiki.anton-paar.com/en/infrared-spectrum-of-carbon-dioxide/
A CO2 molecule that absorbs 15u radiation will emit 15u radiation unless it collides with another molecule first. Then the radiant energy is transformed into kinetic energy.
I used to think that the warming occurred when the photon was emitted toward the ground. But after reading more detailed papers I’ve learned that it is the molecular collisions that keep the energy from leaving the atmosphere. In the stratosphere CO2 molecules are unlikely to collide with a another molecule before they emit photons that were absorbed.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“A CO2 molecule that absorbs 15u radiation will emit 15u radiation unless it collides with another molecule first. Then the radiant energy is transformed into kinetic energy.”
You really have no clue, have you? If a molecule emits precisely the same energy it receives, how would you know? The molecule would be completely unaffected. It would absorb no energy, being completely transparent.
You go on to say –
“But after reading more detailed papers Ive learned that it is the molecular collisions that keep the energy from leaving the atmosphere.”
More complete nonsense. The atmosphere cools at night. As Fourier said “Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
Resulting in four and a half billion years of cooling, but you probably dont accept that.
Maybe you could describe the GHE – or copy somebody else’s description, and be prepared to defend it. That sounds fair, doesn’t it?
I don’t believe you can, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Donkey.
craig…describing this via molecules is futile. A molecule is just a name for two or more atoms boded by electron bonds. It is the properties of the atoms making up the molecules that is relevant.
But we need to go deeper still. The nucleus of the atom, with neutrons and protons is not relevant either. All absorp-tion and emission is performed by electrons changing orbital levels.
It is important to get it that no other mechanism exists in an atom or a molecule to absorb and emit EM. Only electrons can interact with it. The EM cannot reach the nucleus and if it could and interfered with the equilibrium relationship between electrons and the nucleus it would unbalance the atom.
Norman is confused about this, speaking of vibrating bonds. However, those bonds are electron bonds, they are electrons shared between atoms. When the bond length changes linearly, or the bond vibrates about an axis, it is the electron orbital changing length or angle.
All molecules, that is, all atomic bonds vibrate. That is due to the nature of an electrostatic bond which comprises a negative and positive charge. It’s the same with planets, they are always changing orbital parameters due to the interaction of momentum and gravitational force. However, with electrostatic bonds, there is a continual vibration.
If a bonding electron should absorb EM, that will increase the energy in the bond and that affects the bond vibration. Same if it emits energy.
Gordon,
They don’t call them electrostatic bonds anymore, now they call them ionic bonds.
CO2 doesn’t have ionic bonds anyway, the bonds in CO2 are covalent.
And now this:
“The temperature of the CO2 molecules determines the frequency/wavelength.”
Not for gaseous CO2, temperature determines the rate, not the frequency/wavelenth.
Too bad you never passed any chemistry courses or you would know that.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 403.9 km/sec
density: 3.49 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 09 May 24
Sunspot number: 142
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 227 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.93×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.0% Low
“Giant sunspot AR3664 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar ”
6 numbered spots. not number spot coming from farside.
3563 [another X-class spot, may not leave within a day]
From above thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1664751
Solar wind
speed: 453.6 km/sec
density: 3.45 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 10 May 24
Sunspot number: 170
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 233 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.38×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low
7 numbered spot. 1 spot coming from farside, 1 spot going to farside
The group of sunspots which caused high daily sunspot last month are “coming soon”- assuming they survived. Some think they have, and would make April +150 sunspot number. But at moment I just see one small to moderate spot, coming.
Solar wind
speed: 771.8 km/sec
density: 3.05 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 11 May 24
Sunspot number: 156
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 223 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.65×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.5% Low
7 numbered spots. Spot is coming and will be numbered from farside.
The 1 spot didn’t go to farside 3663 number is still there, and 3666
looks like going to farside. The big one 3664 will take about 3 or more days to leave the nearside.
High flux, high neutron count, seems quite active, and a lot more sunspots are suppose to be coming from the farside.
On May 11, a strong solar wind from the eruptions of a spot that is close to the solar equator will hit the Earth’s magnetosphere.
https://i.ibb.co/n73vPJ3/pobrane.png
christos…I don’t understand how the concept of a photon helps visualize anything.
Consider an electron emitting a quantum of energy. The quantum is released in a short burst of EM energy which has a definite frequency and a definite form with an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. The quantum is not a particle because a particle has mass and EM has none. It is a burst of energy with one frequency, much like the EM released from a Morse code transmitter tapping out one letter.
Also, particles don’t diminish in intensity with the square of the distance from the source. The concept of a photon has been exaggerated to the point it makes no scientific sense. Even a wavefront makes no sense since a wave is a reference to EM of one frequency. EM as we know it in space is a summation of billions of different frequencies/wavelengths.
Gordon,
“EM as we know it in space is a summation of billions of different frequencies/wavelengths.”
Exactly. Sun doesn’t limit its emission frequencies at the narrow H2 and He2 bands.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Also, particles dont diminish in intensity with the square of the distance from the source.”
Imagine you shot 1,000 particles through a small hoop 10 feet away, and they were evenly spaced so that each particle went on a different path. If a wall behind the hoop was 20 feet away from you, the area on the wall struck by the particles would be 4 times the area of the original hoop.
If you placed the small hoop on the wall where the particles struck, you would find only 250 spots in that area where the particles hit. For the same area only 1/4 of the energy that went through the hoop at 10 feet reached the wall at 20 feet.
You really should research the photoelectric effect.
Craig T,
Imagine . . .
Imagine you can’t describe the GHE, but just keep claiming somebody else can.
I imagine that rational people would imagine that you are a fanatical GHE cultist, fiercely believing in something quite imaginary!
You have a fertile imagination, don’t you?
You might even imagine you can stop climate change! Only in your imagination, Graig T, only in your imagination.
Keep imagining.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666304
Oooooh! A link!
Does it contain anything relevant, or are you just trying to avoid the fact that nobody can describe the mythical GHE?
Or are you just making an inept attempt to be annoying? It won’t work, you know.
Who could be bothered with being annoyed by somebody who can’t help suffering from a mental defect – for example, someone who claims that a GHE exists, but cannot be described.
That sounds like cult thinking – not science.
Mike Flynn,
You exclaim –
> Oooooh! A link!
Craig suggested that you adopt Puffman’s idea of linking to your previous sock puppet posts.
It would save you the time of posting the same words over and over.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666153
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bob d…”But in the case where the surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun, then the added energy from photons from CO2 do indeed result in a temperature increase”.
***
Several reasons why you are wrong.
1)CO2 only absorbs 7% of surface radiation. Norman asked where I got that figure. He should know, he posted the surface radiation spectrum with the notch in it to estimate surface radiation absorbed by CO2, a pure estimate. The value given was 28 watts absorbed by CO2 out of whatever radiation was deemed appropriate. The radiation figure I used comes to 7% although other values can range up to 12%.
Example, using the traditional value of 235 w for IR radiation, 28w/235w = 11.9%. 7% or 12%, I don’t care, it’s insignificant.
The point is, most IR escapes directly to space without being intercepted by CO2. Even if your theory is correct, more than half of the intercepted IR is not radiated back, so you are asking us to accept that 90+ % of the heat is lost via radiation yet only around 10% returned can make up for those losses and warm the surface.
Doh!!!
2)Recycling heat does not work in real physics. You simply cannot dissipate heat at a surface by radiation then send radiation back, without amplification, and increase the heat at the surface. Such an act is perpetual motion.
3)The clincher… the 2nd law states clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder area to a warmer area.
Gordon Robertson
CO2 will absorb around 7 to 12% of the IR emitted by the surface. The value depends upon water vapor content as the two gases overlap.
The item I questioned was not what CO2 absorbs but you had said this: “Besides, GHGs only absorb about 7% of surface radiation.”
You made the claim of all GHG including H2O and other GHG. Anyway if you intended just CO2 you would be correct.
Doubling of CO2 will increase DWIR about 3 W/m^2. How much that will increase the surface is debatable.
On your point. The GHE is not about magically heating the surface. It is reducing the rate of heat loss of the surface. The IR returns to the surface and is absorbed. It will not heat the surface because the surface is losing energy at a faster rate by emission. It slows the cooling. But the surface is solar heated so it is gaining energy continuously (at least some parts). That is how the GHE works, the GHG reduces surface heat loss and that allows the solar heat flux to warm the surface to a higher temperature. Similar to what happens when you reduce the rate of heat loss of any heated surface (note the word heated). A coat keeps the body warm in cold weather by reducing the rate of heat loss, insulation in your home keeps it warmer with same heat input, anything that reduces the rate of heat loss will warm a heated object. Is that really so hard for you to understand? You can understand convective insulation, or conductive but radiant insulation throws you for a loop. Does not matter the GHE is not a violation of the 2nd Law at all. It is just another type of insulation that you are not understanding.
Norman,
You still can’t describe the GHE, but at least you are getting closer to understanding why you can’t.
You wrote –
“The GHE is not about magically heating the surface. It is reducing the rate of heat loss of the surface. The IR returns to the surface and is absorbed. It will not heat the surface because the surface is losing energy at a faster rate by emission. It slows the cooling.”
As Fourier said “Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
Hence, the surface being colder than it was four and a half billion years ago.
You finally say “Does not matter the GHE is not a violation of the 2nd Law at all. It is just another type of insulation that you are not understanding.”
The GHE is just another type of insulation, is it? That makes sense, the atmosphere prevents about 30% of the Suns energy from even reaching the surface. Obviously, insulation doesnt stop the surface cooling, just influences the rate at which it cools. The hottest places on Earth (arid deserts) also cool the fastest, due to lower amounts of insulators like H2O in the atmosphere.
Is that your current description of the GHE, then? “It is just another type of insulation.”
At least it has the benefit of brevity, as well as being completely pointless.
norman…”The IR returns to the surface and is absorbed. It will not heat the surface because the surface is losing energy at a faster rate by emission. It slows the cooling”.
***
The IR cannot be absorbed because it comes from a colder object than the surface. Clausius, who stated the 2nd law claimed radiation must obey the 2nd law and he was adamant that heat can NEVER be transferred ***by its own means*** from a colder body to a warmer body.
And, again, a trace gas would have little or no effect on the rate of heat dissipation, even if your theory was true. In the atmosphere, CO2, at 0.04% could warm the atmosphere no more than 0.06% due to its low mass in the atmosphere. It would warm the surface even less.
As Swenson states, Norman “still can’t describe the GHE”.
Norman had a chance, but he blew it….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665817
Clausius stated the 2nd law of thermodynamics this way:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Heat refers to the net transfer of energy. It also only applies to whole objects. Individual molecules do not have a temperature – an object’s heat is the sum of the kinetic energy in those atoms.
Craig T,
You quoted –
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Does your description of the mythical GHE agree?
Only joking, you can’t describe the mythical GHE, can you? That’s because it’s mythical – even more mythical than a unicorn. Even children can describe a unicorn!
> still cant describe the GHE
Step 1 and 2 – Pure Denial and Sammich Request
And the rest of Puffman’s comment is him saying stuff, which means he once again complete the Contrarian Hat Trick!
Silly sock puppets.
Witless Wee Willy,
You still can’t describe the GHE, so you are reduced to trying to troll. Do you really think you actually manage to annoy anybody? You certainly dont seem to be doing too well.
Oh dear, Willard. How does it feel being both impotent and incompetent?
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “The IR cannot be absorbed because it comes from a colder object than the surface. Clausius, who stated the 2nd law claimed radiation must obey the 2nd law and he was adamant that heat can NEVER be transferred ***by its own means*** from a colder body to a warmer body.”
Other than posting your incorrect opinion of Clausius and making a misleading statement, do you have any experimental evidence to support your false claims? If you have evidence provide it. Science is an evidence based system of deriving the truth. You provide opinions but no evidence.
Evidence supports that IR will be absorbed by a hotter object. Stating that it will not will need supporting evidence. At this time I am rejecting your false and incorrect opinion.
You also do not state Clausius correctly as he clearly stated that radiant energy is a two way exchange!! The hot body will receive IR from the colder one but will still cool because it is losing energy at a greater rate. I have read his own words on it, posted it to you and you choose to read it not how he states it.
Gordon,
The entire greenhouse effect only raised the temperature of the Earth’s surface by 12%, so your complaint is rejected.
What do you know about real physics, the amount sent down is less than the amount going up, so no perpetual motion, no amplification needed, but it does add energy to the surface that is being heated by the Sun, so the energies add.
The second law does not falsify greenhouse theory, the transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the surface is not “by its own means” the transfer of energy form the Sun to the surface makes it not by its own means.
Baffled bobby,
“The entire greenhouse effect only raised the temperature of the Earth’s surface by 12%, so your complaint is rejected.”
This is the greenhouse effect that you cannot describe?
Or some other greenhouse effect?
Swenson,
Yes, the greenhouse effect that has been described for you many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
On The Starship Delays
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Articles by a human, and an AI, at Reason.
SpaceX Edges Closer to the Moon
Plus, an AI-generated version of the same article
https://reason.com/2024/05/09/spacex-edges-closer-to-the-moon/
FAA has it’s problems. NASA has more problems.
Any govt agency has problems if doing anything in the real world.
craig t “Dry ice (frozen CO2) has a temperature of -79C. The peak emission of a black body at that temperature is 15μ photons”.
***
Frozen CO2 at -79C will not emit 15u photons.
What do you get for the peak wavelength of a black body at -79C?
Craig T.
“What do you get for the peak wavelength of a black body at -79C?”
If you don’t know, you could always look it up.
Unlike a description of the GHE, which doesn’t exist.
Mike Flynn,
It’d be hard for Craig to look up what Mr. Asshat gets for the peak wavelength of a black body at -79C, silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you are going to claim 15 microns for -79C using Wein’s law then you need to note that CO2 at 15C should be 10um at +15C, not 15 um.
Willard, I’ve decided life is better when I don’t read Swenson’s posts. He never has anything new to add to the discussion.
But if Swenson was asking, I already looked up the peak emission for a blackbody at -79C. If Gordon has a source that differs I’ll be glad to look at it. If he’s just stating that I’m wrong I’m not sure what to say (other than how does he know.)
Here’s the calculator I used:
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
Earlier, bumbling bobdroege wrote –
“Yes, the greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere.”
And according to bumbling bobby, alternately heats and cools the Earth, over and over!
While simultaneously heating and cooling different parts of the atmosphere – day or night!
bumbling bobby suffers from a mental defect which interferes with his perception of reality.
He is unable to demonstrate otherwise.
Craig T,
You are not suggesting that CO2 at -79 C can heat anything hotter, are you?
Or maybe you believe that the wavelengths of IR emitted by CO2 don’t vary proportional to absolute temperature?
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE – you obviously are away with the fairies, seeing what isn’t there!
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature – unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
I follow what you’re saying Gordon, but the fact that a blackbody at 15C emits a peak of 10μ doesn’t change anything. The light absorbed by CO2 at room temperature can be measured, and it is a sponge for the 15μ spectra.
Notice that a 15C blackbody emits in the range of 4 – 40μ. It puts out 3/4 the amount of 15μ photons as 10μ photons.
Blackbodies are a scientific model – a simplification of the messiness of real life. Gasses don’t act much like blackbodies.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“The light absorbed by CO2 at room temperature can be measured, and it is a sponge for the 15μ spectra.”
Well, of course. And bananas are even more absorbent – over a wider range of frequencies, too.
Are you trying to imply something, or just trolling for no particular reason?
Maybe you could describe the mythical GHE. Does CO2 feature in the description?
Mike Flynn,
You’re a bit like Milton Friedman –
You know how to spell “banana” but you don’t know when to stop.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, have you come up with a better GHE description than “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Dimwit.
Swenson,
“Yes, the greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere.
And according to bumbling bobby, alternately heats and cools the Earth, over and over!
It warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere at the same time, not alternately.
Be careful to read others posts, lest you look like a hack.
Earlier, bumbling bobdroege wrote
“Yes, the greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere.”
And according to bumbling bobby, alternately heats and cools the Earth, over and over!
While simultaneously heating and cooling different parts of the atmosphere day or night!
bumbling bobby suffers from a mental defect which interferes with his perception of reality.
He is unable to demonstrate otherwise.
Swenson,
Can you quote me directly
“And according to bumbling bobby, alternately heats and cools the Earth, over and over!”
Because I never said that.
Makes you look dumb when you act like an ass.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
I think you should try Clint’s idea of linking to previous posts. It will save you the time of posting the same words over and over.
I think you should try finding a GHE description.
It will save you all that time and effort of avoiding reality.
Mike Flynn,
Silly sock puppet:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666338
Willard,
Why so scared to quote me?
I’ll help you out –
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasn’t surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
Actually, the GHE doesn’t exist. That might explain why it doesn’t work too well at night, or during the day, or . . .
“Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.”
Our tropical ocean wouldn’t freeze during 14 day night on the Moon.
Though our present ocean in the arctic winter are currently frozen, because, Earth has been in an Ice Age.
But they aren’t frozen in winter and long dark nights near the polar region.
“Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesn’t seem to work too well at night.”
That’s true. Water vapor is an important greenhouse gas that is scarce in the desert.
Craig is now claiming that water vapor is “heating the planet”?
Good, we can let CO2 “out of jail”. We’ve found the guilty one.
All we need to do to save the planet is sequester all the oceans.
(For the cult children, this is sarcasm.)
Craig T,
Are you agreeing that less greenhouse gases result in lower surface temperatures, or are you going to complain you were just confused?
You did write –
“Water vapor is an important greenhouse gas that is scarce in the desert.”, when I pointed out how fast temperature can drop in the absence of supposed greenhouse gases. Maybe you forgot that the opposite is also true – temperatures rise faster, and to higher temperatures, in the absence of supposed greenhouse gases!
The hottest places on the planet are characterized by their lack of that most important supposed greenhouse gas – H2O. A couple of examples are the Lut Desert, or Desth Valley.
How is your non-description of the GHE going? Not well?
Colour me unsurprised.
Mike Flynn,
Do you agree with Craig that water vapor is a greenhouse gas?
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Do you agree with Craig that water vapor is a greenhouse gas?”
What a stupid gotcha!
There is no greenhouse effect, and therefore no greenhouse gases because of it.
You can’t describe the greenhouse effect, much less what constitutes a supposed greenhouse gas!
If Craig wishes to call water vapour a greenhouse gas, or a dangerous pollutant, or a deadly poison, he is quite free to do so. He may call it gaseous dihydrogen oxide, for all I care.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You deny the greenhouse effect yet cite an instance of the effect of greenhouse gases.
Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot like that – because you are a silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn,
You go for another silly semantic game –
> If Craig wishes to call water vapour a greenhouse gas
Why are you such a silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Do you agree with Craig that water vapor is a greenhouse gas?”
What a stupid gotcha!
There is no greenhouse effect, and therefore no greenhouse gases because of it.
You cant describe the greenhouse effect, much less what constitutes a supposed greenhouse gas!
If Craig wishes to call water vapour a greenhouse gas, or a dangerous pollutant, or a deadly poison, he is quite free to do so. He may call it gaseous dihydrogen oxide, for all I care.
Willard, please stop tro‌:lling.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You agree with Craig about the radiative properties of water vapor.
Whether you like it or not, you accept the greenhouse effect, at least in part.
Keep playing silly semantic games, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn just issued another dumb challenge –
> Why so scared to quote me?
I just quoted him right there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666338
And just told him:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666328
May our silly sock puppet live long and prosper.
No, you fool,
You posted a link, because you were too scared to quote me, but I’ll help you.
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
See? Not that hard, really. No GHE at all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Yes, I posted a link.
Did you?
Are you scared to link to what you brayed for years at Judy’s?
Silly sock puppet!
You posted a link, because you were too scared to quote me, but I’ll help you.
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
See? Not that hard, really. No GHE at all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Without the link, one can’t find back the original comment.
Why are you such a silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Willard, somewhat confusingly, you wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Without the link, one can’t find back the original comment.”
Is this the substance of the original comment –
“Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.”?
Don’t you agree? What does “can’t find back” even mean?
Are you speaking Willardese, or some other strange English dialect?
Monomaniacal Mike,
You say –
> This is the substance
The only substance in your silly comment is that you accept the radiative properties of greenhouse gases.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The Sun Isnt Enough: New Study Revolutionizes Vitamin D Guidelines
…
“A comprehensive analysis of key determinants of vitamin D and their interactions revealed novel insights. The first key insight is that ambient UVB emerges as a critical predictor of vitamin D status, even in a place like the UK, which receives relatively little sunlight. The second is that age, sex, body mass index (BMI), cholesterol level, and vitamin D supplementation significantly influence how individuals respond to UVB. For example, as BMI and age increase, the amount of vitamin D produced in response to UVB decreases.”
https://scitechdaily.com/the-sun-isnt-enough-new-study-revolutionizes-vitamin-d-guidelines/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
It is amusing to see all of the comments about radiant heat transfer. For an individual molecule in the atmosphere, it is very simple. Anyone with a high school education and a reasonable amount of intelligence can go to Wikipedia and figure it out. Failure to accomplish that task does not mean the science is wrong.
The important point is that the radiant energy leaving the molecule reduces the enthalpy of the atom, and is therefor a heat transfer process. Radiant energy arriving at the molecule increases enthalpy and is also a heat transfer process. The details about spectra, black body radiation, photons, and T^4 is not necessary unless you want to quantify the exchange. The net effect of those two transfer processes is either an increase or decrease in the enthalpy, and that is the net heat transfer.
It us useful to think of the concept of resonance, or you can accept that both of those exchange process are real.
The complexity involves the fact that different molecules do have different spectra, and that effects both incoming and outgoing radiation (I am avoiding the bad words so I don’t get rejected and then have to sort through the text). This is the reason that the climate models are nothing more than circular logic. They assume that all measured warming is accurate and caused by CO2, and then use that to calibrate the models. Otherwise, they are completely faulty. Laboratory experiments and short range measurements do not accurately model the entire complex atmosphere.
Tim S,
You wrote –
“The complexity involves the fact that different molecules do have different spectra, . . .”
Only if in an excited state (neon or sodium vapour lamp, for example), or you are shining light of appropriate frequencies at your molecules (say spectroscopic examination).
Given a darkened room, you cannot determine what, if anything, the space contains, by examining internal radiation properties.
Photons from CO2 or gold, at the same temperature, are indistinguishable. Sad, but true. No way of distinguishing matter by radiation emitted as a result of temperature (below excitation temperature).
Obviously (or not) the intensity varies with the matter, but still tells you virtually nothing, if all you know is the wavelength and intensity. For example, even where a hotter atmosphere is emitting radiation to a colder surface, the surface still cools, regardless of interacting of “absorbing” energy from the hotter atmosphere.
People gibbering on about photons and suchlike, don’t seem to want to accept reality. Even hotter objects do not necessarily stop cooler objects from cooling even further.
Nobody can describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality. You are welcome to try, and I wish you luck. You’ll need it.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
> Only if in an excited state
Are you suggesting that your sock puppet is corroborating the greenhouse effect?
Cheers.
No.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“(I am avoiding the bad words so I dont get rejected and then have to sort through the text)”
I’m amused that I could post the 7 words you can’t say on television here but not the word absor*tion.
Craig T,
Do you mean absorption!
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You say –
> Do you mean absor#8204;ption!
No, Craig refers to the a-word without your silly HTML trick that makes you use verboten words and PSTer Team Science.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard,
You mean absorption, do you?
Do certain words terrify you?
Monomaniacal Mike,
You are really proud of your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.
Keep acting like a silly sociopath, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
A squirrelly computer code is moderation.
When it is a blacklist by the blog owner to discourage cranks to PSTer people, gb, you bet it is.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The solar wind impact on May 11 will be strong and sudden. It may cause a sudden increase in seismic and volcanic activity.
https://i.ibb.co/dGzWrcC/predicted-kp-indices.png
Earlier, Willard asked –
“Where did I claim that cooling was warming, Mike?”
When you ascribed AGW to the mythical GHE.
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, which apparently resulted in warming (as you say, the W in AGW).
Of course, you could just deny ever having described the GHE in any fashion at all, deny that AGW has anything to do with warming, and scuttle away like the strange cockroach you resemble.
If you didn’t claim anything at all, then you couldn’t be accused of saying anything. You don’t actually claim anything at all, is that it? Maybe you could try claiming you are not an idiotic troll, and demand that people show that you arent.
You’re a strange fanatical GHE cultist – who can’t even describe the GHE!
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is not constrained by the Holders inequality between integrals.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“According to Shula, conduction/convection is 260 times more effective at removing heat from the surface.”
Thomas E. Shula came to this conclusion using a Pirani gauge.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/
Oddly, a Pirani gauge measures pressure not radiation. Inside it is a heated wire. Pressure is determined by comparing the heat loss to a gas to the heat loss in a vacuum.
He leaves out that a Pirani gauge must be calibrated for the gas being measured, more so at pressures found in the troposphere. Both CO2 and water vapor absorb more heat per molecule than O2 or N2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirani_gauge#/media/File:Nomogramm_pirani-Vakuummeter.jpg
Craig T,
You wrote –
“Both CO2 and water vapor absorb more heat per molecule than O2 or N2.”
Is this statement supposed to have some relevance to something?
In any case, according to Wikipedia “Depending on the temperature, the average heat energy per molecule may be too small compared to the quanta needed to activate some of those degrees of freedom. Those modes are said to be “frozen out”. In that case, the specific heat capacity of the substance increases with temperature, sometimes in a step-like fashion as mode becomes unfrozen and starts absorbing part of the input heat energy.”
Is your initial statement temperature dependent, or absolute?
Do you really understand what you are talking about?
Are you gullible enough to believe in a mythical GHE?
Questions, questions! Do you have any cogent answers?
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4654557-trump-big-oil-1b-campaign-cash-request/
Trump asks for a $1B campaign donation from big oil.
Gee, ya think climate activists match that?
This place is a big enough zoo without bringing up politicians.
But Craig, the GHE nonsense is all about politics.
It sure ain’t science….
Shut up, Puffman.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Shut up, Puffman.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Climate activists have the major media. C’mon Nate, you know that. From a recent news story: In a recent study, scientists say the base of the Statue of Liberty could be buried by sea level rise in coming years — millions will be displaced.
Truth and reality are not needed. All they need is to quote “a recent study”. The study is so speculative as to be nonsense, but that is not the way it is reported.
I know someone who is involved in emergency planning. The official estimate for planning purposes in the year 2015 was 10 inches of sea level rise in the next 20 years. We are halfway there, what has happened? In 10 more years when the rise is less than an inch they will just make a new crazy estimate to scare people.
> From a recent news story
That “recent” does a lot of work here.
Behind that smug facade, TS is just an ordinary troglodyte.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Within the cult, I don’t know if it’s possible to link one person with some of the nonsense. But, it appears as if this “Loeb” Is largely to blame for the “EEI” nonsense. His full name is “Norman G. Loeb”, and he is affiliated with NASA/CERES. I can’t find out about his education, or area of expertise, but he is associated with a lot of anti-science that comes out of NASA.
Anyone know anything about his education? Is he the one that invented the EEI nonsense?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA Official: Norman Loeb
Page Editor: Ed Kizer
Page Last Updated: April 23, 2024
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov
https://science.larc.nasa.gov/people/norman-loeb/
Loeb attended McGill University. His degrees were in “Atmospheric Science”. If you look at the syllabus, he had NOTHING except indoctrination. He was indoctrinated to believe flux can be treated as energy.
Like all of the cult, he has no understanding of radiative physics or thermodynamics.
Clint R lacks any technical skills & scientific education, like does his friend-in-denial Robertson.
He should try to understand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flux
Wow, Bindi used to try to maintain some level of maturity. But, he’s slowly digressed into just another blog tr0ll, with no regard for the truth.
He’s seeing all his false beliefs flame out, right before his eyes. These are not good times for him.
Shut up, Puffman.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Shut up, Puffman.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
If one person is to be linked it’s probably Clausius. He was the first to succinctly state that in a closed systems internal energy changes are equal to the difference of the heat accumulated within and the work done by it. The equation is thus dU = Q – W. Or written in a more contemporary form with a focus on the energy conservation principal it is meant to convey it would be dE = Ein – Eout. Applying this to TOA we swap EEI for dE, ASR for Ein, and OLR for Eout thus becoming EEI = ASR – OLR.
The first person to apply the 1LOT to the atmosphere was W. Dines in 1917. In his work he used letters (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, and M) to represent the various energy flows where ASR = A – D and OLR = F + K at what he called the “Outer Limit of Atmosphere” which we refer to as the top of atmosphere (TOA) today. He presented several 1LOT style relationships of these energy flows. His work assumes balance at all levels so EEI = 0 at the outer limit of the atmosphere and using his nomenclature it becomes 0 = (A-D) – (F+K).
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qj.49704318203
All wrong or irrelevant, bdgwx.
Why don’t you email Loeb? (His email is on the NASA CERES site.). Tell him you are a devout fan, and wonder if he knows that radiative fluxes are composed of photons. If fluxes can be simply added/subtracted, ask him what is the sum of a 15μ photon and a 2μ photon.
Can’t rebut the science? Malign the scientists. That’s the current denier strategy.
What deniers don’t get is that people are not the science. One person doesnt make it. Particularly a large observational effort effort like CERES and its cousin satellites.
Individual photons are not fluxes.
No REAL scientist was maligned, Nate. Loeb is not a scientist if he violate principles of physics.
Loeb is a government bureaucrat working for a government bureaucracy. He’s abusing his position by promoting false concepts. He hides in his NASA hole, touting his worthless NASA awards. Why don’t you ask him to come here to tell us how fluxes can be treated as energy.
He won’t come out In public. Just like Gavin ran from Spencer, Loeb can’t face reality.
Prove me wrong. Email him and ask him to come here and defend his false science.
That won’t happen…..
Having Loeb and Lindzen on here to debate would be a hoot. Every time Lindzen mentioned EEI or OLR the Sceptics wouldn’t know if they should cheer or boo.
From “Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics”
Richard Lindzen
“Held and Suarez (1974) have shown that 500mb temperatures correlate better with infrared emission than do surface temperatures. … The fact that total infrared emission is not perfectly related to surface temperature is merely an indication that a significant portion of the emitted radiation originates in the atmosphere. Similarly, not all of the incoming radiation is absorbed at the surface; in practice, some of the incoming radiation is not directly involved in the surface energy budget.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234267903_Dynamics_in_Atmospheric_Physics
That one quote shows the EEI ain’t science.
It only gets worse, for the cult….
Shut up, Puffman.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Shut up, Puffman.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdgwx,
You wrote –
“Or written in a more contemporary form with a focus on the energy conservation principal it is meant to convey it would be dE = Ein Eout”
Complete nonsense, you are dreaming. If energy in = energy out, using misleading “climate science” jargon, then temperature does not change.
The Earth has demonstrably cooled to its current temperature – in spite of the energy from four and a half billion years of sunlight!
Do you still contend that energy in equals energy out, or were you indulging in a spot of cultist fantasy?
I hope you don’t intend to say such silly things when you try to describe the mythical GHE!
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
Who cares what you wrote?
You admitted being a sociopath.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote
Shut up, Puffman.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You blunder again.
I did you write “Shut up, Puffman.”
I wrote “Shut up, Puffman.”
Silly sock puppet.
You wrote –
“I did you write “Shut up, Puffman.””
Would you mind using the English language on this blog?
You just wrote “Shut up, Puffman”, didn’t you? I’m not sure what “I did you write” means in English.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You blunder again.
I did you write “Shut up, Puffman.”
I wrote “Shut up, Puffman.”
Notice the emphasized text?
That’s a link.
Something you very seldom use.
Why is that, silly sock puppet?
Willard, you wanker,
You wrote –
“You blunder again.
I did you write “Shut up, Puffman.””
“I did you write”? Really?
What language are you trying to use? Certainly not English.
[he’s either sloppy or stupid]
Monomaniacal Mike,
You remark –
> [hes either sloppy or stupid]
What kind of sloppy editorial convention is that?
I hope nobody from the O&G industry asks you to write reports.
Cheers, silly sock puppet,
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
gbaikie
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1664751
“The averaged blue line is flat. It needs to be about 160 for March, to remain flat.”
Incorrect. May has to average 99 spots per day for the SSN (“the blue line”) to remain unchanged.
Given the data from the first 10 days of the month, the last 21 days of May have to average 71 for it to remain unchanged.
And if the remainder of the month averages 90 then this cycle will have a new peak … ie. the rise will resume after a 4 month pause.
May needs 103 sunspot to across the redline. If 90, NOAA latest guess about cycle 25 max, is looking like it could be wrong. If 160, or more, it’s supportive of the guess.
The spots which gave +200 number last month are returning soon- if they survived it {or grew].
The guess of the big spot returning, hasn’t had high batting average,
but we will see in next couple days.
As low as 90 fpr the May doesn’t seem likely. But May being 160 or more helps keep NOAA alive, but coming months would likewise need to be 160 or more to turn blue line to going upward.
But if NOAA is wrong, could possibly get double peak, later.
Again, not correct. Even if all of May had zero spots, the new SSN would be 121, more than the max height of 115 for “the red line”.
Why do you care so much about comparing to people’s random predictions? Don’t you understand that none of them have a clue. Whoever gets closest has merely won a random lottery.
Nothing will “keep NOAA alive” … their prediction has already been beaten. And Zharkova’s prediction has already been annihilated. The SSN has been well above her predicted max for 15 straight months, and that should end up being a MINIMUM 24 months.
The ONLY meaningful comparison is against last cycle, not against an arbitrary and meaningless “red line”. We’ve already beaten SC24 for spots, flux, and neutron counts.
And in the end … it makes almost no difference to anything.
— Antonin Qwerty says:
May 10, 2024 at 5:28 PM
Again, not correct. Even if all of May had zero spots, the new SSN would be 121, more than the max height of 115 for the red line.–
If May was 0 [which can’t be] it would little effect upon blue line direction. Same applies to +160 for May.
But if May, June, and July was average of 160, the blue line will go up. And NOAA will seem to be correct. But if it’s 120 average for 3 months, the blue line goes dowm. If 100 or less, goes down more.
I don’t think it will likely average 100 or less for 3 months.
My only purpose in commenting here was to challenge your claim:
“The averaged blue line is flat. It needs to be about 160 for March (May), to remain flat.”
As I said, that number is 99, not 160. Anything else you say is you trying to avoid admitting that you got it wrong.
The NOAA prediction is suppose to go up a lot {the blue line suppose to go a lot} and it’s not double peak up a lot. So when does this happen.
Or the high numbers of June 2023: 160.5 {smoothed blue line: 125.3}
and July 2023: 160.0 {smoothed : 125.4}.
And NOAA prediction was done after the summer.
Or I am not talking about prediction before solar cycle 25 started.
So trying to determine if and when it’s proven or disproven. And the same applies to Valentina Zharkova prediction which was well before cycle 25 started.
I thought it could have happened, before 2024 started, but I was wrong on both counts.
“The largest ever recorded leap in the amount of carbon dioxide laden in the worlds atmosphere has just occurred, according to researchers who monitor the relentless accumulation of the primary gas that is heating the planet.
The global average concentration of carbon dioxide in March this year was 4.7 parts per million (or ppm) higher than it it was in March last year, which is a record-breaking increase in CO2 levels over a 12-month period.”
i.e. no sign of an approach to net zero emissions.
Tighten your seat belts!
That is due to the extreme temperatures.
Increases in CO2 cause increasing temperatures, but conversely warm years also cause greater emissions of CO2 from the oceans. If we get a La Nina now then the rise next year will be much lower.
Don’t make the deniers’ mistake of basing inferences on single years.
“Increases in CO2 cause increasing temperatures…”
FALSE!
CO2 cannot increase temperatures. There is no viable mechanism. The GHE nonsense if all based on cult beliefs.
I never get tired of correcting the cult kids….
Just list your credentials here:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It’s funny to see an anonymous tr0ll demanding documentation!
But, that’s what kids do….
I have linked to my real name here before, if you can be bothered digging. You certainly have not, #g#e#r#a#n.
Antonin,
You listed all of Clint’s credentials.
The check is in the mail….
Shut up, Puffman.
AQ,
You claim that you can produce heat by some cunning use of H2O. You are dreaming.
You can’t.
Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
You are so ignorant, you believe that the mythical GHE can be described without generating raucous laughter!
It can’t.
Another meaningless say-nothing response from #g#e#r#a#n.
But at least you understand that we are talking about CO2 … unlike your angry dementia-ridden grandpa above.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Another meaningless say-nothing response from #g#e#r#a#n.
But at least you understand that we are talking about CO2 unlike your angry dementia-ridden grandpa above.”
Have you borrowed Willard’s gibberish generator?
Or does your keyboard just hammer away by itself?
Still playing dumb, Monomaniacal Mike Flynn?
Silly sock puppet!
I just checked the Mauna Loa data. March 2024 was 4.41 ppm above March 2023, not 4.7.
Also, the April data is out. April 2024 is only 3.2 ppm above April 2023. The annual gap will probably drop to 1 ppm if we enter a La Nina.
Only?
For decades the annual increase was about 2ppm. Now we’re seeing 3.2ppm/year or 4.4ppm/year.
Acceleration?
Acceleration?
Hopefully.
If we can get CO2 up to 550-600ppm, it will bring two benefits — Earth’s flora will explode, and the Alarmists will have to face reality.
Did you actually read my entire comment? Quoting one part of my comment out of context like that is what the deniers do.
The average annual rise for the last 5 years of the 1990s was 2 ppm.
The average annual rise for the last 5 years is 2.6 ppm.
Looking at calendar years, only 2016 had a rise of 3 ppm (3.4 and another El Nino year). This year has a reasonable chance of being the second. Next year almost certainly won’t.
“Now were seeing 3.2ppm/year or 4.4ppm/year” is a misleading comment.
Increment is higher in El Nino years.
AQ – more CO2 and H2O from burning fossilised plant life restores the balance of nature.
Burn, baby, burn!
You may starve while you freeze in the dark on my behalf if you wish. Feel free to gnash your teeth, rend your garments, and flagellate yourself at the same time.
I prefer my comfortable life.
Hey Flynn … I see you had to mention H20 again to cover over your earlier mistake.
Heads up … any H20 released by burning fossil fuels does not directly raise atmospheric H20 levels … it rains straight back onto the surface. It is the rising temperature from increased CO2 and CH4 which changes the equilibrium level between water vapour and liquid water (thus adding to the greenhouse effect). It would be the same new equilibrium level for a given temperature if the process was left up to increased evaporation.
The “balance of nature” is another one of your throwaway terms that you choose to leave undefined to give the required ambiguity.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Heads up any H20 released by burning fossil fuels does not directly raise atmospheric H20 levels it rains straight back onto the surface.”
Maybe you are not aware of the terms absolute humidity, and relative humidity, nor of Daltons Law of Partial Pressures?
Even so, you say that any H20 released into the atmosphere rains straight back to the surface. Your expired water vapour is around 5% of total expired volume. It does not rain straight back to the surface. You are “burning fossil fuels” – carbon and hydrogen, in a complicated process involving other elements. You might prefer the word “oxidising”.
Of course H2O gas releases into the atmosphere raise the levels of H2O gas! It’s a gas, not a liquid or a solid. Are you completely dim?
No wonder you won’t even try to describe the GHE. You wouldnt know where to start.
You really need to study the concept of equilibrium. The levels here are literally just a drop in the ocean.
We have a billion gigatons of ocean. Perhaps you would care to share how many gigatons of water vapour are released from fossil fuel burning each year and are competing with the oceans for equilibrium.
AQ,
You wrote
“Heads up any H20 released by burning fossil fuels does not directly raise atmospheric H20 levels it rains straight back onto the surface.”
Maybe you are not aware of the terms absolute humidity, and relative humidity, nor of Daltons Law of Partial Pressures?
Even so, you say that any H20 released into the atmosphere rains straight back to the surface. Your expired water vapour is around 5% of total expired volume. It does not rain straight back to the surface. You are “burning fossil fuels” carbon and hydrogen, in a complicated process involving other elements. You might prefer the word “oxidising”.
Of course H2O gas releases into the atmosphere raise the levels of H2O gas! Its a gas, not a liquid or a solid. Are you completely dim?
No wonder you wont even try to describe the GHE. You wouldn’t know where to start.
Do you think that the GHE is about equilibrium, perhaps?
Google takes you only so far when you have no innate understanding … after that you have to start repeating your comments.
EVERYONE here has “described the GHE” to you at some point, including me. You just provide a typical snarky say-nothing response then pretend ad infinitum your question has never been answered.
Ant, NO ONE has described/defined the bogus GHE that stands up to scrutiny. Just throwing crap against the wall ain’t science. Upthread, Norman tried but omitted anything about CO2! In his failed effort, he forgot the cult’s anathema about a gas needed for life.
Several have tried to describe/define the bogus GHE, and all have failed.
Shut up, Puffman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666470
“Shut up, Puffman:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
cLInt
Again, valid scrutiny requires valid qualifications.
I invite you again to list yours.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
https://i.ibb.co/fvXCRzH/Screenshot-2024-05-10-16-00-57.png
FAA to begin environmental review of Starship launches from Kennedy Space Center
Jeff Foust May 10, 2024
https://spacenews.com/faa-to-begin-environmental-review-of-starship-launches-from-kennedy-space-center/
…
–A new EIS, the FAA concluded, is needed because of changes in the design of Starship and its operations since the 2019 assessment. SpaceX now proposes to construct additional launch infrastructure not previously contemplated in the 2019 EA, the FAA stated, including a catch tower for Super Heavy booster landings. The Starship/Super Heavy design itself has changed significantly since 2019, and SpaceX has discussed plans to further evolve the design.
SpaceX now contemplates a higher launch rate, with up to 44 launches annually from LC-39A. The Super Heavy booster will also land back at LC-39A, while in the earlier EA SpaceX proposed landing the booster on a droneship or at Landing Zone 1, the former Launch Complex 13 at nearby Cape Canaveral Space Force Station used for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy booster landings today.–
How long will it be, before SpaceX needs to launch Starship more than 50 times per year?
Not long.
And it seems could launch Starship from the ocean area east of KSC, but also could launch in the Gulf of Mexico, such as ocean off coast of Texas.
It of course will be political matter, and so probably attempt both, unless there is strong political support for a ocean area which allow just one ocean site to be focused on.
The Kp index shot up momentarily almost to 8. This is a strong geomagnetic storm.
https://i.ibb.co/92p2c4N/estimated-planetary-k-in.png
Maybe I will see northern light down here, but at moment {during day} it’s around Oregon, but others are suppose to follow.
https://i.ibb.co/KFwT7Xx/aurora-map.jpg
This is a violent and strongest geomagnetic storm in many years. Satellites and communications are threatened.
An Extreme G4 Solar Storm Train, Eight Storms Race to Earth | Space Weather Spotlight 10 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXia20jA4tI
She says the active sunspot are going to turn into nearside, soon.
Perhaps, it’s just the beginning!
Solar storm could make Northern Lights visible in UK
BBC
Hafsa Khalil – BBC News May 10, 2024 at 1:55 PM
“Stargazers across the UK could have the chance to see the Northern Lights this weekend, as a solar storm hits Earth.
Clear skies overnight on Friday and into the early hours of Saturday could offer a rare glimpse of the phenomenon.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has issued a rare solar storm warning.
Storms of this scale could potentially impact infrastructure, including satellites and the power grid, it warned.”
https://www.aol.com/solar-storm-could-northern-lights-205556932.html
Clear skies would be important, and it’s cloudy here {so, not any chance}.
Hmm, weather channel hourly forecast say it will clear by 7 pm. But still, a very low chance.
gb…the solar wind actually causes the Northern Lights.
“the solar wind actually causes the Northern Lights.”
But if there is cloud cover stargazers across the UK won’t see the northern lights. That’s why Gbaikie brought it up.
Best chances to see the northern lights over New York, New Jersey, Connecticut
By Evan Rosen | erosen@nydailynews.com | New York Daily News
May 10, 2024 at 7:00 p.m.
https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/05/10/where-to-see-the-northern-lights-nyc-nj-ct-tonight/
“A rare G4 level geomagnetic storm has the potential to make the northern lights visible in the tristate area late Friday night, and possibly through the weekend.
The Kp index, which measures the disturbance in Earths magnetic field, is registering around an 8 out of 9 in the New York area the highest in the region since 2005. A Kp level of 7 or higher is typically needed to see the northern lights.”
Link given:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/planetary-k-index
When you’ve seen the lights once, that’s all you need, unless you are seriously bored.
“Gordon Robertson says:
May 10, 2024 at 5:55 PM
When youve seen the lights once, thats all you need, unless you are seriously bored.”
Says, Canadian
If it’s foggy, you might see it.
The entire temperature spike is due to hunga-tora. The amount of water vapor injected into the atmosphere is enormous. It will be a couple of years before it dissipates.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/03/24/the-extraordinary-climate-events-of-2022-24/
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A couple in their 70s left homeless after their trailer home burned to the ground in last summer’s Nova Scotia wildfires; an artist in Charlevoix, Que., whose studio was destroyed in floods after a powerful rainstorm; a general store in Tatamagouche, N.S., struggling to pay the bills after post-tropical storm Fiona.
Families and small businesses in Canada like these are increasingly turning to crowdfunding for financial help as they struggle to recover from the damage wrought by floods, wildfires and storms.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/canada-extreme-weather-crowdfunding-1.7194851
Willard, please stop trolling.
CBC, like their UK counterpart, the BBC, are government organizations that reflect the ijiotic view of the government. In this case, the government are climate alarmists who are currently losing popular vote at an alarming rate, as Canadians clue into what their agenda means.
A while back, the CBC invited the late Fred Singer to talk about his skeptical views on climate. Their real agenda became apparent during the interview as they badgered him about a 30 year old association with the tobacco industry. CBC was and still is a representative of climate alarm, just like their UK counterparts, the BBC.
We here in BC get forest fires too and we accept it as the way it is. When you have large tracts of forest land in areas where severe lightning storms and drought occurs, you expect forest fires. Some years are worse than other but the thing to realize is that the worst year was 1939.
BTW….drought has been a common occurrence in many parts of BC for as long as anyone can remember. No link to climate change whatsoever.
Willard thinks that humans broke the weather.
He probably gets anxious just from feeling the sun, thinking it’s evidence of the world becoming an unlivable, scorched planet.
Deep down, Graham D. Warner sincerely believes in his fundamental power to probe minds.
Meanwhile:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax1192
Perhaps he should not project his own Troglodyte inadequacy on the whole human specie.
Walter,
Fanatical GHE cultists like Willard forget that to change the climate, you first have to change the weather, climate being the statistics of historical weather observations.
Unfortunately, experience shows that efforts to change the weather are generally unsuccessful. Sacrifices to the gods work about as well as anything.
Better to take an umbrella if it looks like rain, or wear a hat if you are averse to the idea of bright sunlight on your pate.
I have invited Willard in the past to panic on my behalf, if he is worried about the future. I can’t be bothered panicking, as I agree with the IPCC that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
I assume that tomorrow’s weather will be much the same as today’s, unless It looks as though it won’t. I’m rarely wrong.
“[T]the CBC invited the late Fred Singer to talk about his skeptical views on climate. Their real agenda became apparent during the interview as they badgered him about a 30 year old association with the tobacco industry.”
The original Merchant of Doubt, there wasn’t a corporation that Singer wouldn’t shill for. No connection between cigarettes and cancer, no connection between sulfur dioxide and acid rain, no connection between CO2 and climate.
“In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machineincluding the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer’s group and Exxonmet at the American Petroleum Institute’s Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20071023055701/https://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/page/3
Willard,
You quoted –
“Humans began to leave lasting impacts on Earths surface starting 10,000 to 8000 years ago.”
By discovering fire. Now we know how to make much bigger, better, and more efficient fires.
Potable water, electricity, internal combustion engines are all within our grasp.
Thanks for pointing it out, but I think most people already know about human civilisation, and prefer their food cooked.
“Unfortunately, experience shows that efforts to change the weather are generally unsuccessful. Sacrifices to the gods work about as well as anything.”
Swenson you Crack me up lol
Mike Flynn,
You admitted being Mike Flynn.
You also admitted being a sociopath.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Swenson,
I enjoy sunny days, rainy days, and snowy days alike, and if it’s anomalously warm or cold, I just go with it without second thought. It’s all happened before.
People who get excited over this issue just think one-dimensionally. They think that looking at numbers on a spreadsheet is going to help us gain better knowledge about the weather long-term. I’ve analyzed local temperature data for years, and I can’t make anything useful out of it.
“Mike Flynn,
You admitted being Mike Flynn.
You also admitted being a sociopath.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?”
Is Willard seeking employment as a village idiot? Can he rise to that level?
The world wonders!
Our silly sock puppet says stuff once more.
But is he braying about?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
You admitted being Mike Flynn.
You also admitted being a sociopath.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?”
I suppose someone more stupid and gullible than yourself might value your opinion. Can you name someone willing to admit they are more stupid and gullible than you are?
I doubt it, but feel free to show that I am wrong.
Are you seeking employment as a village idiot? Can you rise to that level?
The world wonders!
Our silly sock puppet says stuff once more.
But he braying about?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn,
You admitted being Mike Flynn.
You also admitted being a sociopath.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?”
Are you biased against sociopaths? Or psychopaths? Or homosexuals? Tut, tut, Willard, what happened to diversity and inclusivity? You may describe me as anything you desire – it wont change anything, you know.
I suppose someone more stupid and gullible than yourself might value your opinion. Can you name someone willing to admit they are more stupid and gullible than you are?
I doubt it, but feel free to show that I am wrong.
Are you seeking employment as a village idiot? Can you rise to that level?
The world wonders!
Willard rejects the English language – creates his own.
“But he braying about?”
Not quite up to village idiot standard yet.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn plays dumb again–and abuses the improper syntactic marker once more.
What a silly sock puppet
Willard rejects the English language creates his own.
“But he braying about?”
Not quite up to village idiot standard yet. Maybe he got hit on the head by a syntactic marker?
Maybe syntactic marker doesn’t mean what Wee Willy thinks it means, besides being totally irrelevant to the GHE, which Willard thinks means “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Oh well, onwards and upwards.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn plays dumb again–and abuses the improper syntactic marker once more.
What a silly sock
Willard rejects the English language creates his own.
“But he braying about?”
Not quite up to village idiot standard yet. Maybe he got hit on the head by a syntactic marker?
Maybe syntactic marker doesnt mean what Wee Willy thinks it means, besides being totally irrelevant to the GHE, which Willard thinks means “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Oh well, onwards and upwards.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn plays dumb again–and abuses the improper syntactic marker once more.
a silly sock
Willard rejects the English language creates his own.
“But he braying about?”
Not quite up to village idiot standard yet. Maybe he got hit on the head by a syntactic marker?
Maybe syntactic marker doesn’t mean what Wee Willy thinks it means, besides being totally irrelevant to the GHE, which Willard thinks means “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Maybe you could say something idiotic like “Monomaniacal Mike Flynn plays dumb againand abuses the improper syntactic marker once more.
a silly sock”?
Oh well, onwards and upwards.
Maybe our silly sock puppet does not know what is an em dash.
Monomaniacal Mike only cares about his writing and he is so sloppy!
Silly sociopath.
Willard rejects the English language creates his own.
“But he braying about?”
Not quite up to village idiot standard yet. Maybe he got hit on the head by a syntactic marker?
Maybe syntactic marker doesnt mean what Wee Willy thinks it means, besides being totally irrelevant to the GHE, which Willard thinks means “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Maybe you could say something idiotic like “Monomaniacal Mike Flynn plays dumb againand abuses the improper syntactic marker once more.
a silly sock”?
Oh well, onwards and upwards.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn plays dumb againand abuses the improper syntactic marker once more.
silly sock
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bdg…”If one person is to be linked its probably Clausius. He was the first to succinctly state that in a closed systems internal energy changes are equal to the difference of the heat accumulated within and the work done by it. The equation is thus dU = Q W”.
***
I have read Clausius cover to cover and I don’t recall him once talking about an open or closed system. Anyone who uses such a reference is using it as a red-herring argument.
Clausius is responsible for the U in the 1st law. He describes U in detail in his work as the sum of internal heat and internal work. Vibrating atoms are doing internal work and they need internal heat to alter the vibration. That is, more heat increases vibration whil removing heat reduces it.
According to Clauius, the 1st law can be written as…
Qint + Wint = Qext – Wext
Where Qint + Wint = U
That makes more sense as equations go and it reveals the 1st law as being a summation of work and heat energies only. It has nothing to do with a generalized energy equation as in the conservation of energy theory. It is an example only of an equilibrium condition between heat and work.
Meanwhile, on Vancouver Island:
https://www.sfu.ca/~mbahrami/ENSC%20388/Notes/Entropy.pdf
Wasted Wee Willy,
Is this supposed to have some relevance to the mythical GHE, or are you just trolling for no reason!
Mike Flynn,
Is this supposed to make us forget that you admitted being a sociopath?
Silly sock puppet!
first of all, SFU is not on Vancouver Island. It is located on the mainland in the city of Burnaby, atop Burnaby Mountain.
Secondly, the Gibbs free energy equation can be visualized much easier in the form G = H – TS. It is an equation of heat balance although it is called free energy for some reason.
The free energy, G, is the enthalpy, or total heat, H, minus the heat used up in the system and no longer available, also known as entropy, or TS.
Actually TS is not entropy per se but temperatue, T, x S. However, as defined by ClLausius, T is constant and can be transferred from S = dQ/T to isolate Q = heat.
Again…this refers to only heat being conserved and in no way is it representative of all energies. Ergo, the 1st law can be claimed only as a conservation of heat energy and work=related energy.
Enthralled by his logorrhea, Mr. Asshat’s forgets to acknowledge that the Clausius statement indeed refers to a closed system.
But he’s right about the location of the U. My mistake.
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Is this supposed to make us forget that you admitted being a sociopath?
Silly sock puppet!”
I dont know. What do you think? Is your description of the GHE still “not cooling, slower cooling”?
If you are trying to troll, you need to try harder.
Keep at it.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
> I dont know
What is it that you “dont” know – gramer?
Should anyone care about what you do or “dont” know?
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn,
Is this supposed to make us forget that you admitted being a sociopath?
Silly sock puppet!”
I don’t know. What do you think? Is your description of the GHE still “not cooling, slower cooling”?
If you are trying to troll, you need to try harder.
Keep at it.
Mike Flynn,
You reiterate –
> I dont know.
Should anyone care what a silly sock puppet who just admitted being a sociopath knows?
Cheers.
Whassamatter, Willard?
You wrote “I dont know.”
Did the cat eat your apostrophe? I’m sure I wrote “I don’t know”, but possibly your enthusiasm to be totally idiotic got the better of you.
Maybe you could stick to demonstrating your intellect by describing the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, instead of worrying about the apostrophes you leave out.
I leave some out from time to time, you know. I threw in a typographical error for you to find.
Go for it.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You play dumb once more –
> Whassamatter
What are you braying about?
Mr. Asshat is stuck with the fact that if he did not recognize that Clausius referred to closed systems, then perhaps he should read him “cover to cover” once more, this time focusing on what’s between the covers.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Whassamatter, Willard?
You wrote “I dont know.”
Did the cat eat your apostrophe? Im sure I wrote “I don’t know”, but possibly your enthusiasm to be totally idiotic got the better of you.
Maybe you could stick to demonstrating your intellect by describing the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, instead of worrying about the apostrophes you leave out.
I leave some out from time to time, you know. I threw in a typographical error for you to find.
Go for it.
Or you could scuttle away, and start banging on about Clausius or someone, hoping to appear intelligent!
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You keep blundering –
> Did the cat eat your apostrophe? Im sure
Care to try again, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
I threw in a typographical error for you to find.
It wasn’t that hard, was it?
Harder than trying to describe the GHE any better than “not cooling, slower cooling”, I suppose.
You could always try to avoid taking responsibility for your silliness by whining about apostrophes – pretending you are an authority on English expression. The extremely ignorant and gullible might value your opinion.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You pretend –
> I threw in a typographical error for you to find
No, you didnt, my silly sock puppet.
You simply wouldnt abide to the only standard you ever cared about.
Cheers!
I threw in a typographical error for you to find.
It wasn’t that hard, was it?
Harder than trying to describe the GHE any better than “not cooling, slower cooling”, I suppose.
You could always try to avoid taking responsibility for your silliness by whining about apostrophes pretending you are an authority on English expression. The extremely ignorant and gullible might value your opinion.
Willard, thanks for another laugh at your expense –
You wrote “You simply wouldnt abide to the only standard you ever cared about.”
Is English your second language, or are you speaking Willardese again? Your gibberish generator might do a better job.
Monomaniacal Mike,
I threw in a gramer error for you to find.
Have you found it yet, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Willard, thanks for another laugh at your expense
You wrote “You simply wouldn’t abide to the only standard you ever cared about.”
Is English your second language, or are you speaking Willardese again? Your gibberish generator might do a better job.
It might support your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Donkey.
Monomaniacal Mike,
I threw in another gramer error for you to find.
You still havent found it, silly sock puppet….
Cheers.
Willard, thanks for another laugh at your expense
You wrote “You simply wouldnt abide to the only standard you ever cared about.”
Is English your second language, or are you speaking Willardese again? Your gibberish generator might do a better job.
It might support your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Donkey.
Willard, please stop trolling.
What are you braying about, Monomaniacal Mike?
The not-warming line is all yours.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard, thanks for another laugh at your expense
You wrote “You simply wouldn’t abide to the only standard you ever cared about.”
Is English your second language, or are you speaking Willardese again? Your gibberish generator might do a better job.
It might support your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Donkey.
Willard, please stop trolling.
What are you braying about, Monomaniacal Mike?
The not-warming line is all yours.
Silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Haha, almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this : “Only those of us in the middle who follow the real science of the IPCC”
Lol
At the one end, cranks like Mike Flynn and your very sorry self, Phil. At the other, doomers.
It’s really not that complex.
Crank Willard?
Because I think increased ocean Temps are caused by greater uvb irradiation due to thin ozone layer?
At least that hypothesis is thermodynamically sound, unlike a colder atmosphere heating a warmer ocean
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Its really not that complex.”
Too complex for you, obviously. You description of the GHE, “not cooling, slower cooling”, is admirably brief – not complex at all.
Also unbelievably silly. Cooling results in warming, does it?
Yes, Phil.
Crank:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1555132
Do you have any other rhetorical questions like that?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Does your comment have something to do with a mythical GHE which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
What are you babbling about?
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. If you don’t like the real universe, create your own. Oh, that’s where you live already, in WillyWorld?
Thanks for the information. Some o& your comments make sense – not all, but some.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Was I talking to you?
No.
Do you think I’m talking to you right now, silly sock puppet?
Keep braying!
Cheers.
Whinging Wee Willy,
You wrote “Mike Flynn,
Was I talking to you?
No”, as though I value your opinion.
Why would I value the opinion who describes the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
You may talk to whomever you like. Or talk to yourself in the mirror, if you seek someone who agrees with you.
If you need to ask somebody who you were talking to, things are not looking good. If you ask that same question of yourself, and then answer “No”, you are definitely in a world of your own.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You entertain a counterfactual –
> If you need to ask somebody
I don’t *need* to ask you anything, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willy,
You wrote “Mike Flynn,
Was I talking to you?
No”, as though I value your opinion.
Why would I value the opinion who describes the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
You may talk to whomever you like. Or talk to yourself in the mirror, if you seek someone who agrees with you.
If you need to ask somebody who you were talking to, things are not looking good. If you ask that same question of yourself, and then answer “No”, you are definitely in a world of your own.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You play dumb again –
> as though I value your opinion.
You already established that you’re a sociopath.
Why would you insist in supporting that fact furthermore?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard,
Don’t you like sociopaths? Are you biased and intolerant perhaps?
Are you still describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”? You are obviously biased against reality.
Carry on.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You try to deflect again –
> Dont you like sociopaths
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Silly sock puppet!
Willard,
Dont you like sociopaths? Are you biased and intolerant perhaps?
Are you still describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”? You are obviously biased against reality.
Carry on.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You wrote –
> Dont you like sociopaths?
What kind of English are you braying?
Silly sock puppet.
Willard,
Don’t you like sociopaths? Are you biased and intolerant perhaps?
Are you still describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”? You are obviously biased against reality.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn.
“Dont you like sociopaths” makes no pragmatic sense at all.
Cheers, silly sock puppet.
Willard,
Don’t you like sociopaths? Are you biased and intolerant perhaps?
Are you still describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”? You are obviously biased against reality.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“At least that hypothesis is thermodynamically sound, unlike a colder atmosphere heating a warmer ocean”
PhilJ must think what coats in winter, oven doors, multi-layer insulation do to facilitate the warming of heated bodies, is somehow not thermodynamically sound!
Because what the colder atmosphere is doing to facilitate the warming of the solar-heated ocean is the same effect.
Nate, O2 and N2 effectively provide insulation to the surface. We see that in the lapse rate. CO2 can’t provide the same insulation because it emits energy to space.
Shut up, Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666470
Clint,
“Nate, O2 and N2 effectively provide insulation to the surface. We see that in the lapse rate. CO2 cant provide the same insulation because it emits energy to space.”
N2 and O2 don’t insulate IR radiation very well because they are transparent to IR.
The amount of CO2 emitting to space is the minority, the CO2 closer to the surface is both more concentrated and more effective being opaque to IR.
So CO2 is much more effective than O2 and N2.
Willard do you have a problem with this statement you quoted:
The atmosphere does not warm the surface at all. Indeed it cannoy as a warmer surface heats the atmosphere, not the reverse..
?? What part of it do you disagree with?
That the surface warms the atmosphere and NOT the reverse is objectively true..
Nate,
“PhilJ must think what coats in winter, oven doors, multi-layer insulation do to facilitate the warming of heated bodies, is somehow not thermodynamically sound!
Because what the colder atmosphere is doing to facilitate the warming of the solar-heated ocean is the same effect.”
Hardly. Warmer air rises which both the coat and oven door retard
Increased convection cools the surface.
Try again
> do you have a problem
I have no problem with cranks, Phil.
Try again.
I see, so no intelligent response in the face of reality so you resort to insults?
Carry on..
> no intelligent
You have a knack for not insulting, Phil.
You asked for a sammich, and you got served.
Do you really think relitigating why you think an atmosphere cools a planet is worth our time?
Willard,
“Do you really think relitigating why you think an atmosphere cools a planet is worth our time?”
The Truth is always worth our time and that an colder atmosphere cools a warmer surface is obvious, the 2lot demands it.
Conduction and convection of course cool the surface and Earth with liquid water on its surface transports enormous amounts of heat to the tropopause and out to space..
Willard, please stop trolling.
> that an colder atmosphere cools a warmer surface is obvious, the 2lot demands it
According to Sky Dragon cranks, Venus is colder than Mars.
Z’obvious.
“Nate, O2 and N2 effectively provide insulation to the surface. We see that in the lapse rate. CO2 cant provide the same insulation because it emits energy to space.”
Evidence? Facts? Logic? A link to a legit source that agrees with you?
Anything? Anything at all to convince us that this argument is not BS?
Nah, we know you wont provide any. Because you never do.
You are ignoring that CO2 abs.orbs IR emitted from the surface, and emits IR from higher elevations to space.
Because it emits from COLDER high elevation CO2 to space, it emits LESS than what would be emitted from the Earth’s surface direct to space in the absence of CO2.
Oh well!
Now please, go ahead and tell me that I can’t learn and will never understand ‘Clint science’, because I must be part of a ‘cult’. or some such flimsy excuse for neither rebutting this, nor supporting your claims.
“Hardly. Warmer air rises which both the coat and oven door retard
Increased convection cools the surface.”
And multi-layer insulation is used in space, where there is only radiative heat transfer. It works to insulate spacecraft from the cold of space or the heat of the sun.
So sorry, no points Phil J, since insulating effects are NOT limited to convection!
ah yes, the real science of the IPCC.
When they do their assessments, they use 2500 reviewers to review papers and write a report. Before that report is published, the IPCC releases the Summary for Policymakers, written by 50 politically-appointed Lead Authors. The report from the 2500 is then re-written to match the Summary.
The hoi polloi making up the 2500 can protest all they want, their protests fall on deaf ears.
But, hey, wee willy is a simpleton extraordinaire. We tend to pat him on the head around here as one would pat a simple child on the head.
Mr. Asshat indulges himself once more:
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
At least they accidentally got one thing right – “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has come to the startling conclusion that climate changes.
I hope none of the participants actually received payment for stating what any reasonably intelligent 12 year old knows.
No wonder Feynman said that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Willard, please stop trolling – at least until you get better at it.
Mike Flynn always forget to quote the very next sentence –
“Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”
Silly sock puppet!
“Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”
Predict the probability distribution of that which cannot be predicted?
Yes, Willard, well worth quoting. Idiocy piled upon idiocy.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
I can’t predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match. Wonder why, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”
Predict the probability distribution of that which cannot be predicted?
Yes, Willard, well worth quoting. Idiocy piled upon idiocy.
“I cant predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
You’d lose. As usual.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You assert –
> You’d lose
Do you have any Backgammon experience, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”
Predict the probability distribution of that which cannot be predicted?
Yes, Willard, well worth quoting. Idiocy piled upon idiocy.
“I can’t predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
You’d lose. As usual.
You ask “Do you have any Backgammon experience . . . “? Why do you ask? Do you think I would need any?
You’d lose. As usual.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You play dumb again –
> Do you think I would need any?
Not if you believe that Backgammon is purely random. But then if you did, why would you be so sure of winning, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“I cant predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
Youd lose. As usual.
What else would anybody expect from someone who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling.”?
This is the real world, not WillyWorld.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You keep butchering –
> Youd lose. As usual.
Three mistakes in four words.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“I can’t predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
Youd lose. As usual. (If you missed it, I omitted an apostrophe. It’s one of these – “‘”!
What else would anybody expect from someone who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling.”?
This is the real world, not WillyWorld.
At least you are having fun by seeing my intentional errors and omissions. You’re easily diverted, which can be quite diverting. Definitely the gift that keeps on giving!
[laughing at dimwitted GHE cultist]
Monomaniacal Mike,
You play dumb once more –
> If you missed it
I didn’t, for I told you that you butchered again.
And I didn’t miss that you’re confusing predictability and skill.
“I cant predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
Youd lose. As usual. (If you missed it, I omitted an apostrophe. Its one of these “‘”!
What else would anybody expect from someone who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling.”?
This is the real world, not WillyWorld.
At least you are having fun by seeing my intentional errors and omissions. Youre easily diverted, which can be quite diverting. Definitely the gift that keeps on giving!
[laughing at dimwitted GHE cultist]
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You pontificate –
> This is the real world
What is *this*?
In the real world, there are strong Backgammon players, and there are weaklings like you, silly sock puppet.
Strong Backgammon players still can’t predict the next throw.
Cheers.
PM
“I cant predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
Youd lose. As usual. (If you missed it, I omitted an apostrophe. Its one of these !
What else would anybody expect from someone who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling.”?
This is the real world, not WillyWorld.
At least you are having fun by seeing my intentional errors and omissions. Youre easily diverted, which can be quite diverting. Definitely the gift that keeps on giving!
[laughing at dimwitted GHE cultist]
In the real world, there are strong Backgammon players, and there are weaklings like you, silly sock puppet.
What is *this*?
Strong Backgammon players still cant predict the next throw.
You pontificate
Cheers.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
> This is the real world
“I cant predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
Youd lose. As usual. (If you missed it, I omitted an apostrophe. Its one of these !
What else would anybody expect from someone who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling.”?
This is the real world, not WillyWorld.
At least you are having fun by seeing my intentional errors and omissions. Youre easily diverted, which can be quite diverting. Definitely the gift that keeps on giving!
[laughing at dimwitted GHE cultist]
You missed more than an apostrophe, Monomaniacal Mike Flynn.
You missed the whole point.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Willard, please stop trolling.
craig t…”a Pirani gauge measures pressure not radiation. Inside it is a heated wire. Pressure is determined by comparing the heat loss to a gas to the heat loss in a vacuum.
He leaves out that a Pirani gauge must be calibrated for the gas being measured, more so at pressures found in the troposphere. Both CO2 and water vapor absorb more heat per molecule than O2 or N2″.
***
A major use of the Pirani gauge after its invention was determining a vacuum level for light bulbs. So, yes, it measures air pressure levels. That makes it perfect for measuring the effect of heat dissipation via radiation to dissipation via conduction/convection.
A key to that usage is using the resistance of the Pirani gauge filament as one leg of a Wheatstone Bridge. A meter across the mid-leg bridge resistances will monitor the bridge balance and reveal any imbalance due to a resistance change in the filament.
If we start with an evacuated tube and set the circuit up for mid-scale on the meter, then as the filament radiates and dissipates heat, the meter will deflect. There is a direct relationship between the temperature of a resistance and the current through it. The temperature will obviously drop as heat is dissipated and by measuring the current change we know the heat dissipated.
By increasing the current through the filament till the meter is again mid-scale, we know the current required to do that and can calculate the power dissipated by filament by radiation alone.
Obviously, if we now let room air into the tube, the meter will deflect farther than with radiation and by measuring the higher rate of heat dissipation we known the difference between radiation alone and radiation plus conduction/convection. We already have the rate for radiation and when it is compared to the rate for air, it is found that air dissipates heat 260 times faster than radiation alone.
Shula pointed out as an adjunct that when the filament is in an evacuated chamber, and the power is turned off, it takes forever for the filament to cool by radiation alone. When air is introduced, the filament cools quickly.
Calibration is not required when we are comparing heat dissipation in air versus dissipation in a vacuum. We are only interested in the ration between the two.
Gordon Robertson
If you knew any physics you could see Shula is crackpot. He may have studied science but now he is a crackpot. If you had any real science background you would see how poor his arguments are and reject his nonsense.
Yes the filament in a evacuated chamber of a Pirani Gauge will coll slowly. It has a very very low emissivity of maybe 0.05. (Yes Gordon that really does matter). If the filament was made of material that had and emissivity of 0.95 it would cool several times faster.
That you can’t understand the function of emissivity in radiant energy indicates that you have zero science background. You fall for crackpots because you do not have enough actual science background to see the terrible flaws in their points.
Shula starts off questioning the figures on a NASA graphic showing the Earth’s energy budget. He then claims that a Panini gauge shows that only 0.4% of the Earth’s heat loss is due to radiative energy.
The proper tool to measure longwave radiation is an infrared radiometer. As an example a soybean field in Lincoln NE on July 15, 1992 was measured to emit 400 – 500 W/m^2 (which is consistent with the NASA poster rate of 398 W/m^2.)
https://snr.unl.edu/agmet/radbal/radbal-data-example.asp#Longwave
If Shula was right, the Earth would lose a total of around 100,000 Watts per square meter, almost all through convection and conduction. That is an absurd amount of energy.
Craig T,
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Do you consider the amount of energy it lost during the last four and a half billion years, absurd, or not absurd?
As Feynman wrote “So I hope you accept Nature as She is absurd.”
I do. You?
Mike Flynn,
None of that is relevant to what Craig said.
Care to try again, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Craig T,
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Do you consider the amount of energy it lost during the last four and a half billion years, absurd, or not absurd?
As Feynman wrote “So I hope you accept Nature as She is absurd.”
I do. You?
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
Copy-pasting your comment does not make it more relevant.
Care to try again, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Craig T,
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Do you consider the amount of energy it lost during the last four and a half billion years, absurd, or not absurd?
As Feynman wrote “So I hope you accept Nature as She is absurd.”
I do. You?
Still irrelevant, Monomaniacal Mike.
Care to try again?
Silly sock puppet!
Craig T,
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Do you consider the amount of energy it lost during the last four and a half billion years, absurd, or not absurd?
As Feynman wrote “So I hope you accept Nature as She is absurd.”
I do. You?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Still irrelevant, Monomaniacal Mike.
Care to try again?
Silly sock puppet!
craig…”He then claims that a Panini [sic] gauge shows that only 0.4% of the Earths heat loss is due to radiative energy”.
***
You admitted in a previous post that a Pirani gauge measures pressure. It does, and the heat dissipation at various air pressure levels between STP and a vacuum are well documented. Shula is merely applying this data to air pressures in the atmosphere to determine the relationship of heat dissipation between radiation and conduction/convection
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Experts from the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the California State University Channel Islands say that as droughts and floods become more acute with global warming, dam-building beavers are helping stave off the worst impacts by holding back essential water that otherwise would run off or dry up.
“It may seem trite to say that beavers are a key part of a national climate action plan, but the reality is that they are a force of 1540 million highly skilled environmental engineers. We cannot afford to work against them any longer; we need to work with them,” Chris E. Jordan and Emily Fairfax wrote in their paper titled Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-beaver-emerges-as-a-climate-solving-hero/
Silly monkeys might lemur.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . .”.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, aren’t you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You assert –
> You quoted “Experts from…”.
No, I didn’t. I quoted an article.
What’s up with these four dots, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted Experts from . . . .
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
I fixed the typo. Thanks.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You keep playing dumb –
> You quoted Experts from….
Who’s Experts, and what about these four dots?
Dang.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . . “.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, but I won’t.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You say –
> Dang.
Perhaps you’re not as much of a sociopath that you try to portray. Or perhaps you just had a Very Strict father who’s responsible for your overall antisocial manners here. Who knows?
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . . “.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, but I won’t.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You suppose –
> I suppose I should ask if you still
Only if you’re monomaniacal, and perhaps also if you really have nothing better than to try to deflect from the point being made.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You won’t PSTer me in my thread.
Beavers build dams that slow down river currents.
According to your silly semantic argument against the greenhouse effect, they shouldn’t be able to create lakes. Yet they are.
Do you realize how silly is your silly semantic argument, silly sock puppet? Nevermind. The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans.
Cheers.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . . “.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as not cooling, slower cooling, but I wont.
You wrote –
“The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans.” Maybe you meant “beings”, but I’ll make allowances for your spelling deficiencies.
No, the point is that the weather constantly changes. Whether you look at the dynamics of the atmosphere from the viewpoint of chaos theory, or basic quantum physics, nobody can predict the effect of any changes, from any cause, to any particular outcome.
That might be why the IPCC acknowledged that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Have you any better reasons? No?
I win, it seems. You lose, as usual.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You won’t PSTer me in my thread.
Beavers build dams that slow down river currents.
According to your silly semantic argument against the greenhouse effect, they shouldnt be able to create lakes. Yet they are.
Do you realize how silly is your silly semantic argument, silly sock puppet? Nevermind. The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans.
And no, I haven’t quoted experts. The author I quoted did.
Cheers.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted Experts from . . . .
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as not cooling, slower cooling?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as not cooling, slower cooling, but I wont.
You wrote
The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans. Maybe you meant beings, but Ill make allowances for your spelling deficiencies.
No, the point is that the weather constantly changes. Whether you look at the dynamics of the atmosphere from the viewpoint of chaos theory, or basic quantum physics, nobody can predict the effect of any changes, from any cause, to any particular outcome.
That might be why the IPCC acknowledged that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Have you any better reasons? No?
I win, it seems. You lose, as usual.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You wont PSTer me in my thread.
Beavers build dams that slow down river currents.
According to your silly semantic argument against the greenhouse effect, they shouldnt be able to create lakes. Yet they are.
Do you realize how silly is your silly semantic argument, silly sock puppet? Nevermind. The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans.
And no, I havent quoted experts. The author I quoted did.
Do you have to enter the special HTML entities to bypass the blacklist, or do you keep a special text file on your iPad?
Cheers.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You insist –
> You quoted Experts from….
Are you sure you’re a native English speaker?
You don’t seem to be as attentive to gramer as you would like.
Cheers, silly sock puppet.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . . “.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as not cooling, slower cooling, but I wont.
You wrote
“The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans”. Maybe you meant beings, but Ill make allowances for your spelling deficiencies.
No, the point is that the weather constantly changes. Whether you look at the dynamics of the atmosphere from the viewpoint of chaos theory, or basic quantum physics, nobody can predict the effect of any changes, from any cause, to any particular outcome.
That might be why the IPCC acknowledged that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Have you any better reasons? No?
I win, it seems. You lose, as usual.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike,
Your walls of words won’t protect you from the fact that skill does not rely on being able to predict the next state.
Cheers, silly sock puppet.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . . “.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as not cooling, slower cooling, but I wont.
You wrote
“The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans”. Maybe you meant beings, but Ill make allowances for your spelling deficiencies.
No, the point is that the weather constantly changes. Whether you look at the dynamics of the atmosphere from the viewpoint of chaos theory, or basic quantum physics, nobody can predict the effect of any changes, from any cause, to any particular outcome.
That might be why the IPCC acknowledged that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Have you any better reasons? No?
I win, it seems. You lose, as usual.
Willard, please stop trolling.
What are you braying about, Monomaniacal Mike?
Please give back the LLM to Mr. Asshat.
Silly sock puppet!
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . . “.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as not cooling, slower cooling?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, but I won’t.
You wrote
“The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans”. Maybe you meant beings, but I’ll make allowances for your spelling deficiencies.
No, the point is that the weather constantly changes. Whether you look at the dynamics of the atmosphere from the viewpoint of chaos theory, or basic quantum physics, nobody can predict the effect of any changes, from any cause, to any particular outcome.
That might be why the IPCC acknowledged that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Have you any better reasons? No?
I win, it seems. You lose, as usual.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Silly sock puppet!
Monomaniacal Mike, what are you braying about?
To Mr. Asshat please give back the LLM.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D, Warner tries to PSTer.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
The US govt is 34 trillion dollars in debt.
How many trillions of debt is due to US govt spending money to control global CO2?
And it and all other governments in the world has failed to control global CO2.
Their war on CO2 is like their War on Drugs.
Which has cost more, war on drugs {which they lost} or war on CO2 {which they lost}??
Is the cost been more then all the “real” wars, they have lost?
Only 34 trillion dollars?
Don’t worry – the US has a master plan – borrow their way out of debt!
Restrictions on drugs just fuel the black market, leading to unregulated consumption and, very likely, higher rates of death and other associated adverse effects. If people really want to get high, they’ll find a way to get it, legally or not.
It’s a good thing cannabis is being legalized both recreationally and medically, as it is easing this issue.
LSD is also good for you.
But there bad effects from cannabis and LSD.
Of course Fentanyl kills more people than car accidents.
And this happens because people are unaware of it, and it’s added to make better or effective {and very cheap] drug. Or people died because it causes unexpected effects. But apparently “good” for heroin user because they can use right amounts, know what they doing, and it’s cheaper.
Legalizing drugs would be something I would support, as any business selling bad drugs, can be sued of existence.
gb…the danger of fentanyl, heroin, and other opiates, even for seasoned users, is is the strength of the dose. Dealers get greedy and cut down the strength using whatever buffer is available. If a regular drug user buys from a dealer who uses the same amount of buffer each time, he is likely safe. However, if he buys from a dealer who offers a stronger drug, the dose could be fatal.
Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that can be up to 50 times stronger than heroin or morphine.
G4
https://i.ibb.co/DLSLnrm/estimated-planetary-k-in-1.png
They say near midnight is better time to watch.
I didn’t see anything about having power outages, yet.
No problems {so far, I have seen]
“Skies across the U.S. were lit in a spectacular, colorful glow at levels not seen in years or decades as massive solar flares slammed into Earth on Friday.”
https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/rare-severe-solar-storm-northern-lights-alabama
“The last time Earth experienced a Level 5 geomagnetic event, there were power outages in Sweden and damaged transformers in South Africa.”
…
SpaceX’s Starlink service warned on its website Saturday morning that it was experiencing “degraded service,” though it didn’t give further details. Yet SpaceX head Elon Musk had earlier posted on X that the Starlink satellites were under a lot of pressure due to the geomagnetic storm and were still holding up.”
I looked {for very short time period, near midnight]. It seemed there appeared to be slight red glow in the north.
I didn’t expect to see anything- the glow might have been something else.
In total, including drive time, going and returning, about 15 mins.
The moon was quite dim and low on horizon. I thought whatever was causing the moon to be dim, could be another reason for slight red glow to the north [forest fire or something}.
A sudden increase in the extent of ice in the Bering Sea.
https://i.ibb.co/FH6qBZp/r12-Bering-Sea-ts-4km.png
This thread’s podium today
Swenson: 345
Willard: 282
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 116
What else – just adapt.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Amazing polar lights last night ‘down to’ the Alps in North Germoney.
Last seen at this intensity in 2003.
A sharp jump in solar wind parameters.
G4 storm in progress.
https://i.ibb.co/qYyZt8w/latest2day.png
As I said on last month’s thread, it wouldn’t be a big surprise if we got another high anomaly. It’s not unusual for a high April global temp following el Nino.
What is surprising is how warm the anomaly is considering it wasn’t a super strong el Nino. The global T response to the 2015/2016 ‘super’ el Nino peaked at 0.71 C (UAH, Feb 2016). Only 7 years later and global temps have been consistently above 0.8 for 8 months running, and the latest global T peak is 0.3 C higher than the 2016 peak.
Compare that with the less than 0.1 C peak difference between 2016 and 1998 (UAH, April 1998 : 0.62) after 18 years.
The recent global T spike is surely caused by more than the el Nino on top of underlying global warming. What that is hasn’t yet een pinned down.
barry
Here are a few global temperature distributions made by the Japanese Met Agency, each for the March month:
– 2024
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2024/gridtemp202403e.png
– 2016
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp201603e.png
– 1998
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp199803e.png
*
The comparison speaks for itself.
barry,
Do you have a testable hypothesis for observed temperature increases?
Mike Flynn,
Look at the top of the page.
Cheers, silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the temperature of the surface and troposphere to increase.
It’s already been done.
I predict crap will be thrown towards the wall.
Will it get there?
Burbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the temperature of the surface and troposphere to increase.”
Except that it doesn’t you idio . Both the surface and the troposphere cool at night.
If you want to believe that your fantasy is reality, you are welcome to do so.
Carry on.
Swenson,
Nice shot, but you missed.
You point is irrelevant, because over longer periods of time than a day.
You are talking about weather, I am talking about climate.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Is this temp rise due to continues chemtrailing?
Clint R
Here is an article for you to consider.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/11/a-note-to-the-guardian-opinion-is-not-science/
This one is from the skeptic side but the point is the one to consider.
“Opinion is NOT Science”
You are as bad as the alarmist group with your blatant science denial.
All your posts are opinions. None have any evidence to support them. I have asked you for evidence, but you never provide.
You should reconsider your own opinionated posts and see yourself as the same mind as the alarmist group.
Sorry Norman, but it’s the other way around. You have NOTHING.
You can’t provide a viable description/definition of your bogus GHE.
You can’t provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
You can’t even walk around a tree!
Shut up, Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666470
Willard, please stop trolling.
Once again, we see Norman using his cult tactics.
He drops a bunch of false accusations, disappears, and relies on the cult kid to cover for him.
Norman neglected to mention that I have offered to teach him physics, several times. The only stipulation was he had to avoid his insults, false accusations, and other childish cult tactics.
But, he has no interest in reality…..
Shut up, Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666470
Yes, I calmly told Bindidon to shut up, without even a hint of anger behind the comment. So what? He richly deserved it, as do you.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Shut up, Little Willy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“I have offered to teach him physics… ”
You might be sincere, but this is impossible.
Physics is a tightly interwoven set of idea, laid out in physics textbooks and university course. These ideas are supported by vast sets of experiments. Sure, there are always new ideas being developed around the fringes, but physics explains
* the moon rotates.
* the moon accelerates as it curves around the earth
* tidal torques exist
* time dilation happens
* N2 absorbs IR poorly and CO2 absorbs well
* irradiances add
* on and on and on …
If you are trying to explain that the moon does NOT rotate, then by definition, you are not teaching physics! Your are teaching some OTHER secret science that apparently only you (and a handful of others) know and understand.
And no, I am not going to debate textbook physics with you.
And no, acting indignant is not scientific support for your conclusions.
Tim Folkerts, please stop trolling.
Advice from fanatical GHE cultists who can’t describe the GHE is quite irrelevant, don’t you think?
Sorry Folkerts, but you’re STILL involved in fraud.
But, I enjoy correcting cult id10ts, so here goes:
* the moon rotates. Wrong. Moon only orbits. It does NOT spin. Earth both orbits and spins.
* the moon accelerates as it curves around the earth. Correct. Moon changes both speed and direction during its orbit. All particles of Moon have the same instantaneous velocity, as it does NOT spin.
* tidal torques exist. Earth’s gravity can not create a torque on Moon.
* time dilation happens. (Not relevant here.)
* N2 absorbs IR poorly and CO2 absorbs well. N2 absorbs IR VERY poorly, and CO2 only absorbs around certain wavelengths
* irradiances add. Irradiances don’t simply add as your fraud (315 + 315 = 625) claims. If that fraud were true, you could boil water with ice cubes.
“All particles of Moon have the same instantaneous velocity
WRONG.
The far side travels in a circle of greater radius than the near side, so it travels a greater distance in the same time. ie. it has a greater speed.
DUH.
.
.
“Earths gravity can not create a torque on Moon.
Not any more it can’t, now that its off-centre centre of mass has been aligned with the earth by continual torquing over billions of years. (And its even further off-centre centre of gravity within earth’s gravitational field.)
Ant, you can’t understand “instantaneous velocity”.
And Earth can not torque Moon, ever. There is no evidence Moon ever spun. That’s just one of your cult beliefs.
I didn’t expect you to understand. Thanks for proving me right.
Like Graham D. Warner would say if he was not gaslighting –
Shut up, Puffman.
“All particles of Moon have the same instantaneous velocity, as it does NOT spin.”
Clint is seeking ridicule again. Maybe he should bet on horses that prefer to run on the outside of the track!
Nate, if you cult kids believe parts of a solid object are moving faster that other parts, have at it.
Your ignorance and immaturity just add to the fun.
Shut up, Puffman.
Clint,
2*pi*(R-r) < 2*pi*(R+r}
Your bad math skillz are showing.
bob, if you cult kids believe parts of a solid object are moving faster that other parts, have at it.
Your ignorance and immaturity just add to the fun.
Clint,
That’s part of the definition of rotation Clint.
Some proof will be on the TV soon, at the Olympics, specifically track and field.
If parts of a solid object are moving at different velocities, that indicates that the body is rotating.
“* irradiances add. Irradiances dont simply add as your fraud (315 + 315 = 625) claims. If that fraud were true, you could boil water with ice cubes.”
This has been debunked 47 times, yet ignoramus Clint repeats it anyway! Why?
Ice cubes can NEVER produce TWO irradiances of 315 W/m^2 striking the same location on a surface, because they would have to be on top of each other.
Basic geometry eludes Clint.
Now because I’ve again pointed out the obvious flaws with his claims, he will have no answers, but he will tell me I must be part of a ‘cult’, or I can’t learn, or some other ad-hom.
It’s an opinion that a trace gas can warm a planet. There is not a shred of science to back the opinion. It’s an opinion that the Moon rotate exactly once per orbit. Again, not a shred of evidence to back the opinion.
Shut up, Mr. Asshat.
Willard,
That’s a good fanatical GHE cultist tactic, I suppose.
In case of running out of facts, just say “Shut up!”.
If you feel like a change, you could always say “Wow, just wow!”, or “D’oh!”, or maybe “Not even wrong!”.
Do you think that would make people more appreciative of your blinding intellect?
[he really is that dimwitted]
Shut up, Mike Flynn.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666740
Willard,
You wrote “Shut up, Mike Flynn.”
Thats a good fanatical GHE cultist tactic, I suppose.
In case of running out of facts, just say Shut up!.
If you feel like a change, you could always say “Wow, just wow!”, or “Doh!”, or maybe “Not even wrong!”.
Do you think that would make people more appreciative of your blinding intellect?
[he really is that dimwitted]
Mike Flynn,
You suppose wrong.
That’s a fellow Dragon crank tactic:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666740
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Daytime maximum temperature in Poland up to 20 C, at 5 am at ground -2 C. Dry air is transparent to radiation.
https://i.ibb.co/pXzhyC2/ventusky-temperature-5cm-20240512t0300-52n18e.jpg
Most of the ovaries on fruit trees have already frozen.
“Most of the ovaries on fruit trees have already frozen.”
Sad.
Starlink soars: SpaceXs satellite internet surprises analysts with $6.6 billion revenue projection
Quilty Space: Starlinks achievements over the past three years are mind-blowing
Sandra Erwin May 9, 2024
https://spacenews.com/starlink-soars-spacexs-satellite-internet-surprises-analysts-with-6-6-billion-revenue-projection/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“Quilty Space estimates the cost of Starlink satellites has evolved significantly. While the first generation V1 satellites were produced for around $200,000 each, the latest V2 mini version carries a heftier price tag of $800,000, but that reflects its increased size and capabilities (from 260 kilograms to 730 kilograms).
Looking ahead, Quilty projects the future V3 satellite will weigh in at a substantial 1,500 kilograms and cost roughly $1.2 million.”
SpaceX does satellites like it does rocket. Or lots beta testing, and continuing make different versions, later ones are bigger and better, and start cheap as possible, and built up. First ones boilerplate, second ones might also be boilerplate, and maybe at some point it’s a rocket {or satellite}. Or starship still testing and still boilerplate, at some point we get a rocket, which might also be test version {maybe more expensive also], but at some we get a falcon-9 [and/or falcon heavy] which remains the same and flies a lot.
So 52 at .2 million is 10.4 million for 52 satellites. 10.4 million for 1 satellite, is very cheap. And 52 satellite cost 30 million to put into orbit. 50 million for a satellite and rocket launch is very cheap. Gets thousands of them, then makes better satellite- makes thousands of them, but it some point they will be replace [or added to] with better satellite, which could be launched next year with a boilerplate Starship.
What going to happen, once there is actually a starship rocket??
Big explosions inhibit cosmic rays from hitting Earth.
So, we could take 1/2 of nuclear weapons in the world, and put them in 3 piles on the farside of the Moon.
So, one pile, and next pile is 3 three times bigger, and another one 4 times bigger.
And going to blow up the three times bigger, wait 30 seconds, then blow up the one, wait 10 seconds, and then blow up the 4 times bigger pile.
And thereafter, we can nuclear waste in these 3 craters. And maybe later, repeat, take 1/2 of world nuclear weapons and have in the 3 groups.
And could send a message. 3 + 1 = 4 or pi.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
ELDORADO DO SUL, Brazil (AP) – More rain started coming down on Saturday in Brazils already flooded Rio Grande do Sul state, where many of those remaining are poor people with limited ability to move to less dangerous areas.
More than 15 centimeters (nearly six inches) of rain could fall over the weekend and will probably worsen flooding, according to the Friday afternoon bulletin from Brazil’s national meteorology institute. It said there is also a high likelihood that winds will intensify and water levels rise in the Patos lagoon next to the state capital, Porto Alegre, and the surrounding area.
https://apnews.com/article/brazil-floods-climate-change-inequality-8a1d0e3a00bfd9a5b7918e62d6aab02a
Willard, please stop trolling.
Now for some fact to replace wee willy’s propaganda.
“Floods are a common occurrence in Brazilian cities. Every year, thousands of regions nationwide suffer from deluges…”
https://brazilian.report/liveblog/brazil-floods/2024/05/08/porto-alegre-flood-protection-systems-worked/
They had similar flood in 1941 and built flood dykes to handle that level of flooding. However, some flood gates failed, likely due to a lack of maintenance.
According to Mr. Asshat, floods kill thousands of Brazilians every year. It also displaces hundreds of thousand Brazilians every year.
He will produce that statistic any time soon.
Willard,
You haven’t been taking my advice to improve your English skills, have you?
Maybe you could replace “He will produce that statistic any time soon.” with something grammatically correct?
You dont need to thank me, it’s my pleasure as usual.
While you’re at it, you might care to amplify your description of the GHE. “not cooling, slower cooling” is not terribly informative, is it?
Carry on. You are performing admirably as a typical fanatical GHE cultist.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Silly sock puppet!
Willard,
You havent been taking my advice to improve your English skills, have you?
Maybe you could replace “He will produce that statistic any time soon.” with something grammatically correct?
You don’t need to thank me, its my pleasure as usual.
While youre at it, you might care to amplify your description of the GHE. “not cooling, slower cooling” is not terribly informative, is it?
Carry on. You are performing admirably as a typical fanatical GHE cultist.
Mike Flynn,
You go for self-defeat –
> You havent
Dont you have any self-awareness, silly sock puppet?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner tries to PSTer.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Willard seems to think he owns the blog. Definitely strange, is Willard.
He can’t come up with anything rational, so says silly things like –
“Mike Flynn,
Youre in my thread.
Silly sock puppet!”
Well, I suppose it diverts attention away from Willard’s description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. Willard now tries to claim that he never described the GHE at all, without acknowledging that he can’t describe it now! A very mysterious effect indeed!
Ah, the wonders of the fanatical GHE cultists’ so-called thought processes. Complete refusal to accept that the reason none of them can describe the mythical GHE is because it’s nonsense.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Just a lot of ignorant and gullible people, who abandoned rational thinking in their desire for personal recognition and power.
Willard is but one example, with his ever more bizarre attempts to convince others to value his opinions. I feel slightly sorry for the poor chap, reduced to delusions of grandeur, convinced that others should consider him to be wise and powerful – rather than the reality that he is stupid and impotent.
That is my opinion of course, and worth precisely as much as anyone else’s.
No Mikey, that would be you. All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the Jan 6 insurrectionists.
Willard seems to think he owns the blog. Definitely strange, is Willard.
He cant come up with anything rational, so says silly things like
“Mike Flynn,
Youre in my thread.
Silly sock puppet!”
Well, I suppose it diverts attention away from Willards description of the GHE as not cooling, slower cooling. Willard now tries to claim that he never described the GHE at all, without acknowledging that he cant describe it now! A very mysterious effect indeed!
Ah, the wonders of the fanatical GHE cultists so-called thought processes. Complete refusal to accept that the reason none of them can describe the mythical GHE is because its nonsense.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Just a lot of ignorant and gullible people, who abandoned rational thinking in their desire for personal recognition and power.
Willard is but one example, with his ever more bizarre attempts to convince others to value his opinions. I feel slightly sorry for the poor chap, reduced to delusions of grandeur, convinced that others should consider him to be wise and powerful rather than the reality that he is stupid and impotent.
That is my opinion of course, and worth precisely as much as anyone else’s
AQ, please stop trolling.
No Mike Flynn.
That would be you.
All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.
You wrote –
“No Mike Flynn.
That would be you.
All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.”
I’m trying to help you. What’s supposed to happen? Will a description of the GHE appear in fiery letters across the sky?
It would be a change from your GHE description “not cooling, slower cooling” which is about as silly a description as the other attempts to describe something that doesnt exist!
Maybe you could call me Mike Flynn, and tell me I’m a sociopath? Would that help?
Carry on.
All Mike Flynn can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard lashes out –
“All Mike Flynn can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.
Silly sock puppet!”
This is the guy who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
What a guy!
All Mike Flynn can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.
Silly sock puppet!
“No Mike Flynn.
That would be you.
All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.”
Willard displays his vast scientific knowledge. Only joking, Willard describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
What a dummy is Willard!
Mike Flynn proves once again that he is a sociopath.
Silly sock puppet!
“No Mike Flynn.
That would be you.
All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.”
Willard displays his vast scientific knowledge. Only joking, Willard describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
What a dummy is Willard!
All Mike Flynn can do is smear his crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.
Silly sock puppet!
“All Mike Flynn can do is smear his crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.
Silly sock puppet!”
Thank you for your comment. It will receive the consideration it so richly deserves.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Warmth for katz
https://youtu.be/AtM50vVSfWc
Antonin Qwerty has lost the plot, too.
He cannot describe the GHE, and is reduced to uttering inanities like –
“No Mikey, that would be you. All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the Jan 6 insurrectionists.”
I suppose he thinks that there are many out there even more stupid and gullible than himself, who value his opinions. He might be hard-pressed to find any who would willingly admit that they are more stupid and gullible than he.
At least Willard described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. AQ thinks he is far too intelligent to admit to any description at all! More intelligent than Willard, anyway. AQ has set himself an admirably low bar.
Still no GHE. Just fanatical GHE cultists.
Swenson,
How come a pot of water on a stove heats up faster if you put a lid on it.
Maybe because you slow the rate of cooling of the pot of water.
Bob,
Berry has shown that most of the CO2 increase from 280ppm to now is due to natural emissions. Man can only be responsible for about 30ppm of the increase. Happer has shown that a doubling of CO2 will only cause about 0.6C rise. Another doubling about 0.3C rise. Greenhouses keep their CO2 levels at about 1000 ppm or higher to promote plant growth. So, it seems higher CO2 is mostly a positive effect. I’m more concerned about a colder planet than a warmer planet. We can feed people when it is warm.
Stephen,
“Berry has shown that most of the CO2 increase from 280ppm to now is due to natural emissions.”
Berry is a crank, all the increase in CO2 is due to humans,
“Happer has shown that a doubling of CO2 will only cause about 0.6C rise. Another doubling about 0.3C rise.”
We already have 1.5 C increase, so Happer is wrong.
“Greenhouses keep their CO2 levels at about 1000 ppm or higher to promote plant growth.””
No, they keep it that high because plants will use it up so fast, that that is the best level to keep it from going below 259ppm.
“So, it seems higher CO2 is mostly a positive effect.”
Have you seen the weather lately, it is getting bad and only will get worse,
“Im more concerned about a colder planet than a warmer planet.”
I am concerned that we are getting closer to the knee in the water vapor pressure curve.
“We can feed people when it is warm.”
I am not so sure about that.
But what did all that have to do with what I posted?
When you say “shown” you of course mean “he has given me the answer I want, so I will accept his claim without having any understanding of HOW he has ‘shown’ that”.
Here we see yet another 90 year old who misrepresents both himself and science in a last-ditch attempt to make a name for himself. He has another “paper” where he claims that when spinning a mass on a string, angular momentum is not conserved. Whacko …
So, those are your responses? My God.
He won’t help you.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“How come a pot of water on a stove heats up faster if you put a lid on it.”
Why do you ask? Are you ignorant?
Put a pot of water on a stove. Its temperature changes not at all, unless the pot is colder or hotter than the stove.
Put a pot of water in the Sun. Put a shiny metal lid on it. You are a strange fanatical GHE cultist, arent you?
Have you improved on your description of the GHE – “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”?
No? Ah well, Im not surprised.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Have you lost your footing?
Silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Still didn’t answer the question.
So, I’ll tell you, it slows the cooling of the pot being heated by the stove, so it increases in temperature faster.
Slower cooling can actually be heating.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
The greenhouse effect is a European thing.
They wondered how Europe was so warm {it’s not that warm, but they thought it should colder}.
But that was a long time ago, and everyone now knows the ocean warms Europe.
Mike Flynn has admitted being a sock puppet –
> No, I am Mike Flynn
In the same comment he also admitted being a sociopath.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard is going mad –
He is saying that Mike Flynn admitted being Mike Flynn (to humour a madman). Well, that would surprise nobody, would it?
He also said that in the same comment, Mike Flynn also admitted being a sociopath, but can’t quote him (for reasons of privacy, perhaps?).
That’s all well and good, and maybe Willard is hoping for applause and adulation, but in my opinion, he is just trying to divert attention from his description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Here’s another sample of Willard demonstrating his intellectual level (full comment) –
“No Mike Flynn.
That would be you.
All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.”
The fanatical GHE cultists seem to be suffering some sort of collective mental collapse, and dribbling pointless nonsense.
[laughing at unbalanced cultists]
Mike Flynn has admitted being a sock puppet –
> No, I am Mike Flynn
In the same comment he also admitted being a sociopath.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard is going mad
He is saying that Mike Flynn admitted being Mike Flynn (to humour a madman). Well, that would surprise nobody, would it?
He also said that in the same comment, Mike Flynn also admitted being a sociopath, but cant quote him (for reasons of privacy, perhaps?).
Of course, Willard can’t explain his fixation with “Mike Flynn”. Or sociopaths, for that matter.
Thats all well and good, and maybe Willard is hoping for applause and adulation, but in my opinion, he is just trying to divert attention from his description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Heres another sample of Willard demonstrating his intellectual level (full comment)
“No Mike Flynn.
That would be you.
All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.”
The fanatical GHE cultists seem to be suffering some sort of collective mental collapse, and dribbling pointless nonsense.
[laughing at Willard who is now at a complete loss]
Mike Flynn has admitted being a sock puppet –
> No, I am Mike Flynn
In the same comment he also admitted being a sociopath, something he confirms in various parts of his last comment.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard,
I’ll help you out –
“Mike Flynn has admitted being a sock puppet
> No, I am Mike Flynn
In the same comment he also admitted being a sociopath, something he confirms in various parts of his last comment.
Silly sock puppet!”
Woo-hoo! A sociopath! How exciting is that! Is that as good as being a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael,Mann?
Are you scared of sock puppets or sociopaths? What about Mike Flynn?
You’re just a wee bit unbalanced, aren’t you? Are you going to tell me “Shut up!”?
Maybe you can repeat your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
[he’s definitely disintegrating]
Mike Flynn has admitted being a sock puppet –
> No, I am Mike Flynn
In the same comment he also admitted being a sociopath, something he confirms in various parts of his last comment.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard,
Ill help you out
“Mike Flynn has admitted being a sock puppet
> No, I am Mike Flynn
In the same comment he also admitted being a sociopath, something he confirms in various parts of his last comment.
Silly sock puppet!”
Woo-hoo! A sociopath! How exciting is that! Is that as good as being a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael Mann?
You could also accuse me of being ant-Semitic, homophobic, or not being a fan of really cheap wine. Go your hardest, Willard – my care factor remains zero, you idiot.
Are you scared of sock puppets or sociopaths? What about Mike Flynn?
Youre just a wee bit unbalanced, arent you? Are you going to tell me “Shut up!”?
Maybe you can repeat your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
[hes definitely disintegrating]
Mike Flynn pretends he is helping out.
How can the silliest sock puppet in the history of Climateball be of any help?
Ah, I see. By admitting using a sock puppet –
> I am Mike Flynn
And by admitting being a little sociopath in the same comment, perhaps?
Silly sock puppet!
Ever more clearly demonstrating his fragile mental state, Willard waffles –
“Mike Flynn pretends he is helping out.
How can the silliest sock puppet in the history of Climateball be of any help?
Ah, I see. By admitting using a sock puppet
> I am Mike Flynn
And by admitting being a little sociopath in the same comment, perhaps?
Silly sock puppet!”
Faced with his peculiar description of the GHE, “not cooling, slower cooling”, Willard is reduced to dribbling pointless and irrelevant nonsense.
Either that or telling people to “Shut up!”.
Willard could probable provide idiocy to at least two villages which have lost their idiot – possibly more.
[fanatical GHE cultist showing definite signs of mental disintegration ]
Mike Flynn tries to be helpful –
> I am Mike Flynn
It took him a few years, but he finally admits commenting under a sock puppet.
Silly sock puppet!
You are a monkey.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666282
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
If you knew any physics you could see Shula is crackpot. He may have studied science but now he is a crackpot. If you had any real science background you would see how poor his arguments are and reject his nonsense.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman has been playing on his keyboard, again.
He’s such a child.
Shut up, Puffman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666740
Willard, please stop trolling.
A strong geomagnetic storm continues. The speed of the solar wind has further increased to 900 km/s.
https://i.ibb.co/cNhSvCY/estimated-planetary-k-in-2.png
https://i.ibb.co/m8v1VWy/latest2day-1.png
The geomagnetic storm will trigger a latitudinal jet stream in the Atlantic and Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/fC2NHbM/ventusky-wind-300hpa-20240512t0500.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/nBLkdgb/ventusky-wind-300hpa-20240512t0500-1.jpg
Here’s another fanatical GHE cultist fantasizing-
“EVERYONE here has “described the GHE” to you at some point, including me. You just provide a typical snarky say-nothing response then pretend ad infinitum your question has never been answered.”
Some of the alleged descriptions – “not cooling, slower cooling”, “a stack of blankets”, “The GHE works like insulation but of radiant energy not conduction.”, “I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.” – except that he did, of course.
I rather like Gavin Schmidt, who declined to describe the GHE at all, but “defined” it as the difference between two temperature guesses – 33 C.
All completely pointless anyway. As the IPCC stated, it is not possible to predict future climate states. And dreams about “stopping climate change” are just mental aberrations – climate changes, whether nutters want it to or not!
Antonin Qwerty, for example, refuses to describe the GHE. That way, he tries to ensure that nobody points out how silly his “description” is. How clever is that?
[laughter ensued]
Swenson,
What is a climate state and why are they not predictable.
By the way, I know the answer, just wondering why you continue to spam the site, with that half quote, which has nothing to do with predicting things that are not climate states.
Because you can predict things that are not climate states fairly accurately.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“What is a climate state and why are they not predictable.
By the way, I know the answer, . . . ”
That’s called a gotcha, bobby. A childish device employed by fanatical GHE cultists to make themselves look foolish, although they think that demonstrating their unhelpfulness makes them look clever.
You compound your foolishness by writing “Because you can predict things that are not climate states fairly accurately.”
That’s a completely irrelevant and meaningless statement, isn’t it? The future is unpredictable by definition – it hasnt happened yet.
You are no doubt confusing assumption with prediction. Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong. I assume you will be just as confused tomorrow, but of course you may die in the meantime. Who knows?
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
How can a meaningless statement be completely irrelevant, again?
Silly sock puppet!
Swenson,
If you don’t know what a climate state is, how do you know what it means for future climate states to be unpredictable?
So you are just blathering on and spreading Maypo all over the room.
The fact that the future has not happened doesn’t mean you can’t make predictions, humans do that all the time, don’t you?
But you are a liar, who is going to believe you anyway.
Even if you some how manage to say something true.
Bobby,
You wrote –
“If you dont know what a climate state is, how do you know what it means for future climate states to be unpredictable?”
Why would you think that I don’t know what a climate state is?
It doesnt matter – the future is unpredictable. It hasnt happened yet. For example, I assume you will be just as stupid in the future as you are now, but I cannot be certain. Maybe miracles do happen.
You might even decide that writing “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.” does not indicate a sound grasp of physical reality.
You might as well keep trying to troll, even though you are not very good at it.
Swenson,
Still don’t know what a climate state is?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
April 2024 Globally, according to NASA, had a temperature anomaly of +0.70C vs 1991/2020 baseline (+1.32 vs 1951/1980) and was the hottest April on record and was 0.19C warmer than the second warmest April 2020.
Caucasus and East Asia had exceptionally high anomalies.
I hope people don’t blame this on cleaning up particulates in the atmosphere.
I like clean air…and warmth.
Shut up, Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666740
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://youtu.be/chhcwk4-esM
“A visualization created on a NASA supercomputer takes the viewer on a one-way plunge beyond the event horizon of a black hole.”
More amateur graphic programmers who can’t get work in the movies.
Good enough for Government work.
You can see the immediate effect of a strong geomagnetic storm on the strengthening of the southern polar vortex.
https://i.ibb.co/WcKTwXh/time-pres-HGT-ANOM-AMJ-SH-2024.png
On this Mother’s Day 2024:
A life lesson for all ages:
The way to discuss scientific issues is not by belittling those who rebut your claims, but to politely engage with them, check their facts, and check their sources. Let them check yours. It’s more mature and useful than calling them names.
Stay away from personalities and imaginary grievances and stick to the science.
Yea. You’re a great example of that, huh?
Walter R. Hogle,
Shut up.
More Mother’s Day wisdom just for walterrh03:
Before you post a comment, imagine your mother looking over your shoulder reading everything you type.
Ark, that would only work if one’s mother had any sense of propriety.
That obviously wouldn’t help the cult children that tr0ll here.
Or do you give silly willy, Nate, Ball4, Norman, Bindi, and the rest, a pass?
Puffman,
Shut up.
Arkady and Willard, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 858.9 km/sec
density: 0.64 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 May 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 148
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 214 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.09×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -12.0% Low
8 numbered spots, 1 spot mid way not numbered yet. None coming or going to farside
Now for the actual sunspot count for May 12:
186
Solar wind
speed: 732.0 km/sec
density: 2.90 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 13 May 24
Sunspot number: 186
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 222 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.27×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -10.0% Low
48-hr change: -4.0%
12 numbered spot, “mid way spot”: 3676, and a new spot close going to farside, 3677. And 3678 and 3679 came from farside, with 2 not numbered spot, yet, following 3678. The Big spot probably won’t leave nearside within a day- or nothing leaving to farside,
“26.27×10^10 W Hot” is hottest thermosphere got in this cycle, more year ago, it peaked at about 24 x10^10.
Anyways it, finally got Hot.
“When the thermosphere warms, it expands, literally increasing the radius of Earths atmosphere. This expansion increases aerodynamic drag on satellites in low-Earth orbit, which can bring them down prematurely. When the thermosphere cools, it shrinks; satellites get a reprieve.”
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2022/03/23/what-is-tci/
There is graph there. Most of Max get hot early in their\ cycle. And according to graph, 24 didn’t reach Hot. And cycle 20 didn’t either.
Anyways if get prolonged Hot, That will clear out more space debris.
And starlink satellite had problems earlier in 2023, hopefully they allowed for it this for their recent launches where the satellite are just beginning to climb to their higher operational orbits.
Solar wind
speed: 563.1 km/sec
density: 2.03 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 14 May 24
Sunspot number: 207
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 215 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.12×10^10 W Hot
Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×1010 W Cold (02/2009)
Updated 13 May 2024
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.5% Low
Updated 14 May 2024 @ 0700 UT
“Earth-facing sunspot sunspot AR3676 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares”
12 numbered spots. 3664 [other X-class spot] is leaving to farside.
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
13 May – 08 June 2024
Solar activity is expected to remain at moderate to high levels
through the forecast period. Region 3664 will rotate off the visible
disk by 14-15 May, and another 10 regions will depart the visible
disk between 16 and 23 May. This will lead to a relative lull in
activity compared to the past week. However, a couple of regions
rotating on will maintain the potential for at least moderate
activity. Region 3663 is expected to return on the 23rd and Region
3664 on the 28th of May, with a significant increase in the threat
of high activity.
There is a chance for proton events at geosynchronous orbit,
particularly with the return of Region 3664.”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Solar wind
speed: 540.0 km/sec
density: 12.91 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 14 May 24
Sunspot number: 185
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 215 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.59×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.5% Low
The picture of sun hasn’t changed yet, at the site.
Or picture shows 3664 is still on nearside.
I would guess when picture changes 3664 will have left, explaining in part the lower sunspot number. It could change within couple hours.
Solar wind
speed: 526.5 km/sec
density: 6.90 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 15 May 24
Sunspot number: 185
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 220 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.59×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.0% Low
So, within 2 hours, so 3664 did leave, and 12 numbered spot. And spot appear mid way and in southern hemisphere, which hasn’t numbered [it may grow bigger or fade]. No spots leaving within a day, an spot coming from farside, yet.
Btw, latest NOAA prediction:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/noaa-forecasts-quicker-stronger-peak-solar-activity
It not quite the same as I was thinking of, but it’s easy to find.
So predicted max range is 137 to 173.
And Jan to Oct 2024,
The one I was thinking illustrated possiblity toward earlier as Jan 2024 early in this year but also the later [Oct 2024].
This of course referred to blue line which is now 124.8
And as said, it hasn’t been disproven yet.
And I thought by now, it would have already been disproven.
If May is 160 {and it’s possible} it helps- delay it.
But I would say it needs months with 150 or more. And if so, by fall 2024, it could look pretty good.
But I tend to think their earlier might end up closer to reality.
So blue line is 124.8 for Oct 2023, so we need 3 months to raise the blue line in Jan 2024.
Of course their range is Jan to Oct 2024.
So you could wait 6 or more months, of having some hope.
But if still hoping in 6 months, it seems a better hope is double peak {which is not their latest prediction}. There always hope for double peak- like solar cycle 24 double peak.
But 160 this month and/or next month can give hope by the time of fall of 2024. Hope now, and give hope later.
Solar wind
speed: 449.6 km/sec
density: 6.24 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 16 May 24
Sunspot number: 173
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 216 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.70×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.1% Low
12 numbered spot. 1 leaving. And cluster of 3 or more spots coming from farside, So, it seems, tomorrow should closer to a 200 sunspot number.
A planet does not emit at a SINGLE temperature.
— And,
two planets with the same mean surface temperature (Tmean) may emit dramatically different amounts of INFRARED radiative energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Familiar facts.
All planets have surfaces which vary in temperature with time and latitude. This why you sum the energy radiating from different parts of the surface to measure and calculate the average flux and the total IR energy output.
For the same average flux a larger planet with a larger surface area will emit a larger total IR energy output.
This will be the same whether you apply conventional physics of your physics.
Your point?
Wrong again Ent. Fluxes do not average.
You’re STILL treating flux as energy. You can’t learn.
Exercise for the student.
How do you measure and/or calculate the total number of Joules leaving the Earth as infrared radiation?
It can’t be done Ent. All you can do is guess, estimate, assume.
You would end up with something maybe +/- 25 W/m², which makes the EEI completely bogus.
EM,
You’re being stupid and patronising again.
You wrote “Exercise for the student.
How do you measure and/or calculate the total number of Joules leaving the Earth as infrared radiation?”
Are you really stupid enough to believe that providing a realistic answer to your ill-posed question is possible?
You can’t even answer your own question, can you?
That would make you a pretentious idiot, trying to appear superior.
Feel free to demonstrate that you are not, in fact, completely out of your depth.
Mike Flynn,
EM was not asking you.
There’s no point in asking you anything.
At best it’d be for rhetorical effect.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
EM,
Youre being stupid and patronising again.
You wrote “Exercise for the student.
How do you measure and/or calculate the total number of Joules leaving the Earth as infrared radiation?”
Are you really stupid enough to believe that providing a realistic answer to your ill-posed question is possible?
You cant even answer your own question, can you?
That would make you a pretentious idiot, trying to appear superior.
Feel free to demonstrate that you are not, in fact, completely out of your depth.
Clint,
Flux is watts/square meter
(joules/sec)/square meter
Joules being the SI standard unit of energy.
Two planets of the same size with the same mean surface temperature (Tmean) may emit dramatically different amounts of INFRARED radiative energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
Two planets with the same mean surface temperature may emit, on the average surface area, may emit dramatically different amounts of IR outgoing EM energy.
Moon’s average surface temperature is Tmoon = 220 K
Mars’ average surface temperature is Tmars = 210 K
Moon’s average surface Albedo a =0,11
Mars’ average surface Albedo a =0,25
It can be demonstrated that for the same Albedo Mars and Moon would have had the same average surface temperature.
The solar flux on Moon is So =1361W/m^2
The solar flux on Mars is S =586W/m^2
It is obvious, that for the same average surface temperature, the emitted amounts of energy from Moon, on the average surface area, are dramatically higher than the emitted amounts of energy from Mars.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
bob looked up the units of flux. He found that “energy” was included in the mix. So now he believes he’s proven that flux is energy!
That’s just more evidence the children don’t understand any of this.
“Speed” has units of distance per time. But, speed is NOT distance. If someone asks how far is it to the next town, you don’t say “40 mph”.
bob will STILL not understand….
Clint,
Speed is meters per second.
Flux is joules per second per meters squared.
You don’t seem to understand that.
Just because speed is not distance does not mean flux is not energy.
Now, if Moon had Earth’s Albedo, Moon’s average surface temperature would have been 206,7 K.
So, 288K – 206,7K = 81,4C difference.
And here we have the opposite example:
Two planets emitting the same amounts of IR outgoing EM energy, may have dramatically different average surface temperatures.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In the past 8 months EVERY MONTH Maldives broke the national heat record and did it several times each month. Endless record heat 24/7: Nights are always 29/30C and super humid.
https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1788200999686943098
Said twitter
Teh Tweeter is not a thing that says things.
“Endless record heat 24/7:”
No need to panic.
Turn your air conditioner up. Or go to Antarctica.
Swenson
How naive. Only an American would assume that everyone in the Third World has an air conditioner.
Mike Flynn is an Aussie, EM.
The resident fanatical GHE cultists are now reduced to assumptions about nationality, or place of residence, or something else quite irrelevant.
I don’t blame them. One describes the GHE as “a stack of blankets”, the other as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Not terribly bright, either of them.
Oh well, I’ll humour them and agree that I am an American, and an Aussie. It will be interesting to see if that advances their understanding of physics.
I’ve agreed with Willard that I am Mike Flynn, and it doesn’t seem to have made him any more intelligent. He’s declared me to be a sociopath, but nobody seems to be terribly concerned about Willard’s opinion.
I certainly feel no threat from the dribblings of an idiot with no power to affect me.
His mental deficiencies are his responsibility.
Mike Flynn continues to bray, but what?
He’s so confused. Can’t even recall having described the greenhouse effect. Keeps asking after been spood fed more than a thousand times.
Sky Dragon cranks have little else.
Please bear with him.
The resident fanatical GHE cultists are now reduced to assumptions about nationality, or place of residence, or something else quite irrelevant.
I dont blame them. One describes the GHE as “a stack of blankets”, the other as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Not terribly bright, either of them.
Oh well, Ill humour them and agree that I am an American, and an Aussie. It will be interesting to see if that advances their understanding of physics.
Ive agreed with Willard that I am Mike Flynn, and it doesnt seem to have made him any more intelligent. Hes declared me to be a sociopath, but nobody seems to be terribly concerned about Willards opinion.
I certainly feel no threat from the dribblings of an idiot with no power to affect me.
His mental deficiencies are his responsibility.
Mike Flynn is at least open about using a sock puppet –
> I am Mike Flynn.
He is still confused about having admitted being a sociopath.
One thing at a time.
Swenson, or do you now prefer Mike Flynn?
“Ive agreed with Willard that I am Mike Flynn, and it doesnt seem to have made him any more intelligent.”
So, you are admitting that you have lied.
Baffled bobdroege wrote –
“So, you are admitting that you have lied.”
About what, precisely? Why do you care?
Would it make you any less stupid?
Here’s bumbling bobby at possibly not his finest –
“adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”
Fanatical GHE cultism writ large! I await with bated breath for bobdroege to describe the GHE! Only joking, it’s pointless waiting for the impossible to occur.
Swenson,
You lied about not being Mike Flynn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner tries to PSTer Bob.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There is an experiment to educate those who desire to be educated on the moon question. Take a cup of water and put something on the surface to float. Now hold the cup in front of you and spin around a few times. Observe what the floating object is doing. Then, before you get dizzy (some of you are already dizzy), stop and observe the final motion of the floating object. This is not a perfect experiment because the water has friction with the glass. A smaller object in the center will work better.
Tim S, what in the world are you trying to prove?
That non-spinner physics is false.
Hate is for haters, Ent.
Haters are those that reject reality.
I guess Tim S. forgot what he was trying to prove….
Clint R
“Haters are those that reject reality. ”
Like yourself?
I’m not the one that claims passenger jets fly backward, child.
Clint,
He has more experimental evidence to share.
Do the experiment and see what happens.
Or, answer the following question:
Why do you get dizzy on a merry go round?
Sitting on a merry go round, you are not rotating, just like the chalk circle next to you.
tim…we have seen all sorts of thought experiments. How about using the physic’s definition of rotation and use that to prove your point. Good Luck!!!
Bumbling bobby tries for the gotcha.
He wrote –
“Why do you get dizzy on a merry go round?”
I don’t. Why do you think I should? Do you spend a lot of time on merry go rounds?
At least poor bob now admits the chalk circle is NOT rotating.
It took him years to learn that simple reality.
Clint,
I was being sarcastic.
Why do you get dizzy on a merry go round?
Swenson,
You would get dizzy if I was spinning the merry go round for you.
“You would get dizzy if I was spinning the merry go round for you.”
Luckily for me, your fantasies are not reality.
Unluckily for you, you think your fantasies are real.
It really makes no difference, does it?
The GHE is still a myth, which nobody at all can describe.
Swenson,
It’s not a myth.
So sorry that you are afraid of shadows.
“You would get dizzy if I was spinning the merry go round for you.”
Luckily for me, your fantasies are not reality.
Unluckily for you, you think your fantasies are real.
It really makes no difference, does it?
The GHE is still a myth, which nobody at all can describe. If it wasn’t a myth, you could at least describe it. How hard can it be?
[laughing at gullible fantasist]
Swenson,
Your man Tyndall discovered the greenhouse effect.
Are you saying he imagined things?
None of the commenters have reported the results of their observations. I would suggest that one must first try the experiment in order to comment on it.
–MASCOT OF THE ANOINTED REACHES EXPIRATION DATE: Queen Greta has exposed the truth about the green movement.
So, Greta Thunberg has a new cause. Shes found a new crusade to throw her weight behind. Forget saving the planet now she wants to save Palestine.
Yes, the pint-sized prophetess of doom has swapped raging against industrialism for raging against Israel. Mother Nature will just have to wait her erstwhile valiant defender is busy fixing the Middle East now.
Yesterday, Greta was snapped at the protest in Malmo, Sweden against Israels inclusion in the Eurovision Song Contest.
She looked the part. She had a keffiyeh draped over her shoulders and a smug look on her face: the two must-haves of every puffed-up bourgeois activist who gets off on fuming against Israel.
The keffiyeh really has become the uniform of the self-righteous. Go into a hip coffee shop or overpriced Soho burger joint and I guarantee youll see a Gen Zer decked out in the Palestinian scarf.
Whatever happened to the sin of cultural appropriation? Not long ago, the right-on raged against white dudes who wear their hair in dreadlocks and white women who don kominos. Stop stealing other peoples culture!, theyd yell. Yet now they themselves spend their days in Arab attire.
… —
But, maybe she is Arab.
If not, let’s just hand her over to them.
Greta wants to maintain her relevance. She’s reached an age where halting traffic and protesting in a provocative manner is no longer cute.
To remain in the spotlight, she aligns herself with a causes that ignores the full context and thrives by feigning victimhood.
Leftists hate Jews. It’s part of their cult.
Who do Rightists hate?
Are Rightists, right?
Leftists should be called “Wrongists”.
Then, you have Rightists and Wrongists.
Much easier to understand.
Such high-level “thinking” coming from cLInt.
Such high-level ‘thinking’ coming from cLInt.
AQ, please stop trolling.
“There is no evidence Moon ever spun. ”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666818
How do moons spin?
Thanks for quoting me correctly, gb.
Yes, Moon likely NEVER spun.
How do moons spin?
Simply look at what was written about it since centuries, and compare it to the utter nonsense written by a few technically and scientifically incompetent boys:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
Bindi, did you find a viable model of “orbiting without spin” in all that irrelevant crap?
Or do you still have NOTHING?
We don’t need no stinkin model of orbit without spin.
We could steal one from you, but you don’t have one either.
The ball-on-a-string is the most viable model to describe incompetence, arrogance and stubbornness of the lunar spin denial gang.
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1966ems..conf..165M&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=165&epage=165&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf
Claims moon was formed in two ways, either impacting Earth, and more than 1 moon was formed.
I tend to favor Giant-impact hypothesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis
What about others?
Of course such narrowing down was directly the result of Apollo program.
Bindi and bob are so jealous.
I’ve got a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
They’ve got NOTHING.
Hey Puffman,
Try to do this –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666282
I bet you can’t.
Willard, please stop trolling.
So, China is exploring the farside of the Moon.
Joe Biden doesn’t know why {and says it’s always dark}
So, a question, is farside of moon easier {less delta-v} to land on and leave? {due to it’s spin or due to anything, else}?
The far side of the Moon is moving with more velocity, that might make launches easier, but I am a brain chemist, not a rocket scientist.
Bumbling bobby,
You are a nitwit who claims ” . . . adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”.
Brain chemist?
Bobby, please stop trolling.
“The far side of the Moon is moving with more velocity, that might make launches easier, but I am a brain chemist, not a rocket scientist.”
It would with any object spinning on it’s axis. It doesn’t help landing on Earth, but I am wondering if helps landing on Mars.
gb…the outer edge only moves faster if the axis is an external axis. But that also means the Moon is not spinning about a local axis.
Swenson,
” . . . adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night..”
You have not actually refuted that statement.
“gbthe outer edge only moves faster if the axis is an external axis. But that also means the Moon is not spinning about a local axis.”
How fast does Mars spin? Google:
–866 km/h
Earth: 23h 56m, 1574 km/h. Mars: 24h 36m, 866 km/h. Jupiter: 9h 55m, 45,583 km/h. Saturn: 10h 33m, 36,840 km/h.Feb 6, 2020–
Mars has large volcano.
mars largest mountain:
-Olympus Mons
The highest mountain on Mars is also the highest mountain and volcano in the entire solar system. It is called Olympus Mons and is 16 miles (24 kilometers) high which makes it about three times higher than Mt. Everest.”
I think if you land on Olympus Mons, one can get delta-v from Mars spin. And if launch a rocket from Olympus Mons you can delta-v from the spin of Mars.
I entered the phrase “In the past 8 months EVERY MONTH Maldives broke the national heat record and did it several times each month. Endless record heat 24/7: Nights are always 29/30C and super humid.” into the Google Search engine, I found no headlines. Similarly, a search for ‘Maldives heat’ under the ‘News’ tab yielded no results.
Willard is a monkey. He is resorting to spreading misinformation from sock puppet bots on Twitter.
Step 1 & 2 – Pure Denial and Sammich Request
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1788200999686943098
Took me 10 seconds.
Here is the problem.
Cookers here are basically ignorant twerps – yet they don’t know it.
N,N-Dimethyltryptamine is a monkey.
He cannot read.
Walter R. Hogle does not know when to shut up.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Willard is a monkey”.
***
More like a hideous orangutan.
lmao probably.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Welcome to the userpage of Maximiliano Herrera. I am a professional climatologist and I contributed to add and correct data in related Wikipedia documents. In this userpage you will find some of my current works and projects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maxcrc
Walter R. Hogle is a single kid in a trenchcoat.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tell Mr. Herrera that registered record highs and lows, for the most part, are meaningless because just miles away from the thermometer can be much warmer or cooler.
That doesn’t even take into account the fact that a significant number of these thermometers have been relocated to new locations.
> Tell Mr. Herrera
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Walter R. Hogle is a lone kid in a trenchcoat.
Anybody here like to second this motion?
It is so insightful. I cannot believe we have been wasting our time measuring temperatures. Time to burn all those useless recorded observations.
It doesn’t matter if anyone seconds. It doesn’t change the truth.
No one wasted time measuring temperatures. It’s just unfit for the purpose.
Walter R. Hogle should know by now that it matters if there’s a second kid in that trenchcoat.
Language is a social art.
DMT,
You wrote –
“It is so insightful. I cannot believe we have been wasting our time measuring temperatures. Time to burn all those useless recorded observations.”
Believe it. Measuring temperatures is a waste of time – resulting in historical curiosity, nothing more.
What do you think measurements achieve? Measuring the temperature of a thermometer is all well and good, but what is it supposed to achieve?
Do you intend to burn all historical weather data? That seems a bit extreme – but course you’re just being stupid, aren’t you?
Swenson,
“historical curiosity, nothing more.”
Exactly. That’s about all it’s good for.
Both land-based and satellite-based temperature networks have attempted to correct for systematic errors in their time series. Unless we can invent time travel, we can never actually correct it because we don’t know what the temperature should have been at the time of the observation, absent that bias.
It’s just unrealistic to think that we can track a regional temperature, let alone a global temperature, with high precision, especially to a level of tenth-degree accuracy.
Mike Flynn,
Are you really volunteering to team up with Walter R. Hogle? That trench coat may get very warm. Not that clothes would keep any Sky Dragon crank warm, mind you.
Silly sock puppet!
” it matters if theres a second kid in that trenchcoat.”
What does this mean? And what are you implying?
walter…they need to fudge past temperatures because they belie the global warming propaganda? They can’t explain how the 1930s were consistently warmer than today, with many more heat waves.
Walter R. Hogle’s reading skillz are as good as his research –
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/two-kids-in-a-trenchcoat
I blame homeschooling.
Willard, trying to appear intelligent –
“Walter R. Hogle should know by now that it matters if theres a second kid in that trenchcoat.”
– and failing miserably.
No wonder he describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Mike Flynn tries to bray something.
But what?
Silly sock puppet!
Willard, trying to appear intelligent
“Walter R. Hogle should know by now that it matters if theres a second kid in that trenchcoat.”
and failing miserably.
No wonder he describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
“registered record highs and lows, for the most part, are meaningless because just miles away from the thermometer can be much warmer or cooler.”
Walter this is nonsense. Can you support that claim with any evidence?
Nate,
“Walter this is nonsense. Can you support that claim with any evidence?”
“𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙨, 𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙗𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚, 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙫𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙚𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙡𝙮 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙩 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨,”
^^^
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html
“registered record highs and lows, for the most part, are meaningless”
Why does that make them meaningless?
Where i live is 20 miles from the coast, and indeed on the coast the temperature can be cooler or warmer.
But that doesn’t make my temperatures meaningless!
And as pointed out at GISS, the anomalies will be highly correlated, and meaningful.
So the warmer winter I had this year was similarly warmer on the coast.
Nate,
Specifically regarding record highs and lows, they are meaningless because the record could be an artifact of the microsite itself. Unless we monitor every square centimeter of the Earth, we can’t know whether these records are representative of climatic conditions or the small area in which the thermometer records the temperature.
Regarding anomalies, they are not meaningful. Two summer months with dramatically different temperature patterns can have the same anomaly.
I’ve also explained to you in the past how the maximum and minimum readings are not the actual peaks and troughs, but hourly averages, and thus have no usefulness. You were not convinced, so allow me to demonstrate with a graph, the best way I can attempt to deliver my point to trendologists.
https://i.postimg.cc/G3FfS0h9/Screen-Shot-2024-05-11-at-11-58-21-AM.png
The average is 97.5F. Does that make for a meaningful maximum sample?
*Two calendar months, not just summer months*
Nate,
You appear to believe that historical temperature records are useful.
Maybe you could provide some instances?
I cant think of any scientific uses which outweigh the cost of collection. Are temperature records more valuable than atmospheric pressure, relative humidity, cloud type and cover etc?
Maybe you believe that historical temperature records will help you to predict the future?
They won’t, of course. Only fanatical GHE cultists are likely to think that they can predict climate, for example.
I am curious as to your apparent fixation on past temperatures. If you don’t want to explain the reasons, I understand.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You are trying to white-knight a kid who says silly things like –
> the record could be an artifact of the microsite itself
Do you at least realize that Walter R. Hogle misinterprets what NASA says about anomalies?
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Nate questioned my claim specific to record highs and lows, not anomalies.
I merely wanted to show him evidence that backs up that specific claim.
What NASA has to say about anomalies was irrelevant to this conversation, at least until Nate wanted to talk about those too, which I have no problem discussing as well.
Walter R. Hogle provided a quote that does not support his claim that temperature records are meaningless. All the quote says is that anomalies are better to construct a *global* climate series. That temperature records get broken with more regularity is a clear effect of climate change, something the IPCC actually predicted.
And all this is happening while our kid underneath a trench coat is trying to suggest elsewhere that teh Goddard’s newsies are somehow “valid”…
Record high and low temperatures are absolute temperatures.
I quoted the specific sentence in the link that supported my argument. If I wanted to talk about anomalies, I would have quoted the other sections of my source.
Nate wants an authoritative source that says absolute temperatures vary significantly over short distances. I have no problem providing that.
What I said stands: we don’t know whether most record highs and lows are artifacts of the microsite itself.
Warner R. Hogle is tying himself into semantic knots. Significance is relative to some usage. Using temperature records is significant for some usage, not for some other.
No wonder he keeps asking an AI to to his homework.
I blame homeschooling.
Go away, troll.
Go away, tr0ll.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Warner R. Hogle is tying himself into semantic knots. Significance is relative to some usage. Using temperature records is significant for some usage, not for some other.”
You are doing your best to be as unhelpful as possible, by not specifying the usage you are referring to.
But what more would anyone expect from someone whose description of the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Are you still blaming Dr Spencer for your inability to appear relevant, if not quite sane?
Man up, Willard. Accept reality – the GHE is mythical. That’s why you can’t describe it better than “not cooling, slower cooling” – which makes no sense at all!
> Go away
You’re in my thread, silly boy.
Willard,
You wrote-
“Youre in my thread, silly boy.”
You are obviously delusional. Has your “thread” become unravelled?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Specifically regarding record highs and lows, they are meaningless because the record could be an artifact of the microsite itself. Unless we monitor every square centimeter of the Earth, we cant know whether these records are representative of climatic conditions or the small area in which the thermometer records the temperature.”
Walter, you are expressing your feelings, not facts or logical inferences.
As I noted and your GISS link explained and demonstrated, even though temperatures can vary from place to place, the anomalies are highly CORRELATED over wide regions.
Because weather variations are highly correlated over 100s of kilometers.
So the unusually warm winter this year in my region, New England, was a feature shared across the whole northeastern US.
IOW, the anomalies this winter were high across the whole region, even though the average temperatures are different from place to place.
In my work we use sampling theory, to determine the minimum number of samples needed to properly represent a varying phenomenon.
In short, if variations are correlated over some distance scale, D, then it is entirely sufficient to sample over, eg, D/10.
That means it is a total waste of resources to sample T anomalies over every cm, or every km, or even every 10 km.
new england
“I cant think of any scientific uses…”
Not being able to think is a sign of mental deficiency or a brain fluid leak. You may want to get that checked out Swenson.
“Walter, you are expressing your feelings, not facts or logical inferences.”
———-
Anomalies are distinct from record highs and lows, Nate. Record highs and lows represent absolute temperatures.
Given that absolute temperatures can vary significantly over short distances, how do we ascertain that it’s not a record just a couple of miles away from the thermometer?
#######
“As I noted and your GISS link explained and demonstrated, even though temperatures can vary from place to place, the anomalies are highly CORRELATED over wide regions.
Because weather variations are highly correlated over 100s of kilometers.
So the unusually warm winter this year in my region, New England, was a feature shared across the whole northeastern US.
IOW, the anomalies this winter were high across the whole region, even though the average temperatures are different from place to place.”
Anomalies are correlated over 1000km, but is that correlation useful? As you say, the average temperature isn’t the same everywhere, and the weather pattern isn’t exactly synchronous at each thermometer.
And look at the graph I provided. You can clearly see how these significant variations get smoothed out when averaged.
> is that correlation useful?
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Walter R. Hogle should get away from my threads.
“Anomalies are correlated over 1000km, but is that correlation useful?”
Well that question is an improvement over the statement that the measured temperatures ‘useless’.
“As you say, the average temperature isnt the same everywhere, and the weather pattern isnt exactly synchronous at each thermometer.”
The weather pattern does have correlation. A heat wave or a cold snap is is generally happening over a large region at once.
Nate,
“Well that question is an improvement over the statement that the measured temperatures useless.”
I was saying absolute highs and lows ( the record highs and lows) are useless.
“The weather pattern does have correlation. A heat wave or a cold snap is is generally happening over a large region at once.”
But the anomaly won’t be the same at every station in your area because of the location, thermometer’s microsite, and the thermometer itself.
Why do you think averaging anomalies to a grid average increases accuracy?
> I was saying absolute highs and lows ( the record highs and lows) are useless.
Step 1 (Pure Denial) or Step 3 (Saying Stuff)?
Walter R. Hogle could be doing both.
“But the anomaly wont be the same at every station in your area because of the location, thermometers microsite, and the thermometer itself.”
So what?
If the anomaly is sampled well, with sufficient density, from well sited locations, then it is an effective way of representing change in a system.
Walter, in science, if you have a criticism of research, you have to show why it matters, ie show that it matters significantly to the outcome.
So far, all you have done is tell us you have a feeling that this is a problem.
Nate,
“if you have a criticism of research, you have to show why it matters, ie show that it matters significantly to the outcome.”
You adamantly defend the use of anomalies, claiming that they are sufficient to document change. Read and look closely at Willis’ Figures 2 and 5, and of course, the histogram he provides for the trends.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/11/the-us-blows-hot-and-cold/
Where does he say there is a problem with anomalies?
If he has found something useful he should publish it, rather than posting it on a blog. That way peer reviewers can have at it.
One problem with his analysis is that he looks at the distribution of temperature at EVERY station, which means he will be weighting too heavily high population locations that have many stations.
Whereas in a proper analysis, all regions need to be weighted equally.
Nate,
“Where does he say there is a problem with anomalies?”
I’m simply using this as evidence to back up my claim. If anomalies were sufficient to document change, why is it that stations within the same 1000 km are showing cooling or very uneven rates of warming?”
“One problem with his analysis is that he looks at the distribution of temperature at EVERY station, which means he will be weighting too heavily high population locations that have many stations.
Whereas in a proper analysis, all regions need to be weighted equally.”
This is the data in its rawest form. Weighing these by population won’t change the trends.
In any case, weighing is mostly futile because most stations have been corrupted by sitting issues and/or local land use change. Thus, we cannot compare “pristine” stations with stations located in population centers. Very few, if any, stations have remained homogenous throughout the period of record.
“This is the data in its rawest form. Weighing these by population wont change the trends.”
Uhhh…of course it will. You dont seem to understand all data requires analysis to obtain meaning from it.
“In any case, weighing is mostly futile because most stations have been corrupted by sitting issues and/or local land use change. Thus, we cannot compare pristine stations with stations located in population centers. Very few, if any, stations have remained homogenous throughout the period of record.”
Science is can’t be done, its pointless, yada yada yada…
You are a broken record, Walter, but still expressing just your feelings.
“Science is cant be done, its pointless, yada yada yada
You are a broken record, Walter, but still expressing just your feelings.”
Even Zeke Hausfather admitted that most stations have been subjected to some form of inhomogeneity, Nate.
“Even Zeke Hausfather admitted that most stations have been subjected to some form of inhomogeneity, Nate.”
I don’t know what you are trying to say.
This is the historical data we have. Many DIFFERENT groups have used the data and applied somewhat different methods to select, correct, analyze them.
Yet, with these various approaches, the trends found are remarkably similar.
So pick your favorite methods, it doesnt make much difference.
Your approach seems to be to just throw up your hands and say it can’t be done.
Nate,
You said that to assess the validity of my evidence that anomalies alone are insufficient to document change, we should weigh the trends by population. That’s fine, but you should recognize that these weather stations themselves have faced many inconsistencies over their record. These inhomogeneities mean that the results are going to be distorted, and you won’t get what you are looking for.
Regarding adjustments, it’s good that they acknowledge the existence of these inhomogeneities. But remember that in a time series, your sample size is always one. Once an opportunity to measure accurately on a given day is missed or flawed, it cannot be corrected. Adjustments are unsuitable for this purpose.
We just have to work with what we have. Stay on track; don’t veer off.
“You said that to assess the validity of my evidence that anomalies alone are insufficient to document change, we should weigh the trends by population.”
No, you misunderstood me.
T should be area weighted, not weighted by population as your link did.
My point was that there are many more T stations around metro areas, so simply averaging all station data does not work to evenly sample all areas.
In any case, most stations have been subject to inhomogeneity throughout their period of record.
I still blame homeschooling.
Max is a bean counter who calls himself a climatologist. The word means nothing, all it means is that someone works in a job associated with climate, loosely or otherwise.
Mr. Asshat is an hifi tech who should call himself a crank. He keeps repeating the same insane untruths every single day on this blog since at least 2013. There is not a single scientific fact he won’t deny at one time or another.
hi fi tech??? How old are you?
I’m old enough to know what’s a Mackintosh, Gordon.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
“Im old enough to know whats a Mackintosh, Gordon.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
This way, please.
Awww … is that really our Walter pretending to be a ‘professional climatologist’?
And I see the page is 17 years old today.
Happy Birthday Walter!! (I mean Maximillian!!)
AQ, please stop trolling.
I’m not pretending to be a bot.
Actually, I don’t think he’s a bot. He’s just a monkey like Ant and Willard.
> I dont think
Walter R. Hogle could have stopped right there.
A monkey might be hammering Willard’s keyboard while Willard is playing with himself.
It would be hard to know the difference. Willard could always blame a monkey for Willard’s description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”!
Hey Mike Flynn,
You little sociopath,
You’re in my thread.
You know what happens when you keep trying to bug me in my thread?
Yeah, silly sock puppet, that’s right.
This way, please.
Willard, you fool,
You wrote –
“You know what happens when you keep trying to bug me in my thread?”
Nothing at all. You are dreaming – not your thread, and you are not the blog’s operator.
Just another dimwitted fanatical GHE cultist, who claims that he cannot describe the GHE.
How strange!
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You gaslight –
> You are dreaming.
Not at all. I am quite sure I wrote this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666912
This comment is at the origin of the current subthread.
Since you lack social skillz, ask Eboy how that works.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner underhandedly tries to PSTer me in my own thread.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”In the past 8 months EVERY MONTH Maldives broke the national heat record and did it several times each month”.
***
Duh!!! And a Homer Simpson Doh!!!
The Maldives is on the Equator. Duh!!! It’s hot on the Equator. I mean, if you told someone in the Maldives they had just experienced a record, would they notice?
On the Equator. Hot. Therefore it MUST break its temp records in consecutive months every year.
Mr. Asshat is a genius.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Do you seriously think that anyone cares about a heat record on the Equator? And do you seriously think that CO2 can force a record on the Equator and not everywhere on the planet.
I am glad you alarmists are so stoopid.
> Do you seriously think that anyone cares about a heat record on the Equator?
Mr. Asshat bears his nickname once more!
In general the equator is not the hottest place on Earth.
Nate,
You wrote –
“In general the equator is not the hottest place on Earth.”
Maybe you could actually try to be helpful, and explain where the hottest places on Earth are to be found, and why they are the hottest!
No? Why am I not surprised?
You are just another fanatical GHE cultist, after all. Any description of the GHE you imagine won’t accord with reality. Try explaining the hottest places on Earth with your mythical GHE!
Carry on.
> Maybe you could actually try to be helpful, and explain
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Nate,
You wrote
“In general the equator is not the hottest place on Earth.”
Maybe you could actually try to be helpful, and explain where the hottest places on Earth are to be found, and why they are the hottest!
No? Why am I not surprised?
You are just another fanatical GHE cultist, after all. Any description of the GHE you imagine won’t accord with reality. Try explaining the hottest places on Earth with your mythical GHE!
Carry on.
Sammich? Willard, please stop trolling. You are too stupid to be any good at it.
> Maybe you could actually try to be helpful, and explain
Step 2 – Sammich Request
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mr. Asshat strikes again –
> the outer edge only moves faster if the axis is an external axis
There is no way one can come up with such insanity without coming here.
Thanks, Roy!
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“There is no way one can come up with such insanity without coming here.”
Of course there is. You manage to do it no matter where you are. For example, you describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. The GHE is mythical.
The inability to accept reality is one indication of insanity. You don’t appear to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, but feel free to disagree.
Carry on,
Mike Flynn,
When you say –
> Of course there is.
you seem to be suggesting that you are requesting your silly sammich elsewhere. We know of your time at Judy’s. But I was under the impression that Roy’s was your only place nowadays.
Silly sock puppet!
You wrote
“There is no way one can come up with such insanity without coming here.”
Of course there is. You manage to do it no matter where you are. For example, you describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. The GHE is mythical.
The inability to accept reality is one indication of insanity. You dont appear to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, but feel free to disagree.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You mention an inability to accept reality.
Are you referring to your years of denial being Mike Flynn?
Or perhaps your decade of denial having received the sammich you keep requesting?
Quite a sad and sociopathic sock puppet!
Cheers.
You wrote
“There is no way one can come up with such insanity without coming here.”
Of course there is. You manage to do it no matter where you are. For example, you describe the GHE as not cooling, slower cooling. The GHE is mythical.
The inability to accept reality is one indication of insanity. You don’t appear to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, but feel free to disagree.
You write “Are you referring to your years of denial being Mike Flynn?” Are you claiming those years do not exist? Or that your imagining that my name is Mike Flynn is not real? Facts are facts, you idiot – reality!
You also dribble more juvenile nonsense –
“Or perhaps your decade of denial having received the sammich you keep requesting?”
Tut, tut, Willard. Your detachment from reality is showing. Insanity – refusal to accept the reality that your description of the mythical GHE “not cooling, slower cooling” is quite mad. You point-blank refuse to accept that cooling is decreasing temperature, and is a natural process, not needing any mythical GHE.
Are you stupid as well as insane?
Carry on.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You assert –
> You point-blank refuse to accept that cooling is decreasing temperature
Where did I ever refuse that truism, silly sock puppet?
Weepy Wee Willard,
You wrote –
“Where did I ever refuse that truism, [that cooling is decreasing temperature ] silly sock puppet?”
When you described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. I hope you are not going to now complain that you really meant to describe the mythical GHE in some other way!
Feel free to provide another description of the mythical GHE if you like. If you believe the GHE is supposed to result in warming through some magical process (you won’t find a physical process that heats a planet with CO2), just say so.
But fanatical GHE cultists generally refuse to commit themselves to anything specific – no doubt for fear of being laughed at. They are ignorant and gullible, but exhibit a certain amount of rat cunning.
So carry on whining. You still can’t describe the GHE, can you? All you can do is appeal to my authority – how stupid is that? There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Carry on being a fool.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You lie again –
> When you described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”
And where did I described the greenhouse effect as not cooling, slower cooling?
I just showed you where you yourself did.
A decade of charades for that silly semantic game?
Silly sociopath!
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
If you are now claiming that you didnt describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, it should be easy enough to provide the description you claim you did provide.
Unfortunately, you can’t, because you didnt .
Being an idiot, and writing –
“And where did I described the greenhouse effect as not cooling, slower cooling?” won’t help you.
Why should I tell you when and where you wrote something? Prove you didn’t, by supplying another description. How hard can it be? According to some other dimwits, the GHE has been described thousands of times! You can’t find one better than your “not cooling, slower cooling”, can you?
That’s pretty sad, isn’t it?.
Monomaniac Mike Flynn,
You claimed I said something which I did not say.
In fact, I proved that you are the one who said it.
How does it feel to be exposed as a clueless sociopath?
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Weepy Wee Willy,
If you are now claiming that you didn’t describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, it should be easy enough to provide the description you claim you did provide.
Unfortunately, you cant, because you didn’t .
Being an idiot, and writing
“And where did I described the greenhouse effect as not cooling, slower cooling?” wont help you.
Why should I tell you when and where you wrote something? Prove you didnt, by supplying another description. How hard can it be? According to some other dimwits, the GHE has been described thousands of times! You cant find one better than your “not cooling, slower cooling”, can you?
Thats pretty sad, isnt it?.
Monomaniacal Mike,
Since you can’t prove that I said what you claim I said and you can’t plausibly deny having said what you claim I said, you are simply lying. That it is such a trivial matter only confirms that you’re a clueless sociopath.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
If you are now claiming that you didnt describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, it should be easy enough to provide the description you claim you did provide.
Unfortunately, you can’t, because you didn’t .
Being an idiot, and writing
“And where did I described the greenhouse effect as not cooling, slower cooling?” wont help you.
Why should I tell you when and where you wrote something? Prove you didn’t, by supplying another description. How hard can it be? According to some other dimwits, the GHE has been described thousands of times! You cant find one better than your “not cooling, slower cooling”, can you?
Thats pretty sad, isn’t it?.
If, as you claim, you didn’t describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” (and of course you did), then you should be able to say what you really described it as! But you can’t, because you described it as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Go on, scuttle around in circles like the cockroach you are!
Monomaniacal Mike,
Since you are copy-pasting your comments like Graham D. Warner would, it is obvious that you can’t prove that I said what you claim I said.
You could continue to deny being Mike Flynn, even after admitted being him. The quotes I provided clearly establishes that the pet line is all yours.
So you’re simply lying. You’re lying on such a trivial matter that it can only confirm that youre a clueless sociopath.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
rather than post such inane responses, you might try to understand the post to which you are responding. I clearly stated the ‘outer edge’ because if a sphere is rotating about a local axis, the outer edges will rotate at the same angular speed. It is only when the Moon rotates about the Earth as an axis that the outer edge moves faster than the inner edge.
Even at that, the outer and inner edges must move at the same speed over a complete orbit, otherwise the Moon must disintegrate.
Gordon,
“Even at that, the outer and inner edges must move at the same speed over a complete orbit, otherwise the Moon must disintegrate.”
Not if the Moon is rotating, which keeps the Moon from disintegrating.
bob will never understand. He actually believes the ball-on-a-string is spinning!
He’ll never learn.
That’s what “brain-dead” looks like.
Hey, Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666282
Clint,
Yes I believe a ball on a string is rotating on is internal axis, because TCBSTBT.
In other words, I have proved a ball on a string is rotating on an internal axis.
Gordon Robertson
You’re on the ball today.
Actually the problem for the Moon is that the whole body orbits at the angular and tangential velocity of its centre of mass.
A rock on the surface nearest to Earth is 1000 miles inward from the centre of mass and is moving slower than a free mass orbiting at that altitude. If it was a free mass it would move inwards. The rock experiences a small virtual force pulling it towards Earth.
A rock on the surface furthest from Earth is 1000 miles outward from the centre of mass and is moving faster than a free mass orbiting at that altitude. If it was a free mass it would move outwards. The rock experiences a small virtual force pulling it away from Earth.
The result is a net force stretching the Moon along the Earth/Moon line. You can see the effect on the Moon’s shape. It bulges slightly at the nearest and furthest points to Earth.
In a closer orbit the stretching force gets stronger. At a minimum distance called the Roche Limit the stretching force is stronger than the gravitational force holding the Moon together. The two rocks follow completely different orbits and the Moon falls apart.
It doesn’t matter whether you are a spinner or a non-spinner. The physics is the same either way.
bobdroege, Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
ark…”The way to discuss scientific issues is not by belittling those who rebut your claims, but to politely engage with them, check their facts, and check their sources. Let them check yours. Its more mature and useful than calling them names”.
***
Coming from a poster who continually posts alarmist rhetoric yet expects other posters to to engage in a polite dialog about trash. If Ark had the slightest sense of scientific decorum, he would not post obvious trash.
“alarmist rhetoric”
“scientific decorum”
“obvious trash”
Coming from a poster who continually posts opinions such as:
a speedometer is actually a velocitymeter
or
IR is not absorbed by molecules
and the crowd favorite:
molecules don’t collide with other molecules
Thanks for making my point.
Gordon Robertson,
I your zeal to belittle, you ignored the most important part of my advice:
Why do you take offense when someone shows greater knowledge about a subject than you? Why can’t you accept that they know something you don’t?
A,
You seem disinclined to describe the mythical GHE yourself, instead claiming it has been described thousands of times.
Are you talking about descriptions like these –
“not cooling, slower cooling” – Willard
“a stack of blankets” – Entropic Man,
or are you referring to something else?
I assume that you are just pretending that you have a valid description, as fanatical GHE cultists tend to do.
Feel free to provide a description which agrees with observed reality.
You can’t of course. Reality wins again.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
The “slower cooling” line is all yours. I already showed where you used that line. Here’s an older one:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/19/the-2-8-effect/#comment-415649
So here you go – another description of the greenhouse effect from you.
Silly sock puppet!
Mike Flynn wrote –
“As a final attempt to persuade you that CO2 warming is nonsense, I ask if you might care to consider night in a tropical desert. While temperature is dropping rapidly after sunset, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not. A Warmist might convince himself that in the absence of atmosphere, the temperature would drop even more rapidly, and this is true.
He might then go on to say that this slower cooling is really warming. No it’s not it’s cooling.”
As Mike Flynn said slower cooling is not warming, it’s cooling.
Willard, you are obviously insane, claiming that Mike Flynn said that cooling is warming. Read what he said “No it’s not – it’s cooling”.
CO2 warming is nonsense, as Mike Flynn and I say.
You’re an idiot.
Carry on.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
> Mike Flynn wrote
Why are you speaking of yourself in the third person?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote
“As a final attempt to persuade you that CO2 warming is nonsense, I ask if you might care to consider night in a tropical desert. While temperature is dropping rapidly after sunset, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not. A Warmist might convince himself that in the absence of atmosphere, the temperature would drop even more rapidly, and this is true.
He might then go on to say that this slower cooling is really warming. No its not its cooling.”
As Mike Flynn said slower cooling is not warming, it’s cooling.
Willard, you are obviously insane, claiming that Mike Flynn said that cooling is warming. Read what he said “No it’s not it’s cooling”.
CO2 warming is nonsense, as Mike Flynn and I say.
You’re an idiot.
Carry on.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Why are you speaking of yourself in the third person?” Why do you ask, dummy?
Have you appointed yourself as Dr Spencer’s running dog hall monitor? The arbiter of which pseudonyms people must use, what forms of grammatical expression are allowable?
Oh dear, Willard, by now a reasonably intelligent person would have realised that I express myself as I wish, and when I wish. Whether you like it or not, there is nothing you can do about it, is there?
Why is that, Willard? Are you completely impotent in respect of how and when I comment?
Accept reality. You can’t describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality, or name anyone who values your opinions.
So sad, too bad. Try harder. It still won’t help, because you’re an idiot.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
Thank you for confirming that you are a clueless sociopath.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote
“Why are you speaking of yourself in the third person?” Why do you ask, dummy?
Have you appointed yourself as Dr Spencers running dog hall monitor? The arbiter of which pseudonyms people must use, what forms of grammatical expression are allowable?
Oh dear, Willard, by now a reasonably intelligent person would have realised that I express myself as I wish, and when I wish. Whether you like it or not, there is nothing you can do about it, is there?
Why is that, Willard? Are you completely impotent in respect of how and when I comment?
Accept reality. You cant describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality, or name anyone who values your opinions.
So sad, too bad. Try harder. It still wont help, because youre an idiot.
Monomaniacal Mike FLynn,
Keep confirming that you are a clueless sociopath, silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson,
Since I only ever post actual data and citations to consensus research papers, the fact that you are alarmed by them makes you the alarmist.
You spread fear or panic by habitually exaggerating the significance of the data, or findings of the research papers in my posts.
Don’t you reckon?
A,
Are you really silly enough to believe that “consensus research papers” represent physical fact of any sort?
You obviously don’t agree with Richard Feynman and myself –
“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.”
None of your “consensus research papers” mention experimental support, do they?
You appear to believe in the mythical GHE, but you can’t describe it, can you?
All you can do is claim that somebody else has described! That makes you both ignorant and gullible, in fact.
ark…”…I only ever post actual data and citations to consensus research papers….”
***
That’s my point, nothing you post has a proved scientific basis.
Gordon Robertson,
Because I’m neither a researcher in this field nor a climate scientist, my posts are of necessity supported by the research of those, all over the world, who studied this subject all their adult lives and are expert in this kind of analysis.
My professional habits require that I conduct myself in such manner.
What about you, what does your professional code of conduct ask of you?
Ark says: “Because I’m neither a researcher in this field nor a climate scientist, my posts are of necessity supported by the research of those, all over the world, who studied this subject all their adult lives and are expert in this kind of analysis.”
Ark, unfortunately you are not alone. That is the pattern of cultists. They just go with whatever there cult leaders tell them. Cultists can’t think for themselves. As you see here, Bindi just keeps linking to cult sources. He knows NOTHING about orbital motion, and can’t learn.
That ain’t science.
Puffman, please stop drooling.
A,
You wrote –
” . . . who studied this subject all their adult lives and are expert in this kind of analysis.”
Any fool can analyse anything, and many do. I agree with Feynman, who wrote “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant GHE cultist, aren’t you?
Good for you!
“Any fool can analyse anything”
Swenson is going with DIY brain surgery when he gets round to it.
Willard,
You wrote:
“You dont seem to realize that Walter R. Hogle just rediscovered teh Goddard.”
What’s wrong with Steve Goddard? He just collects old newspapers about weather from all over the world during older eras.
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Perhaps Walter R. Hogle doesn’t know that even Tony disinvited him:
https://tinyurl.com/tony-disinvited-teh-goddard
Poor sod.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m not interested in drama.
My point is specific to the validity of the old newspapers he collects.
Walter R. Hogle’s incuriosity is duly noted.
Too bad he does not read the post from which Tony’s quote has been excerpted, e.g.:
https://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature
He might try to dismiss this as “drama” if he so pleases. I’m not that interested in what can interest a kid inside a trenchcoat. Or not.
Walter R. Hogle’s incuriosity is duly noted.
Too bad he does not read the post from which Tony’s quote has been excerpted, e.g.:
https://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature
He might try to dismiss this as “drama” if he so pleases. I’m not that interested in what can interest a kid inside a trenchcoat. Or not.
Walter R. Hogle’s incuriosity is duly noted.
Too bad he does not read the post from which Tony’s quote has been excerpted, e.g.:
Op. Cit.
He might try to dismiss this as “drama” if he so pleases. I’m not that interested in what can interest a kid inside a trenchcoat. Or not.
Walter R. Hogle’s incuriosity is duly noted.
Too bad he does not read the post on which Tony commented, i.e.:
Op. Cit.
He might try to dismiss this as “drama” if he so pleases.
The newspapers.
I care about those.
I see also on Judith Curry’s site, Walter claimed that the more numbers you average the greater the variance, the exact opposite of reality.
He must have realised his mistake because he begged Curry to delete his post, which didn’t happen.
Afterwards, he goes on to show that he has merely read about the central limit theorem and never understood it, certainly never applied it.
I asked her to delete a duplicate post of mine.
I stand by what I said. There is no global average temperature.
Talk shit all you like.
> There is no global average temperature.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
I have shown otherwise to you before.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“> There is no global average temperature.
Step 1 Pure Denial”
Go on, tell everyone what “temperature” is being “averaged” – then provide this “average”.
You might have to redefine “global”, “average”, and “temperature” as you go. This should present no problem to a fanatical GHE cultist who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, implying that CO2 is somehow responsible for rising temperatures of something unspecified, somewhere, by some amount – and all through the miracle of “cooling”.
Stick to dribbling incomprehensible nonsense. Trying to sound intelligent is not your strong point.
Carry on.
Your unwillingness to back up the claims of yours that I actually discussed are noted, and accepted as concessions.
> Go on, tell everyone
Step 2 – Sammich Request
AQ,
You wrote –
“Your unwillingness to back up the claims of yours that I actually discussed are noted, and accepted as concessions.”
Well, that will have him shaking in his boots, won’t it?
What mental impairment leads you to think anyone (apart from yourself) values your opinion?
You can’t even describe the mythical GHE, can you? Maybe you agree with Willard’s description “not cooling, slower cooling”. How about “the GHE is a stack of blankets”?
No? Maybe you can find a description of the mythical GHE that you are prepared to repeat, but I doubt it. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise, or just scuttle away blubbing piteously.
Only joking, you can’t describe the GHE at all. It’s a myth.
“Your unwillingness to back up the claims of yours that I actually discussed are noted, and accepted as concessions.”
Your thermometer is located in a desert.
The maximum air temperature solely as a result of incoming solar radiation is 89F. Call this the conventional true value that you want.
But in addition, sand is releasing heat due to its thermal properties, adding 3F. So your maximum reading sample for that day is 92F. Thus, your maximum temperature sample for that day is skewed by 3F, which the daily average will inherit.
The sand’s thermal inertia is a contextualized, non-climactic factor. For your air temperature samples to be identically distributed, they cannot be influenced by non-climactic factors.
What is “your” thermometer??
And if true, what are you worried about. Those factors won’t have changed, so it won’t have contributed to the rising anomalies.
AQ,
“What is “your thermometer??”
Ooooooh! A gotcha!
Just trying to play silly semantic games, or are you truly as stupid as you pretend?
What’s your definition of the meaningless “global average temperature”? What relationship does that mythical creature bear to the mythical GHE?
Can’t say? Won’t say?
What a pity!
“Those factors wont have changed, so it wont have contributed to the rising anomalies.”
You are incorrect. Natural phenomena like sandstorms and floods will change the distribution and composition of the sand, thus affecting its thermal impact, along with other environmental parameters.
For example, wet sand has a higher heat capacity than dry sand.
And where is your proof that natural phenomena have specifically INCREASED temperatures averaged over ALL deserts? And by how much?
Ant,
If you’d like to change the topic, that’s alright with me.
But, does that mean you acknowledge that I’m correctaveraging increases variance?
AQ,
You wrote –
“And where is your proof that natural phenomena have specifically INCREASED temperatures averaged over ALL deserts? And by how much?”
Ooooooooooh! Another meaningless and irrelevant gotTcha! How novel!
Proof that temperatures are temperatures? Well, the Sun is a natural phenomena, and I don’t know about proof, but it’s generally accepted that more intense sunlight results in increased temperatures – even in deserts.
Even Antarctica, a large desert characterised by little so-called “greenhouse gas” (H2O) in the atmosphere, is warmer in sunlight than in darkness.
You are just being stupid, aren’t you, because you can’t even say what the mythical GHE is supposed to do!
Keep at it.
Walter
You’re the one who changed the topic to deserts, not me. And you did it to avoid justifying your previous claims. Now you are avoiding answering either.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Youre the one who changed the topic to deserts, not me.”
Oh dear. What “topic” was that? Can’t say? Won’t say?
Maybe you could address the topic of why you refuse to describe the mythical GHE? Is it because you can’t, or because you don’t want to?
Very astute of you, AQ. You’re no idiot, are you? You don’t want people like me to laugh at you!
Carry on avoiding. I’ll keep on laughing anyway.
Walter thanks you for sheltering him from his bumbling.
AQ,
You wrote
“You’re the one who changed the topic to deserts, not me.”
Oh dear. What “topic” was that? Cant say? Wont say?
Maybe you could address the topic of why you refuse to describe the mythical GHE? Is it because you cant, or because you dont want to?
Very astute of you, AQ. Youre no idiot, are you? You dont want people like me to laugh at you!
Carry on avoiding. Ill keep on laughing anyway.
Walter thanks you for continuing to shelter him from his bumbling.
I mentioned sandstorms because you argued that non-climatic elements, which prevent air temperature samples from being identically distributed, remain constant over time.
lmao
Willard,
Would you like to expand on why you are laughing your ass off?
Step 2 – Sammich Request
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Steve Goddard (aka Tony Heller) is a highly qualified quality assurance expert who has worked for Intel doing quality assurance on the Intel i7 processor. Very few are as qualified as he is to assess the claims of NOAA and NASA GISS. He has used his expertise to examine claims of NOAA and GISS and to see where they have fudged data.
Wee willy, on the other hand, is a useless alarmist nimrod who regularly questions claims of experts like Goddard using inane sources.
Teh Goddard is as qualified as Mr. Asshat:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-its-hot-in-washington-how-about.html
Teh Goddard is as qualified as Mr. Asshat:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-its-hot-in-washington-how-about.html
Gordon – proof of your claims from a RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT source please. (ie. not from Heller’s mouth, nor from others like you regurgitating his own claims of experience)
AQ,
Are you away with the fairies?
You wrote “Gordon proof of your claims from a RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT source please. (ie. not from Hellers mouth, nor from others like you regurgitating his own claims of experience)”
What “proof” are you babbling about? Facts are facts, and as Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
You are so confused that you refuse to make any claims about the GHE – even that it exists! Go on, what is it supposed to do? What is its role in the Earth having cooled to its present temperature?
You are definitely not the brightest bulb in the box. Maybe you don’t realise that Gavin Schmidt is not any sort of scientist at all, let alone a “climate” scientist, or that Michael Mann is not a Nobel Prize winner, but rather a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.
I hope you wouldn’t regard either of these as a RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT source for anything at all, would you?
Scuttle away.
So Heller “has worked for Intel doing quality assurance on the Intel i7 processor is a “fact” that just … “is”?
But of course that is how your concept of “facts” works.
AQ,
You wrote “So Heller . . . “.
Who is this Heller? A pretend “climate scientist” like Gavin Schmidt? A fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael Mann?
Has he managed to describe the mythical GHE (unlike yourself), or are you just trying to be annoying?
Try away – some weak-minded people choose to be annoyed. I rarely choose to feel annoyed, insulted, offended, and so on, by idiots. Would you?
Have you managed to describe the mythical GHE yet? Do you like Willard’s “not cooling, slower cooling”? He now denies having described the mythical GHE at all!
I don’t blame him.
You chose to enter the conversation, and no one joins in without knowing what they are discussing, right? Certainly no one would challenge comments about a subject they are not familiar with?
AQ,
You wrote So Heller . . . .
Who is this Heller? A pretend “climate scientist” like Gavin Schmidt? A fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael Mann?
Has he managed to describe the mythical GHE (unlike yourself), or are you just trying to be annoying?
Try away some weak-minded people choose to be annoyed. I rarely choose to feel annoyed, insulted, offended, and so on, by idiots. Would you?
Have you managed to describe the mythical GHE yet? Do you like Willards “not cooling, slower cooling”? He now denies having described the mythical GHE at all!
I dont blame him.
You chose to enter the conversation, and surely no one joins in without knowing what they are discussing, right? Certainly no one would challenge comments about a subject they are not familiar with?
Gotcha after gotcha.
Feel free to answer yourself.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
John Kerry Pushes Massive Tax Rises to Meet the $13.6 trillion Climate Finance Challenge
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/13/john-kerry-pushes-massive-tax-rises-to-meet-the-13-6-trillion-climate-finance-challenge/
Lurch was far more interesting.
–Former US presidential candidate John Kerry, who stepped down from his role as the US special climate envoy in March, puts the challenge of meeting this bluntly: We dont have the money.–
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS: Ashley Biden Wrote Letter to Judge Confirming That Diary Reporting That Biden Showered With Her Until a Not Appropriate Age Is Real. Snopes has been denying this for years
https://instapundit.com/
Snopes is only useful to a minority.
Instapundit?? You have to be kidding. Next you’ll be recommending QAnon.
Here’s a wonderful earlier comment from the endlessly diverting bobdroege –
“Swenson,
” . . . adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night..”
You have not actually refuted that statement.”
I would just point out to anybody who might be ignorant and gullible enough to believe bobdroege’s nonsense “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.” – Feynman and me.
As Tyndall showed by experiment, increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer reduces the amount of radiation reaching the thermometer, and the temperature of the thermometer falls as a result.
Bumbling bobby doesn’t like my universe, and has created his own – the fantasy universe of BobbyWorld.
Swenson,
True, but that experiment is not the greenhouse effect.
You will have to do better than that.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote, irrelevantly, –
“True, but that experiment is not the greenhouse effect.”
True, indeed, showing that you agree that your statement – . .. .adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.” Is nonsense.
As Tyndall showed by experiment, increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer reduces the amount of radiation reaching the thermometer, and the temperature of the thermometer falls as a result.”
The mythical “greenhouse effect” is something you cannot even describe. Saying “. . . that experiment is not the greenhouse effect.” Is the mark of a seriously disturbed mind. Of course the “greenhouse effect” is not an experiment. It’s a mythical concept which you cannot even describe.
All your attempts at avoiding reality show that you are just another fanatical GHE cultist, possibly dimmer than most.
Carry on dreaming that BobbyWorld is real.
Sorry Swenson,
But the Earth is heated by the Sun, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere retards the Earth’s ability to cool to space, thus resulting in a warmer surface.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Tyndall “made discoveries in the realms of infrared radiation and the physical properties of air, proving the connection between atmospheric CO2 and what is now known as the greenhouse effect in 1859.”
You have Tyndall all wrong, of course he is known for discovering the greenhouse effect, not debunking it.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“You have Tyndall all wrong, of course he is known for discovering the greenhouse effect, not debunking it.”
No, Tyndall never mentioned the greenhouse effect. He pointed out that without an atmosphere, human life would be unsupportable – temperatures would drop below freezing at night, and become boiling hot during the day.
Unlike you and the rest of the idiot GHE cultists, Tyndall performed quite meticulous experiments to see whether his speculations about various things were correct. For example, he measured the effect of atmospheric attenuation on radiation reaching the Earth, and concluded that around 30 to 35% of the Sun’s radiation doesn’t even reach the surface.
You probably don’t realise that this is why the hottest temperatures on Earth are much lower than on the Moon.
When you say something inordinately stupid , like –
“Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”, you can understand why people who have read Tyndall’s work laugh at you.
Carry on being a fool.
Swenson,
“No, Tyndall never mentioned the greenhouse effect”
Of course he didn’t, the term was coined later, but based on his work.
“For example, he measured the effect of atmospheric attenuation on radiation reaching the Earth, and concluded that around 30 to 35% of the Suns radiation doesnt even reach the surface.
You probably dont realise that this is why the hottest temperatures on Earth are much lower than on the Moon.”
Really, you think the albedo of the Earth is why the Moon gets hotter?
How about because the Moon has a higher albedo, and longer days.
You don’t really get the whole story, do you?
Bumbling bobby,
You dipped into your BobbyWorld fantasy physics, and wrote –
“Really, you think the albedo of the Earth is why the Moon gets hotter?
How about because the Moon has a higher albedo, and longer days.”
Are you away with the fairies again, Bobby? You are quite mad, and making stuff up – I certainly haven’t mentioned albedo. Why would I?
Insanity suits you – you can ignore my reality, and substitute your own fantasy.
You can’t describe the GHE, and by now you are probably too scared to even claim that a GHE exists! Scared of the derisive laughter which will be yours, if you claim a GHE exists, but has no description or outcome.
Come on bobby, time to burble about something else, eh? The GHE is not your friend, is it?
Swenson, Mikey Flynn, or whomever you are,
“Are you away with the fairies again, Bobby? You are quite mad, and making stuff up I certainly havent mentioned albedo. Why would I?”
Because it is a key factor in determining what the temperature of the Moon or Earth will be.
Are you ignorant of the way to calculate the temperature of a celestial body?
So you weren’t talking about albedo when you said this?
” For example, he measured the effect of atmospheric attenuation on radiation reaching the Earth, and concluded that around 30 to 35% of the Suns radiation doesnt even reach the surface.”
Looks like you are not as smart as you think you are, not by a long shot.
Babbling bobby,
You tried for a gotcha, but failed miserably.
You wrote –
“So you werent talking about albedo when you said this?”
Obviously not, otherwise I would have used the word albedo, dont you think? Rhetorical question, of course. You didnt think – you were too busy trying to be clever.
Here’s a NASA definition of albedo “Albedo is the fraction of light that a surface reflects.”
Not appropriate when talking about radiation which doesnt even reach said surface, is it?
You wrote – “Looks like you are not as smart as you think you are, not by a long shot.”
Actually, it looks like I am. You don’t have to accept it, of course.
Carry on.
Swenson,
Does the upper surface of clouds count.
That why you have found a link on the internet that you don’t understand.
Furthermore, you have a bad number, it’s more like 23%.
It’s irrelevant to the greenhouse effect, which you have already explained for us.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
ark…”So, can we please get away from personalities and imaginary grievances and stick to the science?”
Why do you take offense when someone shows greater knowledge about a subject than you? Why cant you accept that they know something you dont?
***
Because that someone is not posting scientific fact, but simply a belief that what he posts is true. All alarmists have such mistaken beliefs that they cannot possibly prove.
I take the time to point out the errors in your posts and not once have you scientifically rebutted my points.
There is simply no way to support the alarmists theories, especially the GHE and AGW. They are, and will remain, theories based on consensus. Even the IPCC cannot supply proof of the AGW theory or the GHE theory, they simply review from alarmists who cannot prove their claims.
Does “the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow” qualify as “knowledge”?
AQ,
“Does the moons phases are caused by the earths shadow qualify as knowledge?”
What does that have to do with the mythical GHE? You wouldnt be trying to divert attention away from your inability to describe the mythical GHE, would you?
Only joking, of course you are!
What does that have to do with the mythical “knowledge” of Gordon? You wouldn’t be trying to divert attention away from his inability to describe a concept that most 10 year olds understand, would you?
Only joking, of course you are!
AQ,
“Does the moons phases are caused by the earths shadow qualify as knowledge?”
What does that have to do with the mythical GHE? You wouldn’t be trying to divert attention away from your inability to describe the mythical GHE, would you?
Only joking, of course you are!
Thanks for imitating me. At least you are showing some good sense, and I accept flattery in the form of imitation from anyone – even fanatical GHE cultists who can’t even describe the mythical GHE!
You could always try trolling, but you might need to lift your game.
Carry on.
I could certainly never hope to aspire to your standards set by years of practice in tr0lling.
AQ,
“Does the moons phases are caused by the earths shadow qualify as knowledge?”
What does that have to do with the mythical GHE? You wouldnt be trying to divert attention away from your inability to describe the mythical GHE, would you?
Only joking, of course you are!
Thanks for imitating me. At least you are showing some good sense, and I accept flattery in the form of imitation from anyone even fanatical GHE cultists who cant even describe the mythical GHE!
You could always try trolling, but you might need to lift your game.
Carry on.
The bots are out tonight. Perhaps one day they will actually show signs of intelligence instead of merely copy and pasting.
My crystal ball sees another copy-paste coming.
AQ,
“Does the moons phases are caused by the earths shadow qualify as knowledge?”
What does that have to do with the mythical GHE? You wouldn’t be trying to divert attention away from your inability to describe the mythical GHE, would you?
Only joking, of course you are!
Thanks for imitating me. At least you are showing some good sense, and I accept flattery in the form of imitation from anyone even fanatical GHE cultists who can’t even describe the mythical GHE!
You could always try trolling, but you might need to lift your game.
Carry on.
Mu crystal ball was right! I have a fallback should real science ever fail.
Uggh, no wonder 20% of all the posts are from Swenson.
Never in the field of human conflict has so much been said in so many posts to say so little of any use.
AQ,
“Does the moons phases are caused by the earths shadow qualify as knowledge?”
What does that have to do with the mythical GHE? You wouldn’t be trying to divert attention away from your inability to describe the mythical GHE, would you?
Only joking, of course you are!
Thanks for imitating me. At least you are showing some good sense, and I accept flattery in the form of imitation from anyone even fanatical GHE cultists who cant even describe the mythical GHE!
You could always try trolling, but you might need to lift your game.
Carry on.
Gordon Robertson,
Just because you can’t understand something doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
Your reply is a perfect example of the logical fallacy known as argument from personal incredulity.
I have “scientifically” rebutted all your “points” to such a degree that you invariably end up moving the goalposts, belittling me and calling me names, and/or abruptly terminating the discussion without explicitly acknowledging your errors. Everyone here is aware of your Modus Operandi, yet you persist, why?
I mean this in a constructive manner: you need a solid educational foundation to be able to understand the more nuanced comments. You err by habitually seeing everything from the perspective of 19th century and first year undergraduate science.
I can’t help you if you won’t help yourself.
A,
Avoiding addressing the fact that you can’t even describe the mythical GHE won’t make you look as though you can.
Writing ridiculous comments like “I cant help you if you wont help yourself.” won’t make anybody value your opinions, unless they happen to be even more gullible and ignorant than yourself.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. No GHE.
You are dreaming if you believe otherwise.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop drooling.
A,
Avoiding addressing the fact that you cant even describe the mythical GHE wont make you look as though you can.
Writing ridiculous comments like “I cant help you if you wont help yourself.” wont make anybody value your opinions, unless they happen to be even more gullible and ignorant than yourself.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. No GHE.
You are dreaming if you believe otherwise.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop presuming that cooling implies reaching absolute zero.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The effect of the geomagnetic storm is also visible over the northern polar circle.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_NH_2024.png
I amazed at the amount of comments here. I hope Dr. Roy will still read my comment here and make a comment, whether negative or positive. I wrote a report after seeing the results for UAH for April: just click on my name to read it.
He won’t read your “report” – he never does. Nor should he … your “conclusions” are all guesswork. They are prefaced by “the only explanation I can find” and “it would appear that”, without any logical arguments or attempt to examine other possibilities. That is what happens when people know in advance what they want to find.
There are no other ‘possibilities’. But thanks for your comment. It helps me a lot, believe it or not.
Henry Pool,
Having allowed his own blog to be overtaken by a band of nattering nabobs of negativism who pollute every month’s post with hopeless hysterics, Dr Spencer usually stops reading after the first handful of comments.
After reading your report, I hope you can answer me the following question:
Based on your research, if not “CO2 from man in the air causing the extra warming of all the water and land“, what happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? Does it pass directly from the surface to outer space?
Thanks in advance
Arkady
I calculated that the amount of radiation in energy terms deflected by CO2 to earth is about the same of that back radiated by CO2 to the sun.
That leaves H20 emitted by earth and by man. Read my report. Again and again.i am not denying that a gh effect exists.
Henry Pool,
Your report doesn’t say any of that. You must mean for me to explore your blog which I’m not inclined to do, but thank you for succinctly answering the question asked.
Regarding your answer, while it is true that CO2 eventually passes IR to space, it does so from high altitudes of the atmosphere where because of lower temperature it emits a fraction of that emitted by the surface.
As CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to increase so does the altitude of its emission to space. Meanwhile, that extra heat energy slushing around the Earth system is absorbed by the oceans, melts icecaps and glaciers, and increases evaporation of water from the oceans.
IMHO.
Ark, you make the same mistakes are your cult.
CO2 can NOT warm the oceans. CO2 emits a 15μ photon that has such a low frequency it would have NO effect on ocean temperatures.
In simple terms, it would be like trying to boil water with ice cubes.
(You need to learn the basics instead of just repeating cult nonsense. What’s wrong with using your brain?)
There are no other “mitakes,” Puffman. But thanks for your comment. It helps me a lot, believe it or not.
A,
You wrote –
“Regarding your answer, while it is true that CO2 eventually passes IR to space, it does so from high altitudes of the atmosphere where because of lower temperature it emits a fraction of that emitted by the surface.”
All radiation emitted from the surface escapes to space. All. That’s why the surface cools.
You are quite insane, and refusing to accept reality.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature by losing energy to space.
No GHE. It is telling that you cannot even describe this mythical phenomena, just claim that other people have.
Keep trying – you can run but you can’t hide.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop drooling.
A,
You wrote
“Regarding your answer, while it is true that CO2 eventually passes IR to space, it does so from high altitudes of the atmosphere where because of lower temperature it emits a fraction of that emitted by the surface.”
All radiation emitted from the surface escapes to space. All. That’s why the surface cools.
You are quite insane, and refusing to accept reality.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature by losing energy to space.
No GHE. It is telling that you cannot even describe this mythical phenomena, just claim that other people have.
Keep trying you can run but you can’t hide.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> All radiation emitted from the surface escapes to space. All. Thats why the surface cools.
Mike Flynn, sorry sociopath, please stop trying to suggest that a surface wouldn’t cool if some radiation emitted from the surface would not escape to space.
A,
You wrote
“Regarding your answer, while it is true that CO2 eventually passes IR to space, it does so from high altitudes of the atmosphere where because of lower temperature it emits a fraction of that emitted by the surface.”
All radiation emitted from the surface escapes to space. All. Thats why the surface cools.
You are quite insane, and refusing to accept reality.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature by losing energy to space.
No GHE. It is telling that you cannot even describe this mythical phenomena, just claim that other people have.
Keep trying you can run but you cant hide.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“All radiation emitted from the surface escapes to space. All. Thats why the surface cools.”
All the heat emitted from my heated oven with the door open escapes to the room. All.
With the oven door closed, then all the heat emitted from my heated oven STILL escapes to the room. All.
Yet it will be warmer inside!
Ignoramus Swenson again demonstrates that he cannot grasp the point of oven doors or insulation in general.
I wrote – “All radiation emitted from the surface escapes to space. All. Thats why the surface cools.”
Why are you babbling about ovens in response.
Don’t you like reality?
You wrote –
“With the oven door closed, then all the heat emitted from my heated oven STILL escapes to the room. All.
Yet it will be warmer inside!”
Just like the Earth. The inside of the Earth is still more than red hot – but the surface has cooled. Just like your oven, the outside will cool after you turn it off. And just like the Earth, the oven’s interior will cool.
Why do you bother with analogies, when you can use the real thing? Don’t you understand physics?
“Yet it will be warmer inside!
with the door closed.
Just as the surface of the Earth will be warmer when the atmosphere has blocked certain IR wavelengths.
Oh well!
Swenson,
“All radiation emitted from the surface escapes to space. All. Thats why the surface cools.”
Not true, some of the radiation emitted from the surface gets trapped by the atmosphere.
There, I just described the greenhouse effect for you, again.
And yet again.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Amazing. The similarities between the testimony of Willie Soon and my own story. Except than that I did not write any papers; I just did my investigative work as a hobby. But anyway, his results and my results on the climate change issue are the same. Towards the end of the interview with Tucker Carlson, Willie relates how he found God by studying mathematics
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2024/01/12/i-am-willie-soon/
I am not sure exactly what is your point, Wiillard?
Every single sentence is ART, Henry. You comparing yourself to Willie. Admitting you did not write any paper. Acting almost surprised that you agree with Willie. Underlining that Willie told Tucker that he discovered God by discovering maths.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Go drool elsewhere.
Join the club, Henry, many of us are still wondering what wee willy is talking about.
Willard is a frog.
Walter R. Hogle is a kid in a trench coat.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop pretending that your comments are relevant in this subthread.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop PSTer me in my own thread like the silly sociopath that you are.
“Mike Flynn, please stop PSTer me in my own thread like the silly sociopath that you are.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to annoy and irritate like a silly sociopath.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Sorry Willard
I never studied Latin. But I am glad you did. You do not believe in God, even if all the evidence of science points towards intelligent design? (this is my translation of the applied Latin text)
> even if all
I like the way you beg questions, Henry.
“I like the way you beg questions, Henry.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, sociopathic sockpuppet, please stop playing dumb about what I just said.
“Mike Flynn, sociopathic sockpuppet, please stop playing dumb about what I just said.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop PSTering improperly.
henry…wee willy believes in the gods of the IPCC. That is, false gods.
Mr. Asshat’s recent droolings include:
– molecules dont collide with other molecules
– a speedometer is actually a velocitymeter
– the outer edge only moves faster if the axis is an external axis
– there is no quantum theory for vibration
– There is no other scientific explanation for life on Earth than God.
Oh, that one might please Henry!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, silly sociopath, please stop larping as some kind of kinky hall monitor.
“Mike Flynn, silly sociopath . . .”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop mimicking Graham D. Warner under a silly sock puppet.
“Mike Flynn, please stop mimicking Graham D. Warner under a silly sock puppet.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop PSTering improperly.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
gbaikie says:
May 8, 2024 at 12:54 PM
” Thus, Io rotates twice as fast, but Io has 1/0,145 = 6,89 smaller average surface cp. ”
“To make it clear, Io is in lower orbit, each orbit, goes a shorter distance and at a higher orbiting velocity.”
–
But also Europa is characterized as the smoothest object in entire solar system.
So Φ.europa = 0,47 vs Φ.io = 1.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The moon’s don’t have dark side, but they have a farside.
But wondering if they have dark side from radiation from Jupiter.
Or radiation due Jupiter magnetosphere is suppose to a big problem for landing on these Moon, but it seems on their farside it seems it should be less.
Now don’t get Jupiter shine, but you would get moon shine from other moons.
“But wondering if they have dark side from radiation from Jupiter. ”
No.
If the radiation was EMR, putting the mass of a moon between you and the source would protect you.
Unfortunately the radiation is fast-moving charges particles trapped by Jupiter’s magnetic field, which move in all directions.
Anything orbiting in Jupiter’s equivalent of the Van Allen belts will bombarded from all directions.
“Anything orbiting in Jupiters equivalent of the Van Allen belts will bombarded from all directions.”
If there anything big Van Allen belt, it seems it would locally reduce the effect of Van Allen belts.
Or if had spacecraft, with moderate amounts of shielding on 1/2 of it, and 10 times shielding on other side of it. That side having 10 times much should reduce radiation, as compared to it having same amount of shielding as other side.
Rather than spacecraft, one could think of large brick houses in Van Allen belts. And as some weird in sense of fashion the brick house could have 1/2 of it, have 10 times thicker bricks. Or Maybe that side is main enterance, and it’s a fortress entrance, due visitors possibly screwing up coming to visit it. Or as I said it is just mostly some fashionable consideration.
Arkady
The answer you are looking for is in footnote k) of the referenced report.
Henry Pool,
Your footnote k) only discusses light scattering without any mention of the vibrational energy interactions of IR light with atmospheric molecules.
“the molecule begins to behave like a very small spherical mirror. You can compare it a bit with turning on your headlights in foggy weather: the light goes back to the source.”
You seem oblivious to the existence of the whole field of Molecular Spectroscopy.
A,
You wrote –
“Your footnote k) only discusses light scattering without any mention of the vibrational energy interactions of IR light with atmospheric molecules.”
Arkady, you can’t even describe the mythical GHE!
Banging on about “vibrational energy interactions” just makes people think that you are a fanatical GHE cultist, parroting irrelevant information you found on the internet.
The surface cools at night, “vibrational energy interactions” notwithstanding. You can’t say why, because you have no clue about the interaction between light and matter, as Feynman would put it.
Do you actually believe in a GHE, or is your implied belief just a sham?
Mike Flynn,
Please stop drooling.
A,
You wrote
“Your footnote k) only discusses light scattering without any mention of the vibrational energy interactions of IR light with atmospheric molecules.”
Arkady, you cant even describe the mythical GHE!
Banging on about “vibrational energy interactions” just makes people think that you are a fanatical GHE cultist, parroting irrelevant information you found on the internet.
The surface cools at night, “vibrational energy interactions” notwithstanding. You can’t say why, because you have no clue about the interaction between light and matter, as Feynman would put it.
Do you actually believe in a GHE, or is your implied belief just a sham?
Willard, please stop trolling.
> just makes people think
Please stop blaming others for your abusive behavior like a clueless sociopath, Mike Flynn.
A,
You wrote
“Your footnote k) only discusses light scattering without any mention of the vibrational energy interactions of IR light with atmospheric molecules.”
Arkady, you cant even describe the mythical GHE!
Banging on about “vibrational energy interactions” just makes people think that you are a fanatical GHE cultist, parroting irrelevant information you found on the internet.
The surface cools at night, “vibrational energy interactions” notwithstanding. You cant say why, because you have no clue about the interaction between light and matter, as Feynman would put it.
Do you actually believe in a GHE, or is your implied belief just a sham?
Willard, please stop trolling. You just make yourself look as stupid as you are.
> you cant describe
Mike Flynn, please stop lying.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Just thought I’d point out that low ozone levels have persisted for 4 years in a row.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
That’s despite our efforts to reduce CFCs. After we passe the law about CFCs another hole opened up over the other Pole.
And here we are trying to ban CO2 to fix something that ain’t broke.
If a foton cannot get through the molecule, as per IR spectra, it is mirrored back. Same wavelength as the one obstructed. I showed this as we can measure it coming back to us via the moon.There can be no heating as there is no mass, co2 is a single molecule, amongst 10000, they do not stick together like water vapor, vdWaals etc
henry, I think modeling EM as a particle is pretty dumb in the first place. It is obviously far more complicated. For one, the so-called photon has a frequency and particles don’t have frequencies.
We know that EM’s power decreases with the square of the distance traveled (inverse square law). That suggests a wave dispersing from a central location, not a particle.
Electrons in atom respond to a field vibrating at a certain frequency. That’s how EM is absorbed in an atom. Problem is, there are bazzilions of frequencies making up the EM that reaches Earth. If there were bazillions of particles flowing though space, the odds of them hitting an electron would be minimal. It’s obvious that EM has to be a complex interactions of wave fronts.
Reflection suggests something like a mirror which can reflect EM at the same angle it struck the mirror. I don’t think we know yet how EM interacts with atoms. All we know, and it’s still a theory, is that EM of a discrete frequency can interact with an electron in an atom and excite electrons in the atom.
Having said that, we know that EM of certain frequencies is absorbed by a material and the rest is rejected. That’s why we see different materials as certain colours.
Children!
Do not pay attention to this deranged old man.
He is hallucinating again.
Somebody get him to take his medications!
DMT…if I am deranged then you are an utter ‘more on’. You lack the ability to objectively prove me wrong. I’ll bet you can’t chew gum and tie your shoe laces at the same time.
gordon, as usual, you’re clogging the blog with nonsense you don’t understand.
You’re confusing photons with flux. You can’t understand any of this. Flux is affected by the inverse square law, but photons aren’t. Photons possess the same wavelength/frequency/energy unless absorbed by matter.
You can’t even fake a knowledge of science, just like you can’t fake being an engineer.
Why are you here?
Henry,
You wrote –
“If a foton cannot get through the molecule, as per IR spectra, it is mirrored back. Same wavelength as the one obstructed.”
Not necessarily. An electron may interact with a photon, subsequently emitting a photon of lesser energy, the energy difference being observed as a transfer of momentum to an atom.
For example, ice may absorb higher frequency photons than it is emitting, use some of the absorbed energy to become water, and emit lower frequency photons commensurate with its temperature. In turn, the water may absorb photons of higher frequency than it is emitting, and convert some of the momentum to motion, turning into a gas.
In the absence of sufficiently energetic photons, the gas will emit photons of wavelengths dependent on temperature, lose energy, become water, then ice, all the way to absolute zero in the absence of external energy input.
Of course, absorbed energy can be transformed into internal motion – vibrational, rotational, etc.
Over 150 years ago, Prof John Tyndall wrote a book titled “Heat – a mode of motion”. Pretty descriptive title, as it turned out.
swenson…when Tyndall wrote about a mode of motion he knew nothing about electrons, EM, or photons. He was talking about the physical motion of solid particles. Like Clausius, Tyndall had an uncanny insight into atomic motion even though neither knew anything about electrons or EM.
Don’t take me the wrong way, I am not taking a shot at you. We don’t agree on some things and I’m OK with that. Having said that, you know how I feel about photons, a fantasy description put forward by Compton in 1928. Photon means light and light is only a part of the EM spectrum.
Compton got his idea from Einstein who used some fudging based on his relativity theory to give a quantum of EM properties it could not possibly have. The photon has no mass therefore cannot have a momentum. Unless…you invent a sci-fi space-time to define it otherwise.
Actually, Einstein came up with the idea of EM as a particle. However, by the end of life, he still questioned that theory, claiming that no one knows whether EM is a wave or particles. The particle notion fitted his photo-electric theory but even at that, he was describing a quantum of energy with a definite frequency, hence not a particle. It could be that others claimed the particle part and not Einstein.
You likely regard me as an ijit for questioning the likes of Einstein and Feynman, but, hey, what can I say, I am a Scot. We are noted for pointing out inconvenient facts such as the Emperor not wearing clothes or making astute observations that Godiva was riding a horse.
Sorry, but I can’t get into redefining time to make relativity theory work then using that fraudulent relationship to give a massless photon momentum.
My understanding of how EM energy excites an electron is as follows. The EM field is comprised of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. Electrons interact with both as is known from work with electric currents in a conductor. Also, in a cathode ray tube. There is no reason why an electron bound to an atom should not do the same.
In fact, the electrons, with a very high angular frequency, needs the exact frequency being applied to it in order to excite it in orbit. That has also been verified by experiment. I am wondering about harmonics of such frequencies such as 2x, 3x, 4x, etc. the frequency of the angular frequency.
I was asking for you all and dr Roy to look at the recommendation flowing from my report. Click on my name.It is unfair to report on the warming of water and land as most land is in the NH. We should rather report on Nh and Sh separately and then give an average global result.
Blessings.
Henry
And… why don’t you follow your own recommendation, and present us the difference between
– UAH Globe
and
– (UAH NH+UAH SH)/2
for land and water, respectively?
Because I am sure Henry has better things to do than following the rants of an uber-alarmist.
henry…thanks for you study.
Walter Hogle, another poster here, and myself, have discussed this. We have reasoned that the global average is a statistical anomaly rather than a fact. In your study you state…
“The highest rate of warming is observed in the Arctic, above the 70 degree latitude”.
I have stated several times that there are areas in the Arctic that show an anomaly of +5C. If you wait a month, that anomaly has relocated to another part of the Arctic. There are areas in the Antarctic that show the opposite, about -4C. It’s obvious that the +1C warming is nothing more than an average between such extremes.
BTW…I am not denying that warming has occurred since 1850, following the end of the Little Ice Age, but that was expected. I am denying that such warming is in any way related to a trace gas.
Roy has briefly commented on this in the past suggesting it may be related to ocean currents.
More…
This UAH page shows the anomalies moving month to month. Look at bottom of page to find a tab to ‘Visit the Archives’ for a month by month report.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
“We have reasoned that the global average is a statistical anomaly rather than a fact.”
followed by
“.. I am not denying that warming has occurred since 1850..”
Children – can you spot the logical error here?
This is what happens when the brain deteriorates.
Are you really as obtuse as you appear? There is no contradiction. I was talking abut a global average being fiction, I did not claim there had been no warming, just the notion of a global average meaning anything.
Some idiot wrote –
“Children can you spot the logical error here?
This is what happens when the brain deteriorates.”
DMT, please stop trolling. When you can describe the mythical GHE, let me know, if you wish.
I won’t waste time waiting.
ark…”…while it is true that CO2 eventually passes IR to space, it does so from high altitudes of the atmosphere where because of lower temperature it emits a fraction of that emitted by the surface”.
***
Meaning that most surface IR escapes straight to space. Don’t forget that CO2 concentrations, like the other atmospheric gases, diminishes in concentration with altitude. At the peak of Everest near 30,000 feet, oxygen and nitrogen are 1/3rd their concentration at sea level. At 50,000 feet air density is 13% of the density at sea level, and 50,000 feet is low compared to the upper atmosphere.
In essence, by the time any significant altitude is reached, the amount of CO2 is almost zero. How does such a low level of CO2 emit anything to space?
The notion that CO2 plays a role in any warming or heat dissipation is sheer fiction.
Tragic – isn’t it?
What’s really tragic is your inability to do science.
Before you “do science” you must first understand it. That means getting a recognised science (not an engineering) degree.
Reading Science for Dummies is insufficient.
Only a major ijit would make such a statement about engineering. We take the same math and physics courses as any other science with the exception that we study honours level physics and math and twice as much as any other discipline.
An engineering undergrad has a total hours per week exceeding 40 hours (44 for Civils) whereas the average science student has no more than about 30. That is, in part, which engineering is so tough, the work load is immense.
If you want to apply science, first you have to ***LEARN*** it. What the heck do you think we do in Applied Science?
DMT,
“Before you “do science” you must first understand it. That means getting a recognised science (not an engineering) degree.
Reading Science for Dummies is insufficient.”
Anybody who uses the phrase “do science” is not using the word “science” correctly. As Feynman said “When someone says ‘science teaches such and such”, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesnt teach it; experience teaches it.” I agree with Feynman. In your opinion, we may both be wrong. If people prefer your opinion to mine, they are free to do so. Feynman agrees with me – who agrees with you?
Some people refer to Gavin Schmidt as a “climate scientist”, even though he has no “science” qualifications of any sort. Michael Mann has a higher science degree, but is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat. Neither can describe the GHE, of course. There is no GHE, even though people with higher degrees in “science” assert there is – it just cannot be described!
DMT, please stop trolling.
> Anybody who uses the phrase do science is not using the word science correctly.
Mike Flynn, obtuse sock puppet, please stop playing silly semantic games that rest on a misunderstanding of a conception of science as a process, not a result.
Nether of you have science degrees – it is so obvious.
DMT,
You wrote –
“Nether of you have science degrees it is so obvious.”
If you have an English degree, it didn’t stop you from being sloppy, and spelling “neither” as “nether”.
If you are convinced you can read my mind, you are quite mad. You have no idea of my qualifications, not that it would make any difference to the fact that you cannot describe the mythical GHE!
Gavin Schmidt doesn’t have a science degree – is it so obvious? Only joking, your bizarre quasi-appeals to authority aren’t helping you to appear intelligent. Try providing some facts – at present, you even lack the backbone to claim that a “greenhouse effect” exists!
How sad is that?
“An engineering undergrad has a total hours per week exceeding 40 hours (44 for Civils) whereas the average science student has no more than about 30.”
No engineering undergrad attends 40 hours a week of lectures.
It’s been almost 50 years since I finished my undergrad, but I don’t think an engineering student can spend more than 24 hours a week in lectures (labs included) and be successful. You need study time, homework, research, and independent study.
In my day, being a straight A student required 3 hours of study time for every hour spent in class. Unless you’re the beneficiary of a social promotion program, I doubt that’s changed much.
“Don’t forget that CO2 concentrations, like the other atmospheric gases, diminishes in concentration with altitude.”
Here’s my source that says you’re wrong: https://ibb.co/mNK7rhS
Where’s your source?
Gordon Robertson
You’ve just described the process.
The significant altitude is the tropopause, about 10km.
Below that altitude the density of CO2 is large enough to absor*b and re-emit significant amounts of IR.
Above that altitude the density of CO2 is small enough that IR emitted upwards by CO2 molecules near the tropopause has a free path to space.
EM,
As you say, “and re-emit”. No “heat trapping”.
The fact that the surface cools at night shows that all the radiation which leaves the surface – leaves the surface!
And goes somewhere cooler – outer space.
Hence, four and a half billion years of global cooling, continuous sunlight notwithstanding.
You don’t have to accept reality if you don’t want to.
If you could describe the mythical GHE, Im sure you would, but you can’t.
Except some of the radiation gets trapped by the atmosphere.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
ark…”what happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earths surface? Does it pass directly from the surface to outer space?
***
Of course it does, 95% of it.
If I said
“radiative transfer equation”
would you be able to understand what I was saying?
DMT,
Does the “radiative transfer equation” have anything to do with the GHE that you can’t describe?
Maybe you can describe the role of the radiative transfer equation in the Earth having cooled to its present temperature? Or maybe its role in the surface cooling at night?
Have you copied the words “radiative transfer equation” from somewhere, trying to appear intelligent, and disguise the fact that you know that the GHE does not exist, but you don’t want to admit it?
As Fourier wrote –
“Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself”. In other words, four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has not been able to prevent the Earth from cooling.
Do you disagree? No? No GHE, then, or can you describe it?
I didn’t think so.
Mike Flynn, please stop asking for that silly sammich you got served at least a thousand times already.
“Sammich”?
You are insane.
Willard, please stop trolling.
As I thought.
No idea at all (or, impolitely, NFI).
Please stop playing dumb over the concept of sammich request, Mike Flynn, clueless sociopath that play acts a silly sock puppet.
“Please stop playing dumb over the concept of sammich request, Mike Flynn, clueless sociopath that play acts a silly sock puppet.”
You are insane, living in a fantasy. Your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is an indication of your delusional state.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, puerile sociopath, please stop pretending you ever studied epistemology, philosophy of science, history of science, sociology of science, or other disciplines that show you’re idealizing science as an ultimate repository of absolute truths instead of a web of products by human scientists.
You are insane, living in a fantasy. Your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is an indication of your delusional state.
Babbling about “epistemology, philosophy of science, history of science, sociology of science, . . . ” is unlikely to make anybody accept that your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is the sign of exceptional scientific knowledge.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to deny that people can’t grasp that science is a human endeavor, more so under an obnoxious sock puppet.
Willard, you wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop trying to deny that people can’t grasp that science is a human endeavor, more so under an obnoxious sock puppet.”
If you could translate that into plain English, it would just as stupid.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to play dumb over the fact that science advances one funeral at a time.
“Mike Flynn, please stop trying to play dumb over the fact that science advances one funeral at a time.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop imitating Graham D. Warner, whom has little else in life than to PSTer Team Science.
Hush, Little Willy.
If the GAT is a “fiction” how do you know there has been a warming?
It can show warming, but we can’t know the rate over time, and as a result, the cause of the warming.
Huh??
Either it is a fiction or it isn’t.
Make up your mind.
It’s fiction.
DMT,
Don’t appear more silly than you need to.
Writing “Huh??
Either it is a fiction or it isnt.
Make up your mind.” may be intended to be gratuitously offensive, but it may not work.
Who would bother taking offence from an idiot who implies the existence of a GHE which they cannot describe?
Not me, that’s for sure. Thermometers respond to heat. Warming is due to heat. CO2 provides no heat, but the processes which produce CO2 do produce heat.
Maybe you are just confused about cause and effect.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to become Walter R. Hogle’s red shirt.
“Mike Flynn, please stop trying to become Walter R. Hogles red shirt.”
You are obviously insane.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“You are obviously insane.”
Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet, please stop gaslighting.
Don’t take my word for it. Go look at hourly data and see for yourself what nonsense an hourly average temperature, and therefore a daily, monthly, and yearly average, is.
Walter,
If “its fiction”, then how do you know it has been warming?
I could just as easily claim “it’s cooling”.
How could you prove me wrong?
Because the real world has shown evidence of a warming trend, so the rise generally reflects the warming. Key emphasis on *generally*.
My point is specific to the accuracy of the data points.
DMT,
Rather than posing stupid and irrelevant gotchas, why not just admit that you cannot actually describe the mythical GHE?
How hard would it be?
Obviously too hard for a fanatical GHE cultist.
You could always claim that everybody else has described the GHE, so you don’t need to!
That might work – or you might just appear really, really, stupid!
Who knows?
> why not just admit that you cannot actually describe the mythical GHE?
Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet, please drop that 10-year old gotcha.
Willard, why not just admit that you cannot actually describe the mythical GHE?
Or do you wish to maintain your stupid description “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, garrulous sociopath, please stop trying to make your silly gotcha relevant everywhere you go.
Willard, why not just admit that you cannot actually describe the mythical GHE?
Or do you wish to maintain your stupid description “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, egregious sociopath, please stop repeating lies that make you look sillier than you already are under your sock puppet.
Willard, why not just admit that you cannot actually describe the mythical GHE?
Or do you wish to maintain your stupid description “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Do you even believe that a GHE exists?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop acting like you never saw a description of the greenhouse effect –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop acting like you never saw a description of the greenhouse effect ”
and then proceed, in your usual idiotic fashion, to appeal to Mike Flynn, who says clearly”Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me.”
Your link presumably does not even mention the words “description” or “greenhouse effect”, such words appearing only in your tortured fantasies! You are not looking terribly smart, Willard, if the only authorities to whom you can appeal keep telling you that you are an idiot for describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
You are looking more insanely desperate each day! When I tell you repeatedly that the GHE is a myth, you keep rejecting reality and claim that I believe it exists!
You are quite mad, Willard.
[openly laughing at deranged cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop lying about not being Mike Flynn.
Willard, you fool, you wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop lying about not being Mike Flynn.”
How could Mike Flynn possibly lie about being Mike Flynn?
If you are saying that Mike Flynn is not really Mike Flynn, but is lying about it, obviously I will agree with you, if it will keep you calm.
Maybe you think I am lying about being me (whoever I am), but I have to disagree, on the grounds that you would have to be insane to think that I am not who I am. Of course I am, regardless of whether it suits you or not! That makes you insane, doesn’t it?
Maybe you should just stick to idiotic descriptions of the GHE like “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Or you could claim you have never described the GHE at all! Would you be lying or not?
Mike Flynn, please stop making a silly sociopath of yourself.
Willard, you fool, you wrote
“Mike Flynn, please stop lying about not being Mike Flynn.”
How could Mike Flynn possibly lie about being Mike Flynn?
If you are saying that Mike Flynn is not really Mike Flynn, but is lying about it, obviously I will agree with you, if it will keep you calm.
Maybe you think I am lying about being me (whoever I am), but I have to disagree, on the grounds that you would have to be insane to think that I am not who I am. Of course I am, regardless of whether it suits you or not! That makes you insane, doesnt it?
Maybe you should just stick to idiotic descriptions of the GHE like “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Or you could claim you have never described the GHE at all! Would you be lying or not?
Who would know?
Mike Flynn, please stop acting like a silly sock puppet.
We are not talking about the measurement of warming in one station, or hundreds of stations, we are talking about how it is averaged to claim a 1C overall warming.
The sats do a much better job than individual thermometers taking 2 readings a day and averaging them. However, when you have a 9C discrepancy between highs in small areas of the Arctic and lows in the Antarctic, how can you average them and claim a 1C warming as meaning anything?
That’s the point we are trying to make, that claiming a 1C global average has absolutely no physical meaning. It does not apply equally to all parts of the planet.
You are totally confused.
If GAT “has absolutely no physical meaning” then how do you know if there is warming or cooling?
You claim it is warming, but how do you know?
Both LSAT and satellite data have undergone adjustments to fix systematic errors.
We can’t know the values at the time of observations absent those biases, so the adjustments meant to correct them just add uncertainty.
And since the new monthly anomalies are deviations calculated from those past adjusted values, the uncertainty propagates into those as well.
I respect Spencer, and I think he does the best he can, but at the end of the day, it’s still adjusted data.
walter…I don’t think adjustments are the problem. They had some significant adjustment around 2005 that were taken care of but where the errors fell within the announced margin of error and only in the Tropics.
I think any problems that may occur come from the method of retrieving temperature data from oxygen molecules. Although the telemetry will measure to the surface, UAH has rejected true surface measurements due to microwave energy being emitted at the surface. Therefore they must interpolate temperatures to the surface.
Still, UAH compares those interpolated temps to radiosonde data and they compare favourably. Then again, how accurate is radiosonde data? The sensors, whether thermometers or semiconductors, depend on air density for their readings, and as the telemetry gets higher, the ever-thinnig air density must become suspect in its ability to deliver accurate temperature measurement.
Gordon,
The main point is that those errors cannot be fixed unless someone invents time travel. Each and every day, the conditions are different.
Orbital drift, for example, isn’t an error that affects all of the data points the same. Variations in atmospheric density or solar activity affect the stability of the satellite in orbit.
Regarding radiosonde data, I know that they transmit data back to the ground station via radio waves. That transmission can be interrupted or lost.
Every single measurement has measurement uncertainty. The only way today’s science can begin to justify uncertainty to the hundredth digit is if they follow the conditions of repeatability:
B.2.15 repeatability (of results of measurements)
Closeness of the agreement between the results of successive measurements of the same measurand carried out under the same conditions of measurement.
NOTE 1 These conditions are called repeatability conditions.
NOTE 2 Repeatability conditions include:
The same measurement procedure
The same observer
The same measuring instrument, use under the same conditions
The same location
Repetition over a short period of time
NOTE 3 Repeatability may be expressed quantitatively in terms of the dispersion characteristics of the results.
Klint Klown…”Youre confusing photons with flux. You cant understand any of this. Flux is affected by the inverse square law, but photons arent”.
***
One of the more stoopid posts by you. Flux, according to Newton, is the amount of energy passing through an area per unit time. In magnetism theory they call flux ‘lines of force’. The number of lines of force (Gauss) is the magnetic flux density.
You keep ranting that flux is not energy. What else can it be but a measur of energy intensity over an area? That’s why the photon theory is so stoopid, it was developed to portray EM as a particle, and that’s why photon theory is inconsistent with flux theory.
How the heck can photon theory not be governed by the inverse square law? You make it sound as if EM has nothing to do with photons.
There you go again gordon, clogging the blog with your useless babbling.
This issue is NOT about magnetic fields. You’re as confused about the science as is the GHE cult. Your history here is one of a lonesome loser trying to fake it.
And, energy has about as much to do with flux as distance has to do with speed.
You don’t understand any of this.
Yep. Totally agree for once.
GR is just a run of the mill engineer with pretensions to be a scientist. He has NFI.
DMT,
I suppose that would make Gavin Schmidt a run of the mill mathematician with pretensions to be a scientist, would it?
You might be capable of thinking that “climate science” exists as a valid scientific field of study! You might as well think that political science, social science, and domestic science are based on the application of the scientific method.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. No science there. Are you ignorant as well as gullible? Does it not worry you that nobody can describe the GHE?
Obviously not.
Carry on.
Swenson, have you heard of the radiative transfer equation.
No?
Well then, I suggest you put a sock in it.
DMT,
I suppose that would make Gavin Schmidt a (run of the mill mathematician with pretensions) to be a scientist, would it?
You might be capable of thinking that “climate science” exists as a valid scientific field of study! You might as well think that political science, social science, and domestic science are based on the application of the scientific method.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. No science there. Are you ignorant as well as gullible? Does it not worry you that nobody can describe the GHE?
Obviously not. Do you think that the “radiative transfer equation” might help you to describe the GHE? I don’t believe it will, but feel free to surprise me!
Carry on.
Klint the Klown…EM is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. For cripes sake, that is basic science.
You are thoroughly confused about field theory. That should be apparent when a dimmwit like DMT starts kissing up to you in agreement.
Mr. Asshat, please stop clogging up the blog while pretending you’re some kind of engineer whence you’re at best an hifi repairman.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re just clogging the blog again, gordon.
DMT doesn’t know half of what I know about you. I know you never completed an engineering program. My guess is you flunked out somewhere about thermodynamics. You have no knowledge of even the basics. You don’t understand current flow. You never made it to information theory, where you would have learned about the advances to entropy.
You don’t even know what time it is.
Perhaps, but does he claim that the far side of the Moon has the same velocity as the near side, like you do?
Then YOU have no knowledge of even the basics, do you.
Child Nate, when you grow up and have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, then we can discuss orbital motions.
Until then, don’t play with matches.
Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666282
Oddly enough, I have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, while you have nothing.
Come back when you have something coherent, consistent and consilient.
Yes Ent, we’ve already heard about your passenger jets that fly backward.
Likely all of your opinions are just as backward….
Atmosphere of Venus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Height Temp. Atmospheric pressure
(km) (oC)……….(atm)
0 ….. 462 … 92.10
5 ….. 424 … 66.65
10 …. 385 … 47.39
15 …. 348 … 33.04
20 …. 306 … 22.52
25 …. 264 … 14.93
30 …. 222 … 9.851
35 …. 180 … 5.917
40 …. 143 … 3.501
45 …. 110 … 1.979
50 …. 75 … 1.066
55 …. 27 … 0.531 4
60 …. −10 … 0.235 7
65 …. −30 … 0.097 65
70 …. −43 … 0.036 90
80 …. −76 … 0.004 760
90 …. −104 .. 0.000 373 6
100 … −112 .. 0.000 026 60
Venus has a runaway atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Albedo a = 0,76 (Bond), S= 2601 W/m2
(1 – 0,76)*2601 W/m2 = 624 W/m2
Earth Albedo a = 0,306 (Bond), So = 1361 W/m2
(1 – 0,306)*1361 W/m2 = 945 W/m2
Let’s compare:
Earth 945 W/m2 1 atm., CO2 0,04%, 14 (oC)
Venus 624 W/m2 0,235 atm., CO2 96,5%, -10 (oC)
Venus
624/945 = 0,66
0,235*96,5 = 22,68
0,66*22,68 = 14,97
Earth
945/945 = 1
1*0,04 = 0,04
1*0,04 = 0,04
Let’s continue the Venus/Earth comparison :
14,97/0,04 = 374 times more CO2 but the temperature is -10(oC)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This is pure rubbish. None of your ratios make sense.
Did you know that the planetary mean temperature is independent of CO2?
(Only the surface temperature changes with CO2)
Did you know that the stratosphere cools when CO2 increases?
Have you heard of the radiative transfer equation?
My advice: enrol in a basic science course and stop wasting your time.
Thank you, DMT, for your response.
“My advice: enrol in a basic science course and stop wasting your time.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
DMT,
You wrote –
“My advice: enrol in a basic science course and stop wasting your time.”
You can’t describe the GHE, can you?
Do you think that enrolling in a “basic science” course will help? You might be able to name someone who values your advice, but I doubt it.
Gavin Schmidt (pretend “climate scientist”) might well benefit from your advice, but even he will likely ignore your silliness.
You’re pretty stupid, aren’t you? Why should anybody value your opinion?
You don’t sound all thst persuasive.
Swenson,
I take it that you are aggrieved at something I said.
Was it the NFI jibe? or maybe the “put a sock in it” advice ?
or maybe my mentioning of the radiative transfer equation ?
Whatever it was, I am sure it was well deserved.
Cheers,
DMT
p.s. Gavin says hello.
DMT, you keep mentioning the “radiative transfer equation”. Do you understand it has NOTHING to do with radiative heat transfer?
You’re not just throwing crap against the wall, are you?
Try studying (for example):
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ross/Science/RadTrans.pdf
Another kid on his damn phone.
DMT, you keep mentioning the “radiative transfer equation”. Do you understand it has NOTHING to do with radiative heat transfer?
You’re not avoiding my question, are you?
clint…no heat is transferred via radiation. Heat is lost at the instant radiation is created therefore radiation contains no heat to transfer. If it did, then heat could be transferred cold to hot as well as hot to cold. Surely you have not joined the alarmists, although you might as well since you attack skeptics as well.
gordon, now you’re not only clogging the blog, you’re also making false accusations.
As I recall, YOU don’t even understand the thermodynamic definition of “heat”.
Quit trying to fake it. Get a life.
Children,
solving the radiative transfer equation leads to:
https://tinyurl.com/yc648bey
DMT,
Oh dear, appealing to the authority of another commercial enterprise flogging its modelling expertise.
Complete nonsense.
If you can’t see any inconsistencies in their brightly coloured graphic, then you are even more stupid than you appear so far.
You really are gullible and ignorant, aren’t you? Doesnt it concern you that you can’t find an authority who can describe the mythical GHE?
Maybe you are happy with “not cooling, slower cooling”, or “the GHE is a stack of blankets”?
Not prepared to say? Colour me unsurprised!
Carry on.
“Venus has a runaway atmospheric greenhouse effect”
In fantasy land Venus maybe.
Almost as preposterous as ever having liquid water on the surface of Venus.
Venus has been cooking off its water for billions of years.
When it runs out and it’s induced magnetic field collapses, I wonder how long it will take for the solar wind to blow away the rest of its atmosphere.
“I wonder how long it will take for the solar wind to blow away the rest of its atmosphere.”
In terms of theories, Sol is suppose to turn into white dwarf. But long before that, it’s suppose to kill every thing. Sol might engulf Earth, but has higher chance of engulfing Venus.
I hope we become spacefaring civilization fairly soon. But I suppose most assume in million years, human are spacefaring or dead or something.
In terms being spacefaring, a trillion people could be living in Venus orbit and few million on it’s surface. The clouds will be mined, and without clouds, Venus gets colder. But with trillion humans in orbit, they will block the planet’s sunlight, which would a greater cooling effect than removing it’s clouds
Here is another study to scare people. They just make things up and then claim to be doing science.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hottest-summer-in-2000-years-2023-northern-hemisphere/
They also claim they can determine 2,000 year-old temperature data accurate to 0.1 C:
“the Northern Hemisphere experienced its hottest summer over the past 2,000 years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius.”
Then there is the usual hype about what “we” must do:
“this trend will continue unless we reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically”
“We end up with longer and more severe heat waves and extended periods of drought”
“the world needs to take action to try to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times”
After Michael Mann has worked so hard to erase the Little Ice Age, we have this:
“they found that it was actually cooler in pre-industrial times than what was thought when accounting for extended cold periods”
“clearly demonstrates the unparalleled nature of present-day warmth at large spatial scales and reinforces calls for immediate action towards net zero emissions.”
“Despite the inability to develop fully worldwide temperature reconstructions and analysis, the researchers said “We are obviously idiots, but nobody will realise it because we say we are experts. Nobody doubts experts, do they?””
Might as well doubt Papal infallibility in respect to Roman Catholic dogma. I have far more faith in Papal infallibility (and I do not follow the teachings of the Church of Rome) than the witless pronouncements of fanatical GHE cultists.
Pretending that GHE cultism is science, when its adherents cannot even describe the GHE, shows that GHE true believers are truly delusional.
All good fun, as long as no physical or mental harm results, I suppose.
Tim S: They also claim they can determine 2,000 year-old temperature data accurate to 0.1 C
Patently False. Esper et al. 2024 report the 95% CI on the previous record set in 246 CE as -0.03 to +1.50 C with a best estimate of 0.88 C. That’s not even remotely close to 0.1 C.
My apologies if you missed the sarcasm and hyperbole in my statement. The whole thing is a joke, and that is a fact. They are not publishing science, they are publishing political opinion. Those are real quotes from CBS News. These purely political quotes have no place in any sober scientific report that relies solely on speculative assumptions:
“unless we reduce”
“We end up with longer and more severe”
“the world needs to take action”
“
One more:
“reinforces calls for immediate action”
Once more, contrarians’ favorite Mike has a MWP that is higher than many others.
Imagine if they lukewarmingly tried to emphasize the MWP and to lower climate sensitivity by appealing to their infinite ignorance at the same time…
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Once more, contrarians favorite Mike has a MWP that is higher than many others.”
You wouldn’t be silly enough to claim that the variation in temperatures indicated by the graph were a result of a GHE which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”, are you?
In that case, the GHE would not only create “not cooling, slower cooling”, but also “not warming, slower warming” – or something equally ridiculous!
Any graphs of historical temperature variations are curiosities, and of almost no use whatsoever. Measuring the outputs of a chaotic system exhibiting chaotic behaviour is a pointless exercise in general. From a paper in Nature – “But, classic chaos-detection tools are highly sensitive to measurement noise and break down for common edge cases, making it difficult to detect chaos in domains, like biology, where measurements are noisy”
The authors go on to claim that they have developed a simple tool, which is “almost perfect”, that is, it can show if a system is acting chaotically, most of the time, except when they find out to their chagrin, that it doesnt.
Can Michael Mann, or any of the other self proclaimed “experts” show the presence (or not) of chaos in their fabricated “data”? You are as naive and gullible as the “authorities” to whom you appeal.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet, inconsequential sociopath, please stop writing walls of words even I won’t read.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Once more, contrarians favorite Mike has a MWP that is higher than many others.”
You wouldnt be silly enough to claim that the variation in temperatures indicated by the graph were a result of a GHE which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”, are you?
In that case, the GHE would not only create “not cooling, slower cooling”, but also “not warming, slower warming” or something equally ridiculous!
Any graphs of historical temperature variations are curiosities, and of almost no use whatsoever. Measuring the outputs of a chaotic system exhibiting chaotic behaviour is a pointless exercise in general. From a paper in Nature “But, classic chaos-detection tools are highly sensitive to measurement noise and break down for common edge cases, making it difficult to detect chaos in domains, like biology, where measurements are noisy”
The authors go on to claim that they have developed a simple tool, which is almost perfect, that is, it can show if a system is acting chaotically, most of the time, except when they find out to their chagrin, that it doesn’t.
Can Michael Mann, or any of the other self proclaimed “experts” show the presence (or not) of chaos in their fabricated “data”? You are as naive and gullible as the “authorities” to whom you appeal.
Carry on. You might try saying something like “Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet, inconsequential sociopath, please stop writing walls of words even I won’t read.”
You don’t have to read anything you don’t want to. Can’t you help yourself? No self control?
[laughing at fanatical GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop forcing me to make TS looks more sillier than he is, for instance by reminding everyone that he’s confusing Mike with the Deming Affair.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Once more, contrarians favorite Mike has a MWP that is higher than many others.”
You wouldn’t be silly enough to claim that the variation in temperatures indicated by the graph were a result of a GHE which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”, are you?
In that case, the GHE would not only create “not cooling, slower cooling”, but also “not warming, slower warming” or something equally ridiculous!
Any graphs of historical temperature variations are curiosities, and of almost no use whatsoever. Measuring the outputs of a chaotic system exhibiting chaotic behaviour is a pointless exercise in general. From a paper in Nature “But, classic chaos-detection tools are highly sensitive to measurement noise and break down for common edge cases, making it difficult to detect chaos in domains, like biology, where measurements are noisy”
The authors go on to claim that they have developed a simple tool, which is almost perfect, that is, it can show if a system is acting chaotically, most of the time, except when they find out to their chagrin, that it doesn’t.
Can Michael Mann, or any of the other self proclaimed “experts” show the presence (or not) of chaos in their fabricated “data”? You are as naive and gullible as the “authorities” to whom you appeal.
Carry on. You might try saying something like “Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet, inconsequential sociopath, please stop writing walls of words even I wont read.”
You dont have to read anything you dont want to. Cant you help yourself? No self control?
[laughing even louder at fanatical GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop poisoning the well of a fellow contrarian.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Once more, contrarians favorite Mike has a MWP that is higher than many others.”
You wouldnt be silly enough to claim that the variation in temperatures indicated by the graph were a result of a GHE which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”, are you?
In that case, the GHE would not only create “not cooling, slower cooling”, but also “not warming, slower warming”, or something equally ridiculous!
Any graphs of historical temperature variations are curiosities, and of almost no use whatsoever. Measuring the outputs of a chaotic system exhibiting chaotic behaviour is a pointless exercise in general. From a paper in Nature “But, classic chaos-detection tools are highly sensitive to measurement noise and break down for common edge cases, making it difficult to detect chaos in domains, like biology, where measurements are noisy”.
The authors go on to claim that they have developed a simple tool, which is almost perfect, that is, it can show if a system is acting chaotically, most of the time, except when they find out to their chagrin, that it doesnt.
Can Michael Mann, or any of the other self proclaimed “experts” show the presence (or not) of chaos in their fabricated “data”? You are as naive and gullible as the “authorities” to whom you appeal.
Carry on. You might try saying something like “Mike Flynn, please stop poisoning the well of a fellow contrarian.”.
You dont have to read anything you dont want to. Cant you help yourself? No self control?
[laughing even louder and longer at fanatical GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring that the Deming Affair does not involve your favorite Mike.
“Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring that the Deming Affair does not involve your favorite Mike.”
Willard, you are babbling incoherently. Please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting like Graham D. Warner does.
The problem here is with science journalism.
They often report on what a new paper claims as if it is an established fact.
Just like when a new hominid skull is found, and a new human lineage proposed.
They leave out the context that this is just the latest paper out of many on the topic, and not yet replicated by others who may find somewhat different results.
Thus it is not the last word on this topic.
Ozone hole extended into December this year, could have consequences for Antarctic biota, such as damaging animals’ eyesight: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.17283
elliott…that’s if the theory is correct. I don’t see how O2 atoms in the stratosphere, which has a c0oncentration even less than CO2 in the troposphere, could possibly block dangerous UV radiation.
Ozone is the product of such a collision. How can a measure of ozone levels indicate a danger to the eyesight of animals? Humans can be blinded by EM reflecting off snow or ice, however, I don’t see stories of blind penguins or polar bears.
Just regarding the concentration of CO2, we are currently at about 425ppm. That is 0.425ppk, or about 0.04%. A cup of coffee contains total dissolved solids (TDS) of between 15% for espresso and 1-1.5% for American drip coffee. To get coffee with 0.04% TDS, therefore, you’d have to take one cup of US domestic coffee and mix it with about 25 cups of pure water, yielding a fluid something like American beers.
The troposphere is about 20km in depth, so to mimic the effect of CO2 on light absorbtion you would need a layer of this diluted coffee 20 km deep, equivalent to about 0.8km of undiluted drip coffee.
Yes, yes, I know. We’re dealing with gases. The density of the gases changes dramatically over 20km of altitude, and I’m not up to calculating the correct figure, so let’s say it diminishes linearly with altitude. The whole troposphere would then be equal to about 10km of gases ASL. That converts to 0.4km of undiluted coffee in gaseous form. If we say that coffee vapour at room temperature is about 1,000 times the volume of liquid coffee, we get a figure of 0.4m of undiluted coffee.
40cm of coffee would block light pretty effectively. I would offer this analogy as a way of thinking about gas densities and radiative transfer at such times of the morning as prohibit the use of a cappuccino.
Things are getting warmer /sarc
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-05-14.gif
Monckton should be back pretty soon.
Please explain why you accompanied a sarcastic remark about warming with a graph that shows warming.
Entropic man
Interestingly, averages, anomalies and especially forecasts are always wrong – unless they show cooling.
And anyway: a global temperature does not exist (hello Essex/McKitrick/Andresen 2007, he he he) – unless it shows cooling as well.
Since Dec 2023?
Bindidon,
Maybe you misunderstand. Hotter thermometers show warming – I am unaware of anyone who claims that an increase in temperature indicates cooling. Some, like Willard, imply that cooling is a result of warming, hence his description of the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
There are different speculations about the reasons for observed increased temperatures. Even you have stated it is nonsensical to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun (increased atmospheric CO2 levels) will result in hotter thermometers.
Dr Spencer, as indicated by his blog posts, seems to be considering other more directly anthropogenic causes of observed warming. All energy production and use is eventually converted to low level (waste) heat. All of it, none is retained, or stored. All the heat escapes to the cold sink of outer space.
This additional man-made heat can be shown to result in hotter thermometers. Nobody can even describe the mythical GHE, but the fact that man-made heat affects thermometers is well known and understood. The instruments themselves have been designed and manufactured to respond to heat.
I simply don’t accept that a mythical effect that nobody can describe makes thermometers hotter.
Mike Flynn, please stop pretending that what you’re trying to talk about is of any relevance whatsoever with what is being discussed.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You obviously didnt understand, so I will repeat it for you .
Bindidon,
Maybe you misunderstand. Hotter thermometers show warming I am unaware of anyone who claims that an increase in temperature indicates cooling. Some, like Willard, imply that cooling is a result of warming, hence his description of the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
There are different speculations about the reasons for observed increased temperatures. Even you have stated it is nonsensical to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun (increased atmospheric CO2 levels) will result in hotter thermometers.
Dr Spencer, as indicated by his blog posts, seems to be considering other more directly anthropogenic causes of observed warming. All energy production and use is eventually converted to low level (waste) heat. All of it, none is retained, or stored. All the heat escapes to the cold sink of outer space.
This additional man-made heat can be shown to result in hotter thermometers. Nobody can even describe the mythical GHE, but the fact that man-made heat affects thermometers is well known and understood. The instruments themselves have been designed and manufactured to respond to heat.
I simply dont accept that a mythical effect that nobody can describe makes thermometers hotter.
Willard, let me know what you are having difficulty understanding, so I can have a good laugh at your ignorance!
Mike Flynn, please stop clogging the blog with monstrous copypastas, for no one is really interested in what a silly sock puppet refuses to believe.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You obviously didnt understand, so I will repeat it for you .
Bindidon,
Maybe you misunderstand. Hotter thermometers show warming I am unaware of anyone who claims that an increase in temperature indicates cooling. Some, like Willard, imply that cooling is a result of warming, hence his description of the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
There are different speculations about the reasons for observed increased temperatures. Even you have stated it is nonsensical to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun (increased atmospheric CO2 levels) will result in hotter thermometers.
Dr Spencer, as indicated by his blog posts, seems to be considering other more directly anthropogenic causes of observed warming. All energy production and use is eventually converted to low level (waste) heat. All of it, none is retained, or stored. All the heat escapes to the cold sink of outer space.
This additional man-made heat can be shown to result in hotter thermometers. Nobody can even describe the mythical GHE, but the fact that man-made heat affects thermometers is well known and understood. The instruments themselves have been designed and manufactured to respond to heat.
I simply dont accept that a mythical effect that nobody can describe makes thermometers hotter.
Willard, let me know what you are having difficulty understanding, so I can have a good laugh at your ignorance!
Or don’t.
Mike Flynn, please stop braying like a mad donkey.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You obviously didnt understand, so I will repeat it for you .
Bindidon,
Maybe you misunderstand. Hotter thermometers show warming I am unaware of anyone who claims that an increase in temperature indicates cooling. Some, like Willard, imply that cooling is a result of warming, hence his description of the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
There are different speculations about the reasons for observed increased temperatures. Even you have stated it is nonsensical to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun (increased atmospheric CO2 levels) will result in hotter thermometers.
Dr Spencer, as indicated by his blog posts, seems to be considering other more directly anthropogenic causes of observed warming. All energy production and use is eventually converted to low level (waste) heat. All of it, none is retained, or stored. All the heat escapes to the cold sink of outer space.
This additional man-made heat can be shown to result in hotter thermometers. Nobody can even describe the mythical GHE, but the fact that man-made heat affects thermometers is well known and understood. The instruments themselves have been designed and manufactured to respond to heat.
I simply don’t accept that a mythical effect that nobody can describe makes thermometers hotter.
Willard, let me know what you are having difficulty understanding, so I can have a good laugh at your ignorance!
Or dont. Up to you.
Mike Flynn, please stop pretending that you are spamming to provide enlightenment.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You obviously didnt understand, so I will repeat it for you .
Bindidon,
Maybe you misunderstand. Hotter thermometers show warming I am unaware of anyone who claims that an increase in temperature indicates cooling. Some, like Willard, imply that cooling is a result of warming, hence his description of the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
There are different speculations about the reasons for observed increased temperatures. Even you have stated it is nonsensical to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun (increased atmospheric CO2 levels) will result in hotter thermometers.
Dr Spencer, as indicated by his blog posts, seems to be considering other more directly anthropogenic causes of observed warming. All energy production and use is eventually converted to low level (waste) heat. All of it, none is retained, or stored. All the heat escapes to the cold sink of outer space.
This additional man-made heat can be shown to result in hotter thermometers. Nobody can even describe the mythical GHE, but the fact that man-made heat affects thermometers is well known and understood. The instruments themselves have been designed and manufactured to respond to heat.
I simply dont accept that a mythical effect that nobody can describe makes thermometers hotter.
Willard, let me know what you are having difficulty understanding, so I can have a good laugh at your ignorance!
Or dont. Up to you. You do not have to respond, of course.
Mike Flynn, please stop being such a lazy sociopath.
Willard,
Why do you hate whales?
https://www.northjersey.com/story/opinion/2023/11/07/noaa-action-nj-dead-whales-offshore-wind-turbines/71435692007/
Why is Walter R. Hogle such an opportunistic prick:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-29/why-oil-didnt-save-the-whales-and-why-it-matters
?
“RLH says:
May 15, 2024 at 1:17 PM
Since Dec 2023?”
Never heard about the El Nino phenomenon?
Here are the last two, and the delayed global responses to them.
https://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Nino34+Tglb_2015-2024.png
La Nina is coming, Closer and closer each day.
“the El Nino phenomenon”
where temperatures in the pacific get warmer?
Yeah. It gets warm, peaks, and cools back to normal. You act as if this is novel or surprising.
“La Nina is coming, Closer and closer each day.”
Most likely. And then another El Nino will return. This is what a cyclic phenomena does.
Where I live summer is getting closer each day. But then another winter will return.
And yet, global warming seems to march on as well…
So how many El Nino and La Nina do you expect in a row?
I don’t.
What say you?
I would also note that after 3 La Ninas in a row, bracketed by El Ninos, the last decade has overall been a period of accelerated global warming.
So whatever happens with ENSO doesnt seem to stop GW.
I think you guys are not getting what I am saying. Let me try again. John and Roy are saying that land warms more than the seas and the oceans. I am saying that this is not correct. I am saying that the Nh is warming much more than the Sh. As it happens, there is much more land in the Nh than in the Sh. By averaging they are giving a wrong impression. To avoid confusion, I am asking for Roy and John to rather report on the Nh and the Sh separately instead of on land and ocean/sea separately. Click on my name to read my report.
” I think you guys are not getting what I am saying. ”
“We guys” perfectly get that you are saying… nothing.
No need to click on your name let alone to read your report.
Why are you fixated on global land vs. ocean series?
Yo just need to access
https://tinyurl.com/UAH-LT
to look there at NH and SH
and to compare their average to the global data.
Again: where is your problem?
land warms up faster {and cools down faster}.
Land absorbs less heat than the ocean surface. And Ocean average yearly temperature is much higher than land average temperature.
Or land average temperature is about 10 C, and global average temperature is about 15 C [and most of global surface is obviously ocean]
I am sure Roy understands this and he hasn’t said otherwise.
clint…”Flux is affected by the inverse square law, but photons arent”.
***
Do you watch a lot of Dr. Who, or Star Trek? I think a flux capacitor was referenced in Back To The Future.
All light is EM and subject to the inverse square law. There is no separate phenomenon called a photon. When you talk about photons you are talking about EM, albeit incorrectly.
Thanks for quoting me correctly — “Flux is affected by the inverse square law, but photons aren’t.”
Keep quoting me, rather than making up false accusations.
Why would I quote an immature wannabee like Klinton Klown?
Klinton Klown…”DMT doesnt know half of what I know about you. I know you never completed an engineering program. My guess is you flunked out somewhere about thermodynamics. You have no knowledge of even the basics. You dont understand current flow. You never made it to information theory, where you would have learned about the advances to entropy”.
***
Like most obtusists, Klint Klown is now dealing in speculation re my educational background. Yes, he is guessing, as claimed.
Klint Klown thinks someone who can prove electric current flows negative to positive is wrong by claiming that. Meantime, Klint Klown has confused himself thoroughly on current flow by comparing internal current flow in a battery to external current flow in a circuit.
Electrons in a battery as attracted to the anode. However, in the external circuit, that anode becomes the cathode, that is, the negative terminal. It has to be the negative terminal since negatively charged electrons flow from it through the circuit.
There is a better way to prove it however. A generator or alternator relies on the interaction of electrons in a conductor with a magnetic field. We can predict the direction of current, then measure it with an ammeter, using the left hand rule for generators. Of course, the LHR confirms that electrons flow negative to positive, as does an ammeter.
Mr. Klown is also confused about entropy. The term was defined by Clausius as the sum of infinitesimal heat flows at temperature T. He even put math to it as…S = integral dq/T. There is nothing referenced in the definition of entropy other than heat.
A misunderstanding developed when Clausius offered an extension to his definition to the entire universe. However, he was talking about irreversible reactions which are prevalent in nature and represent a positive entropy where heat is lost. It also means that mass breaks up to release the heat. So, some obtusists associated the disorder with entropy as a measure of disorder.
This is an example of armchair scientists misinter.preting the words of a great scientist.
Quit clogging the blog, gordon.
My explanation of electric current flow was obviously way above your level of understanding. You are obviously unable to back your claims.
dmt…re you link about radiation…
https://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ross/Science/RadTrans.pdf
***
It is largely an anachronism featuring obsolete radiative laws from Planck and Kircheoff. I call them obsolete since nothing was known about radiation and it relationship with electrons in atoms till 1913 when Bohr discovered the relationship.
Planck lamented Bohr’s discovery admitting it would have saved him a lot of grief had he known about electrons. As it stood, Planck hypothesized tiny oscillators to represent individual radiation frequencies and manipulate their relationship to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe implied by the equation E = hf.
E is the radiation intensity and it is claimed by that equation to increase toward infinity as frequency increases. Planck proved it doesn’t but he could not explain his equation. It seems ingenuous for the author at your link to use a fudged equation as the basis of radiation theory.
Kircheoff was much earlier than Planck and he offered the basis of blackbody theory. Again, he based it on pure theory, on a thought experiment.
The main problem with the current GHE and AGW is their dependence on older, immature theories that have since been surpassed. Planck was bypassed by Bohr’s quantum theory, which has a much better explanation for the origins of radiation in electrons. There is nothing in the theories of Planck or Kircheoff to respect the 2nd law of thermodynamics whereas Bohr theory respects the 2nd law.
Sorry Gordon,
Points for at least opening the link, but your desperate attempt to besmirch accepted theory is pretty lame.
The use of the term “anachronism” is particularly ironic.
DMT,
I’m not sure why you provided your link. Maybe you could explain?
You might also explain why the author wrote “Here scattering processes will be ignored”.
Are you trying to imply something?
I could point to one obvious physical impossibility, but you have no doubt already noticed it, and are pretending that the laws of physics can be ignored.
You cannot describe the GHE, so you link to information which is misleading at best, intentionally fraudulent at worst, hoping you will be perceived as wise and knowledgeable, rather than dim and ignorant.
Good luck.
Child,
solving the radiative transfer equation leads to:
https://tinyurl.com/yc648bey
Its in colour. Very straight forward. Even you could begin to appreciate it. But then again, maybe not.
As they say: “you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink”
DMT,
Your coloured cartoon producer seems to believe in “Earth’s Energy Budget” being relevant to something, but doesn’t say what. One might expect a company claiming to be one of the 25 biggest defence contractors to at least try and stand behind a description of a “greenhouse effect”.
But no, just another company spruiking its modelling expertise, and selling its brand of snake oil to the gullible and ignorant. You seem to have been sucked in, but you might be astute enough to keep your money in your pocket.
Do you really believe a GHE exists? What is it supposed to do? Can you describe it?
Oh well, as you say, “it’s in colour”. So is Fantasia.
Planck’s work explains the relationship between frequency and radiation intensity but it is out-dated. It does not explain where the radiation comes from or why it has certain discrete frequencies.
He even admitted his life would have been a lot easier had he known about electrons.
Planck’s work has since been replaced with quantum mechanics and there is no need for anyone to apply Planck’s equations to radiation theory. Unless of course, the author does not understand quantum theory.
Radiation theory was available to Linus Pauling but he went to Europe to learn quantum theory in the 1920s. Then he applied it to molecular structure. He had to modify the equations slightly based on his immense experience with x-ray studies of molecular structure.
Planck’s equations were available to him but he did not bother using them. They did not apply to molecular theory. So, what good are they in science?
Any queries about the radiative transfer equation should be directed to Roy (a genuine scientist).
After all, how do you think the UAH data is derived?
“Plancks work has since been replaced with quantum mechanics and there is no need for anyone to apply Plancks equations to radiation theory. Unless of course, the author does not understand quantum theory.”
Gordon decides to change science and history again.
Planck’s Law has not been replaced by QM, just explained fully by it.
It is still a valid Law of Physics today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
“In physics, Planck’s law (also Planck radiation law[1]) describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T, when there is no net flow of matter or energy between the body and its environment.[2]”
Gordon,
Planck explained it quite nicely, namely he changed the equation to specify only discrete units of energy could be contained in light.
That’s the Quantum in Quantum Mechanics.
Or that light can also be viewed as particles as Newton first proposed.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
clint…”As I recall, YOU dont even understand the thermodynamic definition of heat.
Quit trying to fake it. Get a life”
***
I have asked you several times to explain the contradiction in your very questionable definition of heat. According to you, heat is simply the process of energy transfer. However, when I have asked you to state what energy is being transferred you have refused to respond, rather you have responded with insults and ad hom.
Until you can describe the energy being transferred scientifically you are being obtuse by claiming I don’t understand thermodyanamics.
Dictionary dot come defines thermodynamics as…”the branch of physical science that deals with the relations between heat and other forms of energy (such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy), and, by extension, of the relationships between all forms of energy”.
The word thermos means heat in Greek, but thermodynamics is no longer about heat according to you and other nut jobs.
Dictionary dot com is one of the best definition since other sources like Britannica, NASA, and wiki trip over themselves trying not to call heat the ‘energy’ it is.
We truly live in nutty times when ijits are tripping over themselves trying to redefine science in ever more obtuse and vague manners. Gravity is no longer a force but a space-time anomaly. Complex life originated as the random amalgamation of non-living elements by some sort of unexplained fluke called natural selection. The entire universe suddenly appeared out of nothing in a Big Bang.
Clint is just another follower who is willing to blindly accept any old crap printed in a text book.
[MR. ASSHAT] Puffman is just another follower who is willing to blindly accept any old crap printed in a text book.
[ALSO MR. ASSHAT] Dictionary dot come defines
Willard, please stop trolling.
gordon claims: “According to you, heat is simply the process of energy transfer.”
WRONG!
This is why I don’t waste much time with cultists. (gordon being in a cult-of-one, aka a “crackpot”.). I’ve explained the thermodynamic definition of “heat” to gordon several times. But, he STILL can’t understand it. I can explain, but he can’t understand.
Again, the thermodynamic definition of “heat” — The transfer of energy from “hot” to “cold”. It’s just that simple, yet gordon can’t understand it. He left out the important part, “hot” to “cold”.
If he had ever studied thermodynamics, he would already know it. He would already know that the “energy” mentioned is the “thermal” energy of molecular motion we associate with a simple thermometer reading. Any REAL engineer would already know this and would not have to have it explained to him repeatedly.
gordon has demonstrated he doesn’t understand the relevant science. And, he can’t learn. Like other cultists, he resorts to constant insults and false accusations. Here’s the latest example of gordon’s tactics: “…but thermodynamics is no longer about heat according to you…”. I never said any such thing.
That’s why I usually avoid responding to such nonsense. gordon is not here to learn. He’s only here to clog the blog. If you try to correct him, he just launches off on another long, rambling spew of crap.
Peruvian Current
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/coraltemp_v3.1_swcl_current.png
Earlier, DMT wrote –
“Swenson,
I take it that you are aggrieved at something I said.
Was it the NFI jibe? or maybe the put a sock in it advice ?
or maybe my mentioning of the radiative transfer equation ?
Whatever it was, I am sure it was well deserved.
Cheers,
DMT
p.s. Gavin says hello.”
Strange lad, is DMT. He is obviously delusional, thinking that I would choose to be aggrieved by someone I regard as an idiot. How else should I regard someone who seems to believe in the existence of a GHR, but refuses to describe it, or even to say what they think it might do!
I suppose that I might choose to feel aggrieved, insulted, offended, and so on, but in the case of idiots like DMT, I generally decline.
He is just another fanatical GHE cultist trying (and failing) to be annoying, in my view.
why do people tr0ll? is it psychological?
The simple answer is tr0lls want to be part of something, but they have nothing to offer.
It’s childish behavior. Some people never grow up.
Nice to see Clint being introspective…
Child Nate proves me right, again.
I can take it….
Flynnson
Didn’t you know that you’re one of the few idyots who ALWAYS manage to be annoying 365 days a year on this blog?
Oh… Really not, Flynnson?
*
The very best is that you lack both technical skill and scientific education needed to disprove Dufresne and Treiner:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques-Treiner/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/links/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/Leffet-de-serre-atmospherique-plus-subtil-quon-ne-le-croit.pdf
*
All you can do is endlessly spew your primitive, boring, styupid ‘No GHE’ drivel.
Bindi, modeling of invalid concepts ain’t science. Just because someone builds a computer model of the bogus GHE does not mean it’s viable. You can build a model showing elephants can fly. But, that does not mean elephants can fly.
Speaking of models, you have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, yet?
The correct model of orbits was discovered over 300 years ago by Kepler and Newton.
If people are still unaware, maybe they need to go look it up!
Child Nate, neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.
But, you won’t understand it.
Which rather shows that orbit has NOTHING to do with spin, Puffman.
Therefore –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1667412
Clint R
” Child Nate, neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin. ”
Wrt Kepler: correct; wrt Newton: wrong.
*
You always try to deny the fact that Newton was perfectly aware of how Cassini computed the lunar spin period and the inclination of the lunar spin axis wrt the Ecliptic.
Otherwise he never would have written in his Principia that he explained that in 1675 (!) to Mercator, who published in 1676 in his book on Astronomy a hint on Newton’s explanation.
But these are all things you deliberately ignore, don’t understand, misrepresent and above all… deny.
Sorry Bindi, but neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.
Newton was referring to “with respect to the fixed stars”, which as has been explained to you is NOT spin. Earth both spins and orbits. But the ball-on-a-string and Moon both only orbit.
You won’t understand, as usual….
[PUFFMAN, UNDER HIS 10TH SOCK] neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
Newton was referring to “with respect to the fixed stars” which, as has been explained, is NOT spin. Earth both spins and orbits. But the ball-on-a-string and Moon both only orbit.
The cult won’t understand, as usual….
Clint R
” Newton was referring to ‘with respect to the fixed stars’, which as has been explained to you is NOT spin. ”
*
You didn’t explain anything to me, Clint R, because even today you didn’t understand what I explained to YOU, what you hence endlessly misrepresent and deny.
Though it is very probably useless to repeat what I wrote, I nonetheless do: not for you, but for those who think you would know anything valuable about astronomy and physics.
*
Newton NEVER wrote anything about MOTIONs of celestial bodies ‘with respect to the fixed stars’. NEVER.
He talked only about motion PERIODs ‘with respect to the fixed stars’.
*
Here is Newton’s original text in Latin:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/2wNYAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA51
There you see:
” Maculæ in corpore Solis ad eundem situm in disco Solis redeunt diebus 27 1/2 circiter, respectu Terræ ; ideóque respectu fixarum Sol revolvitur diebus 25 1/2 circiter. ”
Translation:
” The spots on the Sun’s body return to the same position on the Sun’s disc in about 27 1/2 days, with respect to the Earth; and with respect to the fixed stars, the Sun revolves about 25 1/2 days. ”
This is what you endlessly deny, exactly as Flatearthists endlessly deny that Earth is a sphere, and say despite all the evidence:
“Don’t show us pictures taken from ISS, that’s all just fake. ”
*
Like Robertson, the Pseudomod and a few others, you’ll never be able to change your opinion.
Wrong quote, Bindi. Find where he talked about Moon.
Or keep showing your incompetence.
Either is okay with me.
No, Clint R: it was NOT the wrong quote.
Because in order to avoid your intentional misrepresentation, I deliberately chose Newton’s Moon-free sentence showing us (and you too) the difference between
– measuring Sun’s spin with respect to Earth (27 1/2 days)
and
– measuring Sun’s spin with respect to the fixed stars (25 1/2 days).
This difference has NOTHING to do with the Moon: it is valid for the observation of the spin of ANY celestial body from any other, moving celestial body.
*
What you endlessly, intentionally mis’understand’ (and hence always misrepresent) is this:
” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, Mars horis 24. 39′. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56′, Sol diebus 25 1/2, et Luna diebus 27. 7 hor. 43′. ”
*
Robertson, the Pseudomod and yourself you all always try to insinuate that Newton meant with ‘revolvitur’ only Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth, the Sun but, by magic, coincidentally, NOT… the Moon.
You finally found the correct quote, Bindi.
Since you are so incompetent, you don’t know that respectu fixarum revolvitur is Latin for “revolves with respect to the stars”.
Adding to your confusion, “revolves” is not the same as “rotates”.
You proved me right, again. So you may now resume your babbling blah-blah.
“Child Nate, neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.
But, you wont understand it.”
Wrong. Newton’s model of orbit has been tested on numerous planets and moons with spin. And it has proven viable for all of these.
The model finds the orbital path of the body, which is simply the position of the COM of the body vs. time.
This has worked just fine as a ‘viable model of orbit without spin’.
The rotation of a planet is a separate parameter. Together, these perfectly account for the full motion of planets and moons.
And it has been Astronomy’s viable model for 3 centuries.
So you guys are barking into the wind. Have nothing else to offer. And at this point are just tro.lling.
Child Nate, get an adult to explain it to you:
Neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.
[ME, QUOTING ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
[PUFFMAN, EMBOLDENING HIS LIE] Neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.
Still wrong, Clint R.
1. Why did you intentionally omit the time needed for Jupiter to ‘revolve?
*
2. Please compare again:
” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56… ”
and
” … respectu fixarum Sol revolvitur diebus 25 1/2 circiter. ”
What do you mean, Flatearthist?
Do Jupiter orbit in 9.56 hours resp. the Sun in 25.5 days?
Or did Newton mean with ‘revolves’ ‘rotates’ for all celestial bodies – except the Moon?
*
Why don’t you ask your climate denial friends ‘RLH’ and ‘Walter R. Hogle’, Clint R?
Do you think they are incompetent when talking about the Moon?
Silly willy jumps in to help Nate and Bindi be more incompetent.
That’s why this is so much fun.
And as we can see:
” Silly willy jumps in to help Nate and Bindi be more incompetent.
That’s why this is so much fun. ”
Clint R ends the discussion with his usual nonsense.
*
As always: no answer about why Newton’s ‘revolves’ means ‘rotates’ for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and the Sun – but means suddenly ‘orbits’ for the Moon.
But Clint R never and never would admit being wrong.
Thanks for quoting me correctly, Bindi: “Silly willy jumps in to help Nate and Bindi be more incompetent.”
The reason I’ve learned to end the discussion with you cult id10ts is because you can’t stand reality. Every time I show you’re wrong, you just come up with another red herring.
If you really want to prove me wrong, provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You can’t do that. You’ve got NOTHING.
> Every time I show youre wrong
You never SHOW anything, Puffman.
Even confronted with a direct quote SHOWING that Newton indeed was talking about spin when mentioning a “revolution about its axis” that is “equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb,” you keep denying and lulzing.
So much fun.
“Child Nate, get an adult to explain it to you:
Neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.”
You have been proven wrong.
And you offer nothing to rebut this.
Oh well!
The reason I’ve learned to end the discussion with you cult id10ts is because you can’t stand reality. Every time I show you’re wrong, you just come up with another red herring.
If you really want to prove me wrong, provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You can’t do that. You’ve got NOTHING.
COROLLARY 19. Now imagine the globe T, which consists of nonfluid matter, to be so enlarged as to extend out to this ring, and to have a channel to contain water dug out around its whole circumference; and imagine this new globe to revolve uniformly about its axis with the same periodic motion. This water, being alternately accelerated and retarded (as in the previous corollary), will be swifter in the syzygies and slower in the quadratures than the surface of the globe itself, and thus will ebb and flow in the channel just as the sea does. If the attraction of body S is taken away, the waternow revolving about the quiescent center of the globewill acquire no motion of ebb and flow.
“The reason Ive learned to end the discussion with you cult id10ts is because you cant stand reality. Every time I show youre wrong, you just come up with another red herring.”
Pfft.
You are not showing us we’re wrong. You are just declaring that we’re wrong, as you always do.
Then calling us a bunch of names.
Lacking evidence, a sound argument, while just lobbing insults, you show us that you are here to tr0ll, and that’s all.
“The simple answer is you want to be part of something, but you have nothing to offer.
Its childish behavior. Some people never grow up.”
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Professor Michael Mann elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society.
Over 90 exceptional researchers from across the world have this year been elected to the Fellowship of the Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of sciences.
Sir Adrian Smith, President of the Royal Society, said:
Hide the decline.
Walter R. Hogle, who for some reason now comments under “wh” at Tony’s, confuses who said that.
I comment using this username.
Tree rings are proxies for temperature, Willard. That was obvious with Briffa’s time series after 1960.
*poor proxies*
Poor proxies indeed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/11/the-us-blows-hot-and-cold/#comment-3692916
Sometimes they lie in a trench coat.
My comments now, dingbat.
This comment is even better:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/11/the-us-blows-hot-and-cold/#comment-3692916
When is Tony’s new temperature dataset indeed.
A pity our own RG had to reprimand that kid under a trench coat…
Fellowship of the Society, the oldest known scientific academy in continuous existence, is a significant honor.
It has been awarded to many eminent scientists throughout history, including Isaac Newton (1672), Benjamin Franklin (1756), Charles Babbage (1816), Michael Faraday (1824), Charles Darwin (1839), Ernest Rutherford (1903), Srinivasa Ramanujan (1918), Albert Einstein (1921), Paul Dirac (1930), Winston Churchill (1941), Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (1944),… Raymond Pierrehumbert (2020)…
Dream on walterrh03.
Like with the Nobel, REAL scientists no longer are wanted.
We gone WOKE.
Here’s a reference from the last person on your list:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1654255?scroll=top&needAccess=true
“𝑇𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑡 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑖𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑏𝑦 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑙 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑏𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑧𝑒𝑟𝑜. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑠𝑜, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑔𝑒𝑡. 𝐿𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑠.”
Written one year before promotion.
Politics, not science. It just confirms that the Royal Society is using its status to weaponize science.
That we need to reach Net Zero unless we get more warming is a simple scientific fact that displeases Walter R. Hogle so much that he’s willing to misrepresent both politics and science to denigrate both.
The science is hardly settled. No science really is. It’s fine if ordinary people think it’s settled, but if used in politics, it crosses the line a little bit. That’s obvious to anyone who’s not an activist, no matter what your perspective on the science is.
Yes, walterrh03, I was being kind when I wrote “dream on.”
It sounds more like a nightmare, one from which you can’t wake up.
All your years of obfuscation and of following cranks who can’t rebut the science of climate change have left you bitter and resentful.
Is this the best version of yourself? How sad!
whatever.
You’re just like Bin-liner when he throws a fit.
> The science is hardly settled.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
The fact that dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow warms the Earth and unless and until we stop warming will continue is an established fact that only cranks can currently dispute, be they kids in trench coats.
[Me] Is this the best version of yourself?
[walterrh03] whatever. You’re just like Bin-liner when he throws a fit.
Thought so!
“The fact that dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like theres no tomorrow warms the Earth and unless and until we stop warming will continue is an established fact that only cranks can currently dispute, be they kids in trench coats.”
Keep proving that with your central limit theorem violations along with your models and their ‘unperturbed state’ nonsense.
“𝐀 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬:
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦, 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬. 𝐋𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬. 𝐈𝐭𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐬.
𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.”
How inspiring! We should all be like Ark! As I replied, he’s a great example of that!:
“𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐛𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐟𝐮𝐥.”
Thank you for proving my point, and for hanging on my every word. I’m flattered!
walterrh03:
When will you realize the necessity of staying away from personalities and imaginary grievances and sticking to the Science.
Each day, remind yourself that the best version of yourself is simply this one-not the future you or past you, but the present-day you who is sitting, like many of your fellow humans, in the chiasma of light and shadow, struggle and ease, and suffering and joy.
What is a violation of the central limit theorem?
Asking for a friend.
Hogle
” You’re just like Bin-liner when he throws a fit. ”
Show me doing this, Hogle.
Unlike your hero Eschenbach operating at WUWT all the time with linear fits over station or tide gauge data, I always use polynomials in my charts instead.
And you, Hogle, do exactly the same as Eschenbach or Blindsley H00d wherever he wants to show cooling.
You are not a monkey: you are just an incompetent liar.
walterrh03,
John Tyndall was elected to Royal Society Fellowship on March 6, 1852.
Have you any quotes from his work that you consider worthy of this sub-thread?
This would go a long way in proving me wrong that 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐛𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐟𝐮𝐥.
“What is a violation of the central limit theorem?
Asking for a friend.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1667101
There’s a simple example.
“Have you any quotes from his work that you consider worthy of this sub-thread?”
No, Earth’s satellites at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is emitting more radiation to space than it is taking in. This is despite the claim that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations has expanded the atmospheric window up into colder altitudes, which is supposed to make it harder for radiation to escape.
Binny doesn’t even bother to pay attention to why I used Willis’ article as a source. It was to point out to Nate that anomalies are insufficient statistical descriptors of change.
Regarding Tyndall, I would also add that heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. That’s the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Walter R. Hogle is so oblivious of anything beyond his silly talking points that he does even realize that Willis is not on his side here:
Op. Cit.
Just disregard what I wrote regarding the greenhouse effect and Tyndall. Atmospheric physics are not my strong suit of mine.
Hogle (2)
You’re just like Bin-liner when he throws a fit.
Show me doing this, Hogle.
You are such a coward, insinuating what you can’t prove.
“No, Earth’s satellites at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is emitting more radiation to space than it is taking in.”
I’m 99.9999% certain that you’re wrong about that, but I’ll await your link to such data.
Regarding Tyndall, I think the following quote is perfect for this sub-thread:
I’m not wrong.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/18/when-satellites-refute-the-climate-crisis-narratives-trust-the-science/
Look at Figure 1.
Figure 2 actually.
I called you Bin-liner because putting numbers you don’t understand on a graph is your speciality.
Even Sierra Jim concedes:
Op. cit.
Since the greenhouse effect is meant to explain why the Earth receives more energy than it emits, there’s no there there in that political hit job.
Besides, how could the Earth ever emit more than it receives: is it a heat engine?
Hogle
” I called you Bin-liner because putting numbers you dont understand on a graph is your speciality. ”
Show us where I did it, you cowardly liar.
An increase in outgoing longwave radiation in the CERES data means there is no, or at least no significant, greenhouse effect.
It took him a few months, but our kid under a trench coat comes out of his closet.
We have another crank!
Hogle
Before you boast your utterly superficial nonsense, try to {sarc} scientifically contradict this thread {/sarc}:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/a-ceres-of-fortunate-events/
You never would be able to do that.
“No, Earths satellites at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is emitting more radiation to space than it is taking in. ”
Im not aware of this finding. Where is that from, Walter?
Schmidt is arguing that the increase in outgoing long wave radiation is a feedback. He uses declining TSI and the non-correlation with the galactic cosmic rays to back up his claim.
Why can’t it just be getting less cloudy by itself?
nate,
I was referring to the increase in outgoing longwave radiation. Heat is not being trapped.
Energy is more than not being trapped.
It’s being produced by the Earth engine!
Walter R. Hogle is a freaking genius.
The Earth has been emitting more radiation back to space then it was earlier. Not more than it takes in. I didnt word it correctly.
[ONE KID IN A TRENCH COAT] An increase in outgoing longwave radiation in the CERES data means there is no, or at least no significant, greenhouse effect.
[THE SAME KID] Heat is not being trapped.
[PERHAPS ANOTHER KID IN THE SAME COAT] The Earth has been emitting more radiation back to space then it was earlier.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yep, mainstream data indicates that Earth’s surface is emitting more energy into space than it was decades ago.
And, despite continually rising CO2 concentrations, we did not observe the initial reduction that happened before feedbacks.
Quoting me does not help your argument.
Quoting Walter R. Hogle’s backtracking from “Heat is not being trapped” to “well, actually, it might be, but perhaps…less” (while forgetting that he disputes this kind of measurement elsewhere because central limit theorem) is more than enough to support the idea that we’re dealing with a kid in a trench coat of a crank.
walterrh03,
Here’s the CERES Data updated through 2/29/2024: https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFTOA42Selection.jsp
As I said before, I’m 99.9999% certain that you’re wrong about: “Earth’s satellites at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is emitting more radiation to space than it is taking in.”
But 0.0001% chance that you’re right is not zero, no? So, show me.
“nate,
I was referring to the increase in outgoing longwave radiation.”
But your claim was “more radiation to space than it is taking in”
and that DOES NOT FOLLOW from the above, Walter.
Nor does “Heat is not being trapped”
Given that the Earth has been warming, the opposite must be true.
And the Earth has been continuing to trap heat:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/GRAPHS/heat_content2000m.png
Dear Willard,
“Besides, how could the Earth ever emit more than it receives: is it a heat engine?
Because the Earth is cooling, as the 2lot demands.
Indeed it has been cooling and emitting more radiation than it is receiving from the sun for 4+ billion years now.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Given that the Earth has been warming, the opposite must be true.”
You are confused. Some thermometers are responding to additional heat from anthropogenic energy production and use.
The Earth continues to cool. You continue to be a fanatical GHE cultist unable to describe the GHE.
“You are confused. Some thermometers are responding to additional heat from anthropogenic energy production and use.”
The Earth continues to cool.”
And it is also flat, right?
The observations show clearly that the Earth is warming, not cooling, and has been for several decades.
Your theory that it has been cooling, no matter how much you believe it, is WRONG, says your hero Richard Feynman.
Oh well!
No doubt you will continue believing it anyway.
“Because the Earth is cooling, as the 2lot demands. Indeed it has been cooling and emitting more radiation than it is receiving from the sun for 4+ billion years now.””
The Earth did cool in the past, but now the observations show it is warming.
Why doe you claim the 2LOT DEMANDS that it do what it is obviously not doing, PhilJ?
“
Arkady,
“By politicizing what is essentially a scientific issue”
Politicizing mandatory vaccines and artificially raising the cost of energy impoverishing millions based on junk science is what the un and it’s cronies have been doing.
That the royal society is congratulating these people for their heinous crimes against humanity is shameful
Nate,
“Why doe you claim the 2LOT DEMANDS that it do what it is obviously not doing, PhilJ?”
2lot demands that a hotter body surrounded by a cold sink cool..
And of course the Earth, being still mostly molten and thousands of degrees K must cool to surroundings close to absolute zero
As it has been doing for billions of years.
Physical and chemical changes that occur as it cools can modify the rate at which it cools but they cannot stop it.
The Earth must continue to cool until it has become a cold solid rock with no atmosphere warmed only by the sun.
PhilJ,
You are obviously neither a scientist nor an engineer. I am an engineer and can say with certainty that all you’re doing is repeating political talking points; on a science related blog no less!
“Politicizing mandatory vaccines”
I’m old enough to remember Polio before the vaccine, how about you?
> Because the Earth is cooling, as the 2lot demands.
Every morning surprises Sky Dragon cranks such as Phil.
“2lot demands that a hotter body surrounded by a cold sink cool..”
If excluding the simple fact that the hotter body is being heated…by the sun..
Why do you do that PhilJ?
The Earth is always close to energy balance..
The simple observational fact is that in recent decades the, the Earth has been heating.
Why do you ignore these inconvenient facts, PhilJ?
Phil,
“2lot demands that a hotter body surrounded by a cold sink cool..”
No, not at all, especially when the hotter body is heated.
The Sun, for example, is getting hotter as it moves along the main sequence, yet it is surrounded by a cold sink.
Bunch of fascists. Living in fantasy land telling us what we must or must not do.
What a disgrace.
The job of a scientist is to listen carefully to nature, not to tell nature how to behave, that’s the engineer’s job.
By politicizing what is essentially a scientific issue you show yourself to be either a manipulated f00l or a deliberate scoundrel.
Well put..
Arkady Ivanovich says:
”The job of a scientist is to listen carefully to nature, not to tell nature how to behave, thats the engineers job.”
And you believe people aren’t an element of nature?
Arkady Ivanovich says:
”By politicizing what is essentially a scientific issue you show yourself to be either a manipulated f00l or a deliberate scoundrel.”
phil, obviously arkady thinks the response to natural climate change is scientific. its amazing how poorly educated the current generation is.
We have planet Earth and the Moon orbiting sun.
The Earth receives 28% less solar energy per square meter than the Moon, because of the Earths Albedo higher than that of the Moon (0,306 vs 0,11).
Yet Earth is on average +68Cwarmer than Moon.
The air (O2, N2, Ar) do not absorb infrared; only water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and some other, some other even more minor greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation.
When considering the (solar EM energy)/(surface matter) interaction process, the surfaces of Earth and Moon have the two great differencies between them. Earth rotates much-much faster than Moon, and, also, Earth’s surface is covered with water.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…I think it has more to do with one face of the Moon facing the Sun for 14 days.
Yes, Gordon. Moon’s surface gets much hotter during the lunar day, and it cools much more during the long lunar night.
When hotter, at the day-time, the lunar surface gives off the most of the IR EM outgoing energy. The rest is slowly lost during the long-long lunar night.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Do you realize that your rotation fantasy implies that the albedo of a planet is a function of the rotation rate ?
??
Does it mean that if I rotate very fast I can affect how much sunburn I get on a sunny day?
DMT, your cult claims you’d only receive about 170 W/m². You would be colder than an ice cube.
DMT,
You wrote –
“Does it mean that if I rotate very fast I can affect how much sunburn I get on a sunny day?”
Petty much. If you only expose one side of your body to the Sun, the other side won’t burn at all.
Probably why rotisseries rotate the meat – even the temperature out.
I don’t agree with Christos’ ideas on some things, but your snark is misplaced.
Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring that speeding rotation allows the interior to cook before the exterior burns, a process that has very little to do with the greenhouse effect.
“a process that has very little to do with the greenhouse effect.”
This would be the GHE which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
I agree. Sunburn is due to sunlight, not cooling.
Have you gone completely mad?
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb about what every pit master ought to know.
Willard,
“…speeding rotation allows the interior to cook before the exterior burns”
–
Good point! It is the faster rotation makes more solar energy getting absorbed as heat.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Swenson,
“If you only expose one side of your body to the Sun, the other side wont burn at all.
Probably why rotisseries rotate the meat even the temperature out.”
Yes, exactly. And the slow rotation is not enough either, the slow rotation also destroys the meat. When rotation is slow, meat gets burnt from outside and its inside remains raw.
The faster rotation makes more heat to get in.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
According to your logic, spinning meat would burn it faster than it cooks the inside.
We spin meat on pits for exactly the opposite reason.
This has already been told to you.
Willard,
speeding rotation allows the interior to cook before the exterior burns
Good point! It is the faster rotation makes more solar energy getting absorbed as heat.
the slow rotation also destroys the meat. When rotation is slow, meat gets burnt from outside and its inside remains raw.
The faster rotation makes more heat to get in.
********************
Willard,
“According to your logic, spinning meat would burn it faster than it cooks the inside.
We spin meat on pits for exactly the opposite reason.”
Willard, in Greece we rotate a whole lamn of 7, 10, even 13 kilos weight. And everyone knows – if you want a lamn cooked properly, you should rotate it fast.
Otherwise it will be burnt outside, and the inside will be raw. And it would be a total disaster, because the entire lamn would be wasted.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> if you want a lamn cooked properly, you should rotate it fast.
Yes, Christos. To cook lamb properly you can’t let it sit in front of an open fire for too long. You know why? Because it burns it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotisserie
This is fairly basic.
Roy has already explained why a spinning planet warms better.
Thank you, Willard, for an excellent description!
It is exactly what we do, it is exactly how we spit-roasting in every detail.
“it is best rotated faster in the early part of the roasting, to help interior temperature rise without burning the exterior.”
…to help interior temperature rise without burning the exterior.
Please, Willard, you say “Roy has already explained why a spinning planet warms better.” Please, remind, what exactly Roy says about why faster spinning planet warms better.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1667707
Thank you, Willard.
–
Roy:
“Simple Thought Experiment
The reason is very simple, and is related to the non-linearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which can be used to estimate how warm a body gets based upon the rate at which it absorbs solar energy when its only mechanism to cool is through thermal emission of radiation:”
“Basically, any process which increases the day-night temperature range (such as a longer diurnal cycle) will decrease the average temperature of a planet, simply because of the non-linearity of the S-B equation.”
“based upon the rate at which it absorbs solar energy when its only mechanism to cool is through thermal emission of radiation”
the rate at which it absorbs solar energy
Please, Willard, at what point do you distinguish the difference with spit-roasting?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The point is that meat does not cook faster if you make it spin, Christos. Spinning it slows the cooking of its crust. You’re arguing the opposite of what is happening in reality.
Roy’s point is simply that the SB Law is not linear. A smoother diurnal cycle makes it harder for a planet to lose its energy. None of that implies that your curve fitting exercise refutes greenhouse theory.
As Sean Carroll would say, sorry about that!
“Probably why rotisseries rotate the meat even the temperature out.”
Or, or, they want to cook both sides of the meat..
“meat does not cook faster if you make it spin”
Willard, I never said meat cooks faster if you spin it faster.
What I said is that meat cooks, when it spins faster, and doesn’t cook when it spins slower.
“Roys point is simply that the SB Law is not linear. A smoother diurnal cycle makes it harder for a planet to lose its energy.”
And where it is I disagree with Roy’s point?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> I said is that meat cooks, when it spins faster, and doesnt cook when it spins slower.
I don’t spin my steaks, Christos.
What about you?
“And where it is I disagree with Roys point?”
You disagree that the SB Law is applicable in the real world. You are wrong about that.
“I dont spin my steaks, Christos.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop being oblivious to the most basic points about cooking.
Me?
I spin my steaks, 180 degress, once.
” and, also, Earths surface is covered with water.”
Indeed, which keeps it nice and cool. Water , with its unique physical properties is an excellent coolant.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
We examine the Earth’s energy balance since 1950, identifying results that can be obtained without using global climate models. Important terms that can be constrained using only measurements and radiative transfer models are ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions. We explicitly consider the emission of energy by a warming Earth by using correlations between surface temperature and satellite radiant flux data and show that this term is already quite significant. About 20% of the integrated positive forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation since 1950 has been radiated to space. Only about 10% of the positive forcing (about 1/3 of the net forcing) has gone into heating the Earth, almost all into the oceans. About 20% of the positive forcing has been balanced by volcanic aerosols, and the remaining 50% is mainly attributable to tropospheric aerosols. After accounting for the measured terms, the residual forcing between 1970 and 2000 due to direct and indirect forcing by aerosols as well as semidirect forcing from greenhouse gases and any unknown mechanism can be estimated as −1.1 0.4 W m−2 (1σ). This is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s best estimates but rules out very large negative forcings from aerosol indirect effects. Further, the data imply an increase from the 1950s to the 1980s followed by constant or slightly declining aerosol forcing into the 1990s, consistent with estimates of trends in global sulfate emissions. An apparent increase in residual forcing in the late 1990s is discussed.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105
Next time a kid in a trench coat tells you that the Earth is emitting more radiation to space than it is taking in, ask that kid since when. If that’s for more than a few days, we would feel it.
Weird Wee Willy,
The Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in.
The surface cools every night
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in during the day.
Your appeal to authority is, as usual, of the more pointless kind. This is the real world, not WillyWorld, and your authors are obviously living in a world of their own.
You really are an ignorant and gullible wee cultists, aren’t you? Have you improved your description of the GHE from “not cooling, slower cooling”? Maybe you could try claiming that you have never described the GHE at all, and Mike Flynn is right when he says the GHE is a myth!
Carry on being an idiot, Willard. Such behaviour seems to come to you quite naturally.
all you need to read…”…can be estimated as −1.1 0.4 W m−2 (1σ)”.
No measurements, just guesses.
Mike Flynn, please stop making it too easy to ignore your diatribes.
Weird Wee Willy,
The Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in.
The surface cools every night
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in during the day.
Your appeal to authority is, as usual, of the more pointless kind. This is the real world, not WillyWorld, and your authors are obviously living in a world of their own.
You really are an ignorant and gullible wee cultists, arent you? Have you improved your description of the GHE from not cooling, slower cooling”? Maybe you could try claiming that you have never described the GHE at all, and Mike Flynn is right when he says the GHE is a myth!
Carry on being an idiot , Willard. Such behaviour seems to come to you quite naturally.
Mike Flynn, please make a better effort, as it is still easy to ignore what you’re saying.
Weird Wee Willy,
The Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in.
The surface cools every night
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in during the day.
Your appeal to authority is, as usual, of the more pointless kind. This is the real world, not WillyWorld, and your authors are obviously living in a world of their own.
You really are an ignorant and gullible wee cultists, arent you? Have you improved your description of the GHE from “not cooling, slower cooling”? Maybe you could try claiming that you have never described the GHE at all, and Mike Flynn is right when he says the GHE is a myth!
Carry on being an idiot , Willard. Such behaviour seems to come to you quite naturally.
Feel free to ignore reality.
Mike Flynn, please stop repeating the same comment over and over again like a silly sociopath.
Weird Wee Willy,
The Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in.
The surface cools every night
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in during the day.
Your appeal to authority is, as usual, of the more pointless kind. This is the real world, not WillyWorld, and your authors are obviously living in a world of their own.
You really are an ignorant and gullible wee cultists, arent you? Have you improved your description of the GHE from not cooling, slower cooling? Maybe you could try claiming that you have never described the GHE at all, and Mike Flynn is right when he says the GHE is a myth!
Carry on being an idiot , Willard. Such behaviour seems to come to you quite naturally.
Feel free to ignore reality. Reality doesn’t care.
Mike Flynn, please stop making Sky Dragon cranks look bad.
Weird Wee Willy,
The Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in.
The surface cools every night
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in during the day.
Your appeal to authority is, as usual, of the more pointless kind. This is the real world, not WillyWorld, and your authors are obviously living in a world of their own.
You really are an ignorant and gullible wee cultists, arent you? Have you improved your description of the GHE from “not cooling, slower cooling”? Maybe you could try claiming that you have never described the GHE at all, and Mike Flynn is right when he says the GHE is a myth!
Carry on being an idiot , Willard. Such behaviour seems to come to you quite naturally.
Feel free to ignore reality. Reality doesnt care. Neither do I.
“The surface cools every night”
Why does the ignoramus Swenson think people arent aware of such useless factoids?
“Emitting more radiation to space than it took in during the day.”
And why does he make up fake factoids, such as this?
Swenson,
The early molten Earth did not become molten from radiation.
The heat came from somewhere else.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
The early molten Earth did not become molten from radiation.
The heat came from somewhere else.”, so at least you now accept that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a hotter state.
And, during the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little internal heat, which as you possibly agree, did not originate from external radiation. Of course, you try to be as unhelpful as possible, and refuse to say how you think the Earth’s surface became molten.
No problem, you are an idiot,, so it’s probable nobody cares what you think.
Nate, you nutter,
You wrote “And why does he make up fake factoids, such as this?”
If you want to believe that an object’s temperature can drop without emitting more energy than it receives, go ahead.
If people call you an idiot, don’t expect me to disagree.
“Emitting more radiation to space than it took in during the day.”
Nice theory. Then there would be a NET loss of energy.
But observations show that the Earth has been gaining energy. And warming.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/GRAPHS/heat_content2000m.png
Feynman says your theory, no matter how beautiful, is wrong, and now stop spreading fertilizer!
Mike Flynn, please stop using forbidden words using silly HTML trickery.
Swenson,
“Bumbling bobby,
You wrote
Swenson,
The early molten Earth did not become molten from radiation.
The heat came from somewhere else., so at least you now accept that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a hotter state.
And, during the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little internal heat, which as you possibly agree, did not originate from external radiation. Of course, you try to be as unhelpful as possible, and refuse to say how you think the Earths surface became molten.
No problem, you are an idiot,, so its probable nobody cares what you think.”
Well, yes, the Earth has cooled from a molten state, but it also warmed to that molten state, and has warmed and cooled on various time scales ever since, it is not a 4 1/2 billion year period of cooling.
And often the surface does not lose all of the heat of the day, because sometimes the low of night 2 is warmer than the low of night 1, it’s like a 50-50 chance.
“Of course, you try to be as unhelpful as possible, and refuse to say how you think the Earths surface became molten.”
This is an outright lie, because I have said how I think the Earth’s surface became molten.
I’ll chew my cabbage again, for fifty bucks, I’ll even take worthless AUS.
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner knows I am doing something right.
Hush, Little Willy.
Hogle
” No, Earths satellites at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is emitting more radiation to space than it is taking in. ”
Where did you paste that nonsense from, Simpleton Hogle?
Do you have the slightest idea of what it means?
Look at Figure 2 of my source.
Binny,
It would mean that the Earth is cooling, which of course it is.
You are probably confused about the origin and amount of ephemeral man made heat, and its effect on thermometers.
As you have said, it is just nonsense to say that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations would make thermometers hotter.
You can’t describe the mythical GHE, can you? That’s because it doesn’t exist!
You are fond of quoting dead scientists, so here is a quote for you from Baron Fourier (French, I believe) –
“Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
You see? Even the French agree with me. Accept reality – no GHE. Not even a little bit.
Mike Flynn, please stop being dumb about Joseph’s origin and look up his Wiki entry.
Willard, you’re an idiot.
Please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop being such a silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
How would sat telemetry know the difference unless it was measuring both simultaneously?
wee willy…”[ME, QUOTING ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb”.
***
That is a translation, not a quote. Newton knew the difference between revolving and rotation and he was obviously referencing the Moon’s rotation about the Earth as an external axis, calling it revolution, which it is.
He is referencing the lunar day, which is 14 days long, or so, and that is caused by the Moon’s revolution around the Earth, not by a local rotation on the Moon.
There is another quote from Newton that clarifies this. Newton claimed that…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion…
2)that linear motion is bent into a curvilinear motion by the Earth’s gravitational field…
3)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
The translator has obviously misinterpreted the words of Newton. Latin, especially old Latin, is not nearly as prfcise as English and needs to be translated according to the context. The translator has obviously used the context of Cassini, presuming that the Moon rotates on a local axis.
That is obvious since the translation from wee willy does not coincide with the translation from Newton I have offered re linear and curvilinear motion.
If Mr. Asshat was such a latin lover, he’d have quoted the following paragraph a long time ago:
Perhaps he could spare a few bucks from his cigarette budget and buy the authoritative translation by I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, assisted by Julia Budenz or find a way to get the PDF online.
Are you just trying to divert attention away from the mythical GHE?
The mythical GHE which you can’t describe, except to say it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”, which sounds completely ridiculous, doesn’t it?
I suppose you might be stupid enough to claim that cooling (falling temperatures) results in heating. Or you could just scuttle away like a cockroach, refusing to commit yourself to anything at all!
You really are a completely gutless Warmist worm, aren’t you? You don’t need to answer, of course. Others can choose to agree or disagree as they wish – and there’s nothing you can do about it, is there? Actually, there’s nothing you can do about anything at all.
Back to your WillyWorld fantasy, where you are wise and powerful. Much more comfortable than the reality where you are ignored and impotent!
No GHE – not even a little one.
Mike Flynn, please stop distracting yourself with your silly sammich request instead of focusing on the matter that Mr. Asshat himself decided to lie about.
Are you just trying to divert attention away from the mythical GHE?
The mythical GHE which you cant describe, except to say it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”, which sounds completely ridiculous, doesnt it?
I suppose you might be stupid enough to claim that cooling (falling temperatures) results in heating. Or you could just scuttle away like a cockroach, refusing to commit yourself to anything at all!
You really are a completely gutless Warmist worm, arent you? You dont need to answer, of course. Others can choose to agree or disagree as they wish and theres nothing you can do about it, is there? Actually, theres nothing you can do about anything at all.
Back to your WillyWorld fantasy, where you are wise and powerful. Much more comfortable than the reality where you are ignored and impotent!
No GHE not even a little one.
Carry on dreaming.
wee willy aka modicus dickus, spews out more inane pablum…
“The outermost satellite of Saturn seems to revolve about its own axis…”
Seems??? Well, does it or doesn’t it?
Mr. Asshat might have a hard time trying to spin “circa axem […] revolvi.” But then he denies the existence of time. I have faith in his power to say the silliest things with the utmost seriousness.
Are you just trying to divert attention away from the mythical GHE?
The mythical GHE which you cant describe, except to say it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”, which sounds completely ridiculous, doesnt it?
I suppose you might be stupid enough to claim that cooling (falling temperatures) results in heating. Or you could just scuttle away like a cockroach, refusing to commit yourself to anything at all!
You really are a completely gutless Warmist worm, arent you? You dont need to answer, of course. Others can choose to agree or disagree as they wish and theres nothing you can do about it, is there? Actually, theres nothing you can do about anything at all.
Back to your WillyWorld fantasy, where you are wise and powerful. Much more comfortable than the reality where you are ignored and impotent!
No GHE not even a little one.
Carry on dreaming. It suits you.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to coatrack your silly sammich request about the greenhouse effect in an exchange about the Moon.
Are you just trying to divert attention away from the mythical GHE?
The mythical GHE which you cant describe, except to say it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”, which sounds completely ridiculous, doesnt it?
I suppose you might be stupid enough to claim that cooling (falling temperatures) results in heating. Or you could just scuttle away like a cockroach, refusing to commit yourself to anything at all!
You really are a completely gutless Warmist worm, arent you? You dont need to answer, of course. Others can choose to agree or disagree as they wish and theres nothing you can do about it, is there? Actually, theres nothing you can do about anything at all.
Back to your WillyWorld fantasy, where you are wise and powerful. Much more comfortable than the reality where you are ignored and impotent!
No GHE, not even a little one.
Carry on dreaming. It suits you.
Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring the fact that Mr. Asshat is saying stuff once again.
Are you just trying to divert attention away from the mythical GHE?
The mythical GHE which you cant describe, except to say it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”, which sounds completely ridiculous, doesn’t it?
I suppose you might be stupid enough to claim that cooling (falling temperatures) results in heating. Or you could just scuttle away like a cockroach, refusing to commit yourself to anything at all!
You really are a completely gutless Warmist worm, arent you? You don’t need to answer, of course. Others can choose to agree or disagree as they wish and theres nothing you can do about it, is there? Actually, theres nothing you can do about anything at all.
Back to your WillyWorld fantasy, where you are wise and powerful. Much more comfortable than the reality where you are ignored and impotent!
No GHE, not even a little one.
Carry on dreaming. It suits you. I comment as and when I wish, and there is precisely nothing you can do about it, is there?
Mike Flynn, please stop appealing to Caligula’s excuse.
Are you just trying to divert attention away from the mythical GHE?
The mythical GHE which you can’t describe, except to say it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”, which sounds completely ridiculous, doesnt it?
I suppose you might be stupid enough to claim that cooling (falling temperatures) results in heating. Or you could just scuttle away like a cockroach, refusing to commit yourself to anything at all!
You really are a completely gutless Warmist worm, arent you? You dont need to answer, of course. Others can choose to agree or disagree as they wish and theres nothing you can do about it, is there? Actually, theres nothing you can do about anything at all.
Back to your WillyWorld fantasy, where you are wise and powerful. Much more comfortable than the reality where you are ignored and impotent!
No GHE, not even a little one.
Carry on dreaming. It suits you. I comment as and when I wish, and there is precisely nothing you can do about it, is there?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop imagining that I read your comments.
“Mike Flynn, please stop imagining that I read your comments.”
Would I do such a thing?
[ironic laughter]
Mike Flynn, please stop being a jerk.
“Mike Flynn, please stop being a jerk.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop butchering the canonical form of your submission.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner lost his PSTering privilege.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
walter…”Schmidt is arguing that the increase in outgoing long wave radiation is a feedback. He uses declining TSI and the non-correlation with the galactic cosmic rays to back up his claim”.
***
Walter…Schmidt is thoroughly confused about feedback. He has stated that it acts as an amplifier, which is nonsense.
See section titled Gavin Schmidt on positive feedback.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120211192928/http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
binny…”Unlike your hero Eschenbach operating at WUWT all the time with linear fits over station or tide gauge data, I always use polynomials in my charts instead”.
***
A linear function can be a 1st degree polynomial. What’s your point?
” A linear function can be a 1st degree polynomial. ”
That shows the level of your knowledge.
A linear fit IS the same as a 1st degree polynomial, Robertson.
” What’s your point? ”
And that shows that you know nothing about that stuff.
Why do you urge in intervening everywhere, despite knowing nothing which could matter?
My point would be obvious to an intelligent mind. You looked down your nose at someone using a linear trend and praised yourself for using a polynomial. A linear trend is a straight line and is also a first degree polynomial.
For the dumb Robertson
” You looked down your nose at someone using a linear trend and praised yourself for using a polynomial. A linear trend is a straight line and is also a first degree polynomial.”
https://i.postimg.cc/DZpVJQ3j/For-the-dumb-ignoramus-Robertson.png
You are so incredibly incompetent, Robertson…
I repeat:
Why do you urge in intervening everywhere, despite knowing nothing which could matter?
Ark and Binny do not live on the same planet we do.
Binny attacks anyone who questions the validity of his spaghetti charts. He keeps defending the use of anomalies, but he doesn’t consider that since each month is warming at a different rate, the overall anomalies will have a skewed trend.
You would think that the uneven rates of change would be a huge indicator of the non-existent relationship between temperature and time to him, and why it makes no sense to average in intervals of hours, days, months, years, etc. They are just artificial barriers, and you are just obscuring variability. Change in the natural world does not, at all, adhere to our sense of time.
He also doesn’t understand that to get a truly meaningful average of an entire region, let alone the globe, all of the thermometers have to be periodically calibrated at the exact same time (LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME TIME).
If the level of accuracy across your samples is not consistent, then you end up with a distorted result.
*a truly meaningful average, even under the assumption that averaging reduces variance*
> he doesnt consider that since each month is warming at a different rate, the overall anomalies will have a skewed trend.
Where’s our in-house nonsense detector when contrarians need him?
How about you expand on why you think my writing is nonsense?
Walter R. Hogle, please stop requesting the same silly sammich before getting rubberstamped by our new peanut gallerist.
“He also doesnt understand that to get a truly meaningful average of an entire region, let alone the globe, all of the thermometers have to be periodically calibrated at the exact same time (LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME TIME).”
Weird. What does calibrate mean to you, Walter? And why do they have to be at the same time?
Generally, they need be calibrated once, before they get used.
Nate,
Why do they need to be calibrated at the same time?
Because otherwise you are averaging samples of varying accuracy, giving you an inaccurate result.
Walter, I work with various types of thermometers. None need to be calibrated more than once.
It seems to me that you are seeking to create problems that do not exist.
Nate,
Thermometers need to be calibrated regularly. The longer a thermometer is active without being calibrated, the more its readings drift.
When trying to attain an accurate regional or global average, the samples from all active thermometers need to be homogenous.
Evidence? How much do they drift?
And why would calibration need to be simultaneous? That makes no sense.
Earlier the misguided and thoroughly ignorant Willard wrote –
“Its being produced by the Earth engine!”
Well, yes, it is, actually. Willard’s attempted sarcasm fell flat – yet again.
The Earth is a large blob of stuff hot enough to glow below its exceptionally thin solidified crust. Of course, it must cool, as the heat of the interior is lost to outer space.
Just as a human corpse will continue to lose heat if any part of its interior is hotter than the environment. Surrounding the corpse with insulation won’t heat it up, merely reduce the rate of heat loss. Surrounding the glowing Earth with solidified rock, ocean, and atmosphere won’t heat it up, merely reduce the rate at which the interior cools.
Suitable application of Newton’s Law of Cooling can approximate the time of the human’s demise. It’s a bit more complicated for the Earth, which is why Lord Kelvin’s estimate of the age of the Earth was incorrect.
Once again, no role for a mythical GHE. As even Willard admits, what occurs is “slower cooling”.
Spot on, but Willard is too thick to accept what it means. No GHE.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to deny the greenhouse effect while describing it approvingly.
You aren’t the smartest cultist ever conceived, are you?
Earlier the misguided and thoroughly ignorant Willard wrote
“It’s being produced by the Earth engine!”
Well, yes, it is, actually. Willards attempted sarcasm fell flat yet again.
The Earth is a large blob of stuff hot enough to glow below its exceptionally thin solidified crust. Of course, it must cool, as the heat of the interior is lost to outer space.
Just as a human corpse will continue to lose heat if any part of its interior is hotter than the environment. Surrounding the corpse with insulation wont heat it up, merely reduce the rate of heat loss. Surrounding the glowing Earth with solidified rock, ocean, and atmosphere wont heat it up, merely reduce the rate at which the interior cools.
Suitable application of Newtons Law of Cooling can approximate the time of the humans demise. Its a bit more complicated for the Earth, which is why Lord Kelvins estimate of the age of the Earth was incorrect.
Once again, no role for a mythical GHE. As even Willard admits, what occurs is “slower cooling”.
Spot on, but Willard is too thick to accept what it means. No GHE.
Mike Flynn, please stop copy-pasting your irrelevant gotchas.
You arent the smartest cultist ever conceived, are you?
Earlier the misguided and thoroughly ignorant Willard wrote
“Its being produced by the Earth engine!”
Well, yes, it is, actually. Willards attempted sarcasm fell flat yet again.
The Earth is a large blob of stuff hot enough to glow below its exceptionally thin solidified crust. Of course, it must cool, as the heat of the interior is lost to outer space.
Just as a human corpse will continue to lose heat if any part of its interior is hotter than the environment. Surrounding the corpse with insulation wont heat it up, merely reduce the rate of heat loss. Surrounding the glowing Earth with solidified rock, ocean, and atmosphere wont heat it up, merely reduce the rate at which the interior cools.
Suitable application of Newtons Law of Cooling can approximate the time of the humans demise. Its a bit more complicated for the Earth, which is why Lord Kelvins estimate of the age of the Earth was incorrect.
Once again, no role for a mythical GHE. As even Willard admits, what occurs is slower cooling.
Spot on, but Willard is too thick to accept what it means. No GHE.
You wrote “please stop copy-pasting”. Why? What mental deficit leads you to think I would act on your request? How about I just ignore you, and do as I wish?
Mike Flynn, please stop spamming the last place cranks under sock puppets are allowed to say stuff.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop spamming the last place cranks under sock puppets are allowed to say stuff.”
Oh dear, why do you think I should take any notice of you? Have you perhaps some power to affect me? I don’t think so, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
[laughing at deranged GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop acting like an impotent sociopath.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn, please stop spamming the last place cranks under sock puppets are allowed to say stuff.”
Oh dear, why do you think I should take any notice of you? Have you perhaps some power to affect me? I dont think so, but feel free to correct me if Im wrong.
[laughing at very deranged GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to rile up commenters with your antisocial manners.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop trying to rile up commenters with your antisocial manners.”
Presumably, you are the only commenter who would confess to being so lacking in self control that they would admit to being “riled up” by someone whose opinion they do not value.
Or do you think that all fanatical GHE cultists similarly afflicted with your lack of self esteem?
Do you read their minds, perhaps?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop misreading my comments self-servingly.
“Mike Flynn, please stop misreading my comments self-servingly.”
You make no sense at all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please gaslighting like a clueless sociopath.
“Mike Flynn, please gaslighting like a clueless sociopath.”
If you must attempt to troll, at least improve your English, and make an effort to appear intelligent. “. . . please gaslighting . . . ” shows that you are stupid, sloppy, or both.
Willard, please stop trolling. You’re just not very good at it.
Mike Flynn, please stop being such a fusspot.
“Mike Flynn, please gaslighting like a clueless sociopath.”
If you must attempt to troll, at least improve your English, and make an effort to appear intelligent. ” . . . please gaslighting . . . ” shows that you are stupid, sloppy, or both.
Willard, please stop trolling. Youre just not very good at it. You sound like a sloppy loser whining about being caught out being a sloppy loser.
Mike Flynn, please stop projecting your own artlessness.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
The interior of the Earth has a heat source, so insulating it will help keep it warmer longer.
Might have something to do with Lord Kelvin’s miscalculation.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner jokes around.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Walter Hogle
I’m posting down here because your original thread has got lost among the insults.
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/image-52.png?ssl=1
You referred to this image, showing that OLR has increased from 236.5 W/m^2 to 238.5 W/m^2, an increase of 2 W/m^2.
In that time temperature increased by 0.7C from 287.3 to 288C. According to the SB equation the OLR should increase to (288/287.3)^4 *236.5 = 238.7 W/m^2, less an increment due to increased GHGs.
Your figure looks sensible.
Solar insolation – albedo = OLR
Since the energy imbalance has remained around 1.1W/m^2, Solar insolation – albedo must also have increased by 2W/m^2.
Solar insolation stays fairly constant, which suggests that the albedo has decreased by 2W/m^2.
“Walter Hogle
I’m posting down here because your original thread has got lost among the insults.”
Corrections:
1/ It is my sub-thread.
2/ While I don’t see any “insults,” I agree that the original message was immediately sidetracked; so I’ll repeat it:
Professor Michael Mann elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society.
Over 90 exceptional researchers from across the world have this year been elected to the Fellowship of the Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of sciences.
Sir Adrian Smith, President of the Royal Society, said:
Good.
The motto of the Royal Society is “Nullis in verba”.
A direct translation is “zero in words”, more colloquially “Take nobody’s word for it”.
Michael Mann and the others played a big role in quantifying the science underlying AGW and richly deserve their fellowships.
What a hoot, Ent!
There is NO “quantification” of the GHE nonsense. Your cult can’t even come up with a viable description/definition.
But, I always enjoy your complete devotion to false beliefs.
Entropic man.
Yes, now sit back and witness the nattering nabobs of negativism and their hopeless hysterics.
The “hopeless hysterics” start with claiming someone is quantifying when they ain’t quantifying.
They got “nullis“.
Nihil, Puffman.
You’re not very good at being a sock puppet.
From The Royal Society –
“The Royal Society’s motto “Nullius in verba” was adopted in its First Charter in 1662. is taken to mean “take nobody’s word for it”. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.”
I agree wholeheartedly. Richard Feynman agreed with me – he wrote “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.”
Nullius in verba.
Neither Michael Mann nor anybody else can describe the GHE, nor even state its role in the cooling of the Earth to its current temperature, or the nightly cooling of the surface. Not surprising, because the GHE is a myth.
Membership of the Royal Society does not confer the ability to create fact from fiction.
Mike Flynn, please stop touting Nullius in Verba while kowtowing Dick.
“Mike Flynn, please stop touting Nullius in Verba while kowtowing Dick.”
What are you babbling about, fool? Maybe if you remove your hand from your trousers before you start hammering your keyboard, you might make some sense.
You are looking like a fanatical GHE cultist of the extreme loser variety.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb about the incoherence of your actual stance.
“Mike Flynn, please stop touting Nullius in Verba while kowtowing Dick.”
What are you babbling about, fool? Maybe if you remove your hand from the front of your trousers before you start hammering your keyboard, you might make some sense.
You are looking like a fanatical GHE cultist of the extreme loser variety.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb about the fact that you’re appealing to an authority while whinging about appeals to authorities.
“Mike Flynn, please stop touting Nullius in Verba while kowtowing Dick.”
What are you babbling about, fool? Maybe if you remove your hand from the front of your trousers before you start hammering your keyboard, you might make some sense.
You are looking like a fanatical GHE cultist of the extreme loser variety.
Willard, please stop trolling. You’re giving real trolls a bad name.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb about a fairly basic pragmatic infelicity.
“Mike Flynn, please stop touting Nullius in Verba while kowtowing Dick.”
What are you babbling about, fool? Maybe if you remove your hand from the front of your trousers before you start hammering your keyboard, you might make some sense.
“Kowtowing Dick”? Is that what you call it? Is that your current description for masturbation?
You are looking like a fanatical GHE cultist of the extreme loser variety.
Willard, please stop trolling. Youre giving real trolls a bad name.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb about who’s Dick.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb about whos Dick.”
I know whose dick – yours! You are playing with it far too much, you know. That’s probably why you say silly things, like the GHE being “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb.
Also Ent, you forgot the error margins for your wild-ass guesses. And, you forgot to include emissivity.
But, who cares about such errors when you basic physics is wrong?
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-7/figure-7-2
There you are. The upper and lower bounds are below the numbers.
Solar wind
speed: 461.7 km/sec
density: 3.12 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 17 May 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 208
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 207 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.02×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.0% Low
13 sunspot numbers
3685 is large cluster of spots recently coming from farside. And 3667 is leaving to farside
Solar wind
speed: 403.5 km/sec
density: 0.69 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 17 May 24
Sunspot number: 168
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 207 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.35×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.0% Low
why did it drop by 40?
They haven’t given the new picture of sun, yet.
It should be less than 2 hours. But it’s interesting, cause
I didn’t expect such a drop- 1 spot:”3667 is leaving to farside”
Anyhow, perhaps there will unnumbered spot coming from farside, or forming on nearside, But some other numbered spots must have faded-
but which?
Hmm well 3683 recently formed on nearside, and when that happens, it has good chance of growing more, or fading. So I guess 3683 faded.
Solar wind
speed: 378.0 km/sec
density: 2.74 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 19 May 24
“Sunspot AR3685 poses a continued threat for strong Earth-directed solar flares. Since May 15th it has emitted an X3 flare and an M7 flare. ”
Sunspot number: 166
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 194 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.35×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.7% Low
9 numbered spots. 2 spots which could be numbered. No spots leaving or coming from farside.
It seems likely May will be about 140 sunspots.
I put it below by mistake:
— gbaikie says:
May 19, 2024 at 9:37 PM
Solar wind
speed: 416.3 km/sec
density: 3.59 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 May 24
Sunspot number: 154
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 201 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.6410^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.7% Low
They havent given new picture of sun, yet.–
hmm, nope, just 3667, left nearside. And looks like maybe 3683 grew a bit, rather than faded.
As said, I don’t get how they count them.
But now two spot are leaving the nearside, and I don’t any spots coming from farside, yet. hmm 3672, did shrink a little bit- maybe will shrink more before goes to farside in about 3 days
Solar wind
speed: 375.9 km/sec
density: 2.77 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 21 May 24
Sunspot number: 124
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 200 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.73×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.4% Low
6 numbered spots.
Mid point, a large coronal hole in north, smaller one in south
”
Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
20 May – 15 June 2024
Solar activity is likely to be moderate (R1-R2; Minor-Moderate),
with a slight chance for high levels (R3; Strong) through 21 May as
Region 3685 (S13 L=155, Ehi/BG as of 18 May) continues to produce
low-level M-class flares (R1). The region will take some time to
rotate to the western limb – rotating beyond the limb by 30 May.
Meanwhile eight other regions will rotate beyond the limb beginning
21 May through 26 May. A good number of former spot regions are
timed to rotate back into Earth-view through much of the outlook
period – the most anticipated is former Region 3664 (S17, L=347,
Fkc/BGD on 11 May) that is expected to return by 26-27 May. The
litany of returning regions, to include 3664, could lead to
increasing solar activity levels back to moderate to high levels as
early as 26 May.
There will be a slight chance of S1 (Minor) solar radiation storms
through 30 May until Region 3685 rotates beyond the western limb. If
Region 3664 survives to its return to the visible solar disk 26-27
May, there is a possibility of an increase to a chance of an S1
storm by 7-15 June.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux is likely to be normal to
moderate with a chance for high levels 20 May – 15 Jun.
Geomagnetic activity is anticipated to be at quiet to active
conditions, with likely G1 (Minor) storm levels 20 May due to CME
effects. Conditions are expected to wane on 21 May and primarily
quiet to active levels are expected. A period of quiet conditions
follows 22-23 May, with CH HSS effects leading back to active levels
24-25 May. The remainder of the period is anticipated to be
primarily a mix of quiet to active conditions in varying response to
occasional recurrent CH HSS effects. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
The beginning of space on Earth is said to be 100 km up.
And with Mars it begins a bit higher, significant orbital drag starts to occur at about 120 km above the Mars surface, it varies quite a bit. Earth also varies and solar activity raises the height a bit- the hotter Thermosphere the higher it is, right now it’s hot, rather than warm, which it has been most of time in the solar 25 max, thought most solar max in the past, have had longer duration and hotter than it is right now.
And since Mars gets the same sun, it’s height of it’s atmospheric drag is likewise higher than it’s been in couple decades.
But other factors also would effect it. It’s global dust storm and other changes in weather makes more variable.
But roughly at 120 km, Mars starts getting drag and it’s drag at much lower velocity as compared to Earth orbital velocity: 3.6 km/sec vs 7.8 km sec.
Of you can pass close to Earth or Mars at higher velocity, one can be doing escape type velocity, Earth, 10 km/sec and Mars about 5 km/sec.
And can doing stuff like gravity assist type stuff, where one could be doing like 20 km/sec.
Or faster you go, the more you get drag when at say 100 km above Earth surface.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Basically, any process which increases the day-night temperature range (such as a longer diurnal cycle) will decrease the average temperature of a planet, simply because of the non-linearity of the S-B equation. I suspect the effect does not exist if the surface being heated has zero heat capacity, since the temperature of the surface will instantly come into equilibrium with the absorbed sunlight; in that case the length of day would not matter. But since that is physically impossible, it does not apply to real planets.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
Sky Dragon cranks should beware that a 0-dimensional model doesn’t apply to real planets either…
Christos has been claiming that for a long time and it’s obvious. The Earth, with an atmosphere, rotates 365 times in a year. That means it has less time to radiate before being warmed again.
Also, the Moon does not rotate and due to its curvilinear motion without rotation, it has one side facing the Sun for up to 14 days. Then that side faces cold space for another 14 days.
Elementary, actually.
Mr. Asshat should consider that the Earth has even less time to radiate if time does not exist. It’s as if he believed that climate scientists didn’t know that planets spin, e.g.:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.15992
What will it be when he’ll discover general circulation models in ten years or so?
“. . . climate scientists . . . ”
Thanks for humour, anyway.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop sniggering in a way that makes Beavis and Butt-Head look sexy in comparison.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
I will snigger at you any way I like, and there is precisely nothing you can do about, is there?
Have you improved your description of the GHE? The one you wrote as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
[sniggering at impotent loser]
Mike Flynn, please stop acting as if nobody was watching.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
I will snigger at you any way I like, and there is precisely nothing you can do about, is there?
Have you improved your description of the GHE? The one you wrote as not cooling, slower cooling?
[more sniggering at impotent loser]
Mike Flynn, please stop giving me free wins.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
I will snigger at you any way I like, and there is precisely nothing you can do about, is there?
Have you improved your description of the GHE? The one you wrote as “not cooling, slower cooling”? Maybe you could redefine “losing” to be “winning”, do you think?
[more sniggering at impotent loser]
Mike Flynn, please stop losing.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop losing.”
Previously, I suggested “Maybe you could redefine “losing” to be “winning”, do you think?”
I see that you have taken my advice, surprisingly enough. I just can’t help winning.
Thank you.
Mike Flynn, please stop your silly semantic games.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Feel free to keep being a loser, who refuses to describe his mythical GHE!
How hard can it be? Too hard for a loser like you, obviously.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop being so adversarial and so weak at the same time.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner is not doing much to convince anyone he’s person Number One.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Robertson is either dishonest, denialist or dement.
To understand what I mean, you just need to compare these two posts:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1667632
and
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665395
*
No further deepening necessary.
Once again, Binny puts forward a comment by Newton on libration, not rotation about a local axis. Then he compares a quote from me with a quote from him as proof of me contradicting myself.
Binny does not understand that longitudinal libration is not a rotation, it is a view angle problem from an observer on Earth watching the near face of the Moon as the Moon follows an elliptical path. The elliptical path allows the observer to se a few degrees around the near edge of the near face at certain parts of the orbit.
No rotation.
He might also note that at either end of th major axis there is no libration or that with a circular orbit their would be no libration.
” Once again, Binny puts forward a comment by Newton on libration, not rotation about a local axis. ”
Robertson isn’t only either dishonest, denialist or dement: he is above all a liar.
Newton did not ‘comment on libration’ but explained Moon’s libration in longitude with its rotation, like did Cassini and later Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and hundreds of scientists after them.
“Robertson isnt only either dishonest, denialist or dement: he is above all a liar.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying an obvious truth.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
There are four types of libration.
Two actually work with circular orbits.
If a circular orbit is tilted, libration results.
If the axis of rotation is tilted with respect to the plane of revolution, libration results.
Both apply to the Moon, even though the Moon’s orbit is not circular.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“There are four types of libration.”
Maybe you could specify them? Dimwits such as yourself are prone to making broad statements which are essentially meaningless, trying to appear clever.
If you really want to appear like a loser, don’t provide any further information.
Mike Flynn, please stop being such a lazy brat –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop being such a lazy brat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration”
You refuse to be any more helpful than blundering bobby? Who is more unhelpful – you or bobdroege?
Oooooooh! That’s a hard question. Almost as hard as asking why you believe in a GHE that you can’t describe.
Keep on being an idiot. It suits your comment content.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing Procrustes.
Swenson,
How many times do we have to describe the greenhouse effect for you?
Robertson is very skillful at posting information that is almost correct, but wrong in some way. He is good at finding quotes and misstating their meaning. Others do something similar. There is Willard who almost never posts anything except quotes he does not understand or can explain, along with his array of personal insults. At least Gordon seems to know enough to be wrong in a way that could catch some people off guard, and make others annoyed. I do not endorse his annoyance. I just ignore most of it.
tim s…wrong according to who?
I have asked you before to state your objections scientifically but thus far, nada.
Tim S
” Robertson is very skillful at posting information that is almost correct, but wrong in some way. ”
?
Maybe you might show us which of Robertson’s utter nonsense is ‘almost correct’?
I’m truly interested.
I believe Gordon is “almost” correct much of the time. Keep in mind that propaganda almost always involves correct facts that are taken out of context, and then most importantly, key details are left out. He has a skill. He does correctly state many concepts, and he may even make a correct statement from time to time. The fun starts when he begins to get confused and starts mixing things up. I think he does it on purpose to get under people’s skin. It seems to be working. To the extent you have found his errors, you have won his game. On the other hand, Willard has no game at all (pun intended). Willard is pure nonsense.
TS shows once again that he’s just another run-of-the-mill troglodyte who’s ready to gaslight people instead of having to do any fruitful work.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring that TS dodged the question with the elegance of a Newscorp anchor.
“I think he does it on purpose to get under peoples skin. It seems to be working. ”
More that he is seeking attention. Negative attention will do.
Mr. Asshat keeps repeating things that has been proven false many times already. TS keeps smugly saying sweet nothings that allow him stands behind his fog of war about CAGW. At best he replaces Puffman as our in-house Riddler.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Proved wrong by whom? Surely you are not referring to your demented self?
Mr. Asshat has nothing much than self-righteous incredulity.
The most recent refutation was here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1667643
Almost 24 hours ago. Time flies like an arrow. Mr. Asshat likes to go bananas.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, I am not a mean-spirited person. My purpose is to help you understand how you are perceived. The rest is up to you.
Dear TS,
Nobody would care if you were mean-spirited if you carried your weight around the Climateball field. Throwing peanuts from the peanut gallery is facile and lazy. Please leave that to Kennui and Troglodyte.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are being nonsensical again. The sure mark of a loser.
Mike Flynn, please stop feigning ignorance.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are being nonsensical again. The sure mark of a loser.
Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting.
Willard,
No need for you to claim that your insanity is caused by another. All your own work.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard is a monkey.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop lying about not dehumanizing.
You have been characterised as a monkey.
If you object, just demonstrate otherwise. How hard can it be?
[snorting with derision at thin-skinned and precious GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop debasing yourself.
You have been characterised as a monkey (and a donkey, I believe)..
If you object, just demonstrate otherwise. How hard can it be?
[snorting with derision at thin-skinned and precious GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop white knighting Walter R. Hogle when he has been caught lying.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner horseplays without having much to say.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
ent…”Michael Mann and the others played a big role in quantifying the science underlying AGW and richly deserve their fellowships”.
***
Name one thing he has contributed. He seriously screwed up with MBH98 (hockey stick) and screwed up even more when he put out a paper claiming Antarctica had warmed the past 50 years. One of the stations he offered as proof had been under 4 feet of snow for a long time. He and his co-author Steig, another uber-alarmist, took a slight warming on the Antarctica peninsula and extrapolated it incorrectly to claim an overall warming.
Mann is a geologist who took a misogynist shot at a female scientist when she disagreed with him. The only thing positive one could say about him is the uncanny resemblance he has to his partner, Gavin Schmidt, at realclimate, and that would be an abuse of the word positive.
> Name one thing
Step 1 – Sammich Request
One word – AMOC.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Someone tried to credit Mann with naming the AMO but other than that he had nothing to do with its discovery.
Wee willy, I wondering if there are times when you are not a complete frigging ijit?
Mr. Asshat asks for a sammich. He gets served. And he now goes full Karen.
Perhaps Mr. Asshat could speak to management if he didn’t abuse them for more than a decade.
“Step 1 Sammich Request
One word AMOC.”
Another word – idiot.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop spitting.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
There are many scientists like Dr. Mann apparently.
Read this article by the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2024/may/08/hopeless-and-broken-why-the-worlds-top-climate-scientists-are-in-despair
It’s hard to believe these folks are really scientists. They not only have it wrong, but they are openly showing their emotions.
who’s?
Arkady, please stop trolling.
While people are adding fluxes, convincing themselves that a colder atmosphere can lead to an increase in temperature of a hotter surface, they overlook basic physical laws, which state that heat cannot transfer itself from a colder to a warmer place.
Now, even allowing for the fact that no amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of even the smallest amount of water (no matter how cunningly you concentrate the IR using fancy lenses or parabolic mirrors), some people still believe in the impossible.
Green plates, blue plates from Eli Rabbett, Steel Greenhouses from Willis Eschenbach – all products of ignorance and wishful thinking.
So here’s something for the fanatical GHE cultists to argue about – I will state categorically that it is impossible to boil water directly using the heat from boiling water. Some idiot will no doubt try to use the steam from boiling water to drive an engine to power a heating element to boil water water elsewhere, and similar silly semantic tricks.
If I have expressed myself poorly, I am open to suggestions which will make my statement clearer. My intention is to state no amount of radiation from boiling water can result in bringing even the smallest quantity of water to the boil. To make things even clearer, start off with some ice, then try to use boiling water to bring the frozen water to the boiling point.
Feel free to use as much heat from as many sources as you like to boil as much imaginary water as you like, but that boiling water must then be used as a heat source.
Once you have agreed that the principle is nonsensical, and worked out why, then you will probably understand why Eli Rabbett and Willis Eschenbach simply do not know what they are talking about with their “explanations” of a GHE which they cannot even describe.
Maybe I am wrong, and maybe some fanatical GHE cultist can demonstrate why – by experiment. Who knows?
Mike Flynn, please stop pretending that you have any other intention than to poison Roy’s well.
“Mike Flynn, please stop pretending that you have any other intention than to poison Roys well.”
You are spouting unintelligible gibberish again. Loser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop poisoning Roy’s well.
“Mike Flynn, please stop poisoning Roys well.”
What are you burbling about? Roy is well? Were you concerned he was sick – from being poisoned, perhaps? I’m glad to hear you are so concerned about Roy’s health. Who is Roy? Rogers?
You really enjoy trying to be obscure and pretentious, dont you? Or are you just stupid and ignorant?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop vomiting word games.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Please continue to amuse us with your knowledge of the properties of boiling water.
One can use a pressure cooker to make water boil at a higher temperature than 212 F.
However, it seems one cannot teach you any thermodynamics.
“which state that heat cannot transfer itself from a colder to a warmer place.”
That’s true, however, that does not prevent causing a temperature increase in an object that is transferring heat away from itself.
Continue to entertain, what’s your next act?
Bereft of brains bobby,
You wrote –
“One can use a pressure cooker to make water boil at a higher temperature than 212 F.”
Who said you couldn’t? Not me.
You are away with the fairies, arguing with yourself.
Not a good look, bobby.
Try reading what I wrote.
You also wrote –
“Thats true, however, that does not prevent causing a temperature increase in an object that is transferring heat away from itself.”
Now that’s just insane. Do you really think an object heats up by losing energy? This is the real world, and objects do not get hotter all by themselves.
You are obviously living in a bizarre fantasy world. Luckily, your dreams don’t affect reality. No GHE, the Earth has cooled to its present level, and you are obviously a sore loser.
Don’t blame me – you choose to be ignorant and gullible.
Swenson,
This is what you said,
“I will state categorically that it is impossible to boil water directly using the heat from boiling water.”
But you claim you didn’t say that here
“Who said you couldnt? Not me.”
We need a better class of degenerates.
“Now, even allowing for the fact that no amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of even the smallest amount of water (no matter how cunningly you concentrate the IR using fancy lenses or parabolic mirrors), some people still believe in the impossible.”
One make sunlight melt a brick, but only because sunlight is hot enough to melt [or vaporize] a brick.
So collecting sunlight or magnifying sunlight is similar to “bringing the sun closer”. Or radiation goes in random direction, one is narrowing the directed sunlight. Or could say by going closer to the sun, the sunlight hasn’t widened when you are closer to it {yet}.
I will add the sunlight at Earth surface is directed and indirect sunlight: When sun is at zenith {which only occurs in the tropical region, sunlight is about 1050 watts per square meter of directed sunlight and 70 watts per square meters of indirect sunlight. Which totals 1120 watts per square meters of sunlight at sea level.
Roughly, could say the atmosphere widens [spreads out] sunlight as goes further distance thru the atmosphere. And it in terms heating of sunlight to a temperature. At 1 AU distance sunlight heats a blackbody surface to about 120 C, but that’s about 1360 watts. And count 1050 watts in terms how hot it make a surface [which is around 80 C]. Of course if at higher elevation one can get more directed sunlight and more total sunlight [and less indirect sunlight}.
And when sun is not a zenith, you get more indirect sunlight [and less total sunlight.
And peak solar hours, is roughly 3 hours before and after noon {at best 6 hours per day} -and why Earth is lousy place to harvest solar energy.
Oh and why Mars is better place to harvest solar energy in terms sunlight to make electrical power, as compared to anywhere on Earth surface- a lot better if talking about Germany or Canada {and most of China}.
So better than best places on Earth surface, because anywhere on Earth surface you have peak solar hours.
And Mars doesn’t have “peak solar hours, it’s 12 hours a day, and if low on horizon is doesn’t matter- AND on can find places of Mars with more than 12 hours of low horizon sunlight. Particularly closer to polar regions. And polar region have much shorter transmission distance to different time zones.
So polar region work well with Moon and Mars [or Mercury} and really are bad places on Earth.
gb,
As you say, concentrating sunlight is equivalent to bringing the sun closer.
Just as concentrating the IR from say, ice, or boiling water, is just bringing the source closer.
It doesn’t how close the source is brought to the target, the target can never (repeat, never) become as hot as the emitter. The application of a single physical law even indicates how close the temperatures can become, but the two can never become equal – close, but never the same.
Both the “blue plate/green plate” and “Steel Greenhouse” simply ignore physical laws, in their authors’ attempts to leap on the GHE bandwagon, and show how clever they are.
Feynman demonstrates his cleverness by agreeing with me “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” I must admit to confirming the truth of this saying, as did Feynman on more than one occasion.
> It doesnt how close
Mike Flynn, please stop braying.
Thanks, Willard. Now fixed. I’m glad to see that you can’t find anything else wrong.
gb,
As you say, concentrating sunlight is equivalent to bringing the sun closer.
Just as concentrating the IR from say, ice, or boiling water, is just bringing the source closer.
It doesn’t matter how close the source is brought to the target, the target can never (repeat, never) become as hot as the emitter. The application of a single physical law even indicates how close the temperatures can become, but the two can never become equal close, but never the same.
Both the “blue plate/green plate” and “Steel Greenhouse” simply ignore physical laws, in their authors attempts to leap on the GHE bandwagon, and show how clever they are.
Feynman demonstrates his cleverness by agreeing with me “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool”. I must admit to confirming the truth of this saying, as did Feynman on more than one occasion.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop making silly inferences.
Thanks, Willard. Now fixed. Im glad to see that you can’t find anything else wrong. I’ll repeat myself with your approval.
gb,
As you say, concentrating sunlight is equivalent to bringing the sun closer.
Just as concentrating the IR from say, ice, or boiling water, is just bringing the source closer.
It doesn’t matter how close the source is brought to the target, the target can never (repeat, never) become as hot as the emitter. The application of a single physical law even indicates how close the temperatures can become, but the two can never become equal close, but never the same.
Both the “blue plate/green plate” and “Steel Greenhouse” simply ignore physical laws, in their authors attempts to leap on the GHE bandwagon, and show how clever they are.
Feynman demonstrates his cleverness by agreeing with me “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool”. I must admit to confirming the truth of this saying, as did Feynman on more than one occasion.
Mike Flynn, please stop stonewalling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Both the blue plate/green plate and Steel Greenhouse simply ignore physical laws, in their authors attempts to leap on the GHE bandwagon, and show how clever they are.”
Which laws do you believe are ignored, and why?
Nate,
You wrote –
“Which laws do you believe are ignored, and why?”
Not belief, fact.
Why do you want to know? Don’t you understand physics well enough to understand why the stupid “explanations” I referred to are physical impossibilities?
You can’t even describe the mythical GHE, can you? That’s why you pose stupid gotchas, trying to appear clever!
Mike Flynn, please stop revealing that your beliefs do not rest on any relevant fact.
So you claim laws of physics are ignored, but when asked
Which laws do you believe are ignored, and why?
You have no answers, just insults.
Which suggests that, as usual, your claims are BS that cannot be supported.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
The faster rotation prevents a planet to get much warmed at day-time. Thus it prevents it from emitting during the day-time hours much IR outgoing EM energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Let’s consider the planet upper skin-surface as a solar energy tress-pass bondary.
Also the upper skin-surface is where the (solar energy)/ (surface matter) interaction process occurs.
The skin-surface emits IR EM energy at Stefan-Boltzmann non-linear way. It emits IR EM energy at fourth power of its (the skin-surface) temperature T^4 (K).
The skin-surface conducts heat into the surface inner layers at the well known and long ago aknowledged the linear way.
It conducts heat in at first power of its (the skin-surface) temperature T (K).
The solar EM incoming flux has dimension of W/m^2. The same W/m^2 dimension has the IR EM outgoing energy.
And the thermal conduction has the dimension of W/m^2.
For the same solar S (W/m^2) a slower rotating planet-1 surface has a higher the skin-surface temperature T1 (K) than a faster rotating planet-2 , so the T1 >T2.
Let’s compare the solar energy input for the slower rotating planet-1 and for the faster rotating planet-2.
planet-1 /planet-2 = [ S /(T1^4 /T1) ] / [ S /(T2^4 /T2) ] =
planet-1 /planet-2 = T2^3 /T1^3
Conclusion:
The higher is the planet day-time skin-surface temperature T (K), the lower is the solar energy input.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Thus it prevents it from emitting during the day-time hours much IR outgoing EM energy. ”
Like here, for example?
https://i.postimg.cc/sXhYqDNR/SURFRAD-Godwin-Creek-MS-upwelling-IR-050423.png
You write such a load of nonsense.
Thank you, Bindidon, for your response.
Thus it prevents it from emitting during the day-time hours much IR outgoing EM energy.
Like here, for example?
https://i.postimg.cc/sXhYqDNR/SURFRAD-Godwin-Creek-MS-upwelling-IR-050423.png ”
–
–
Now, please compare the very important you provided (Godwin-Creek-MS-upwelling-IR-) with the lunar, at the local lunar noon the upwelling IR.
Links to :
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/54312a19-93fd-40b3-b972-4080595508a4/jgre3030-fig-0005.png
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William_Anderson33/publication/268294443/figure/fig1/AS:295487098900491@1447461022629/Typical-Lunar-Surface-Temperatures-Swanson-and-Butler-2006.png
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.e36b4f91ee071cdda6d34d7992d85ff0?rik=EysXZ%2bZPBaxAVA&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.eike-klima-energie.eu%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2016%2f12%2flunar-surface-temperature1.jpg&ehk=yA7oClMaobL1na3wjZwnO1gUFJ%2f2bvjSS6e0YmC0qsE%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Albert-Juhasz/publication/267402818/figure/fig4/AS:668511223418885@1536396904141/Lunar-surface-temperatures-variation-Noon-to-Noon-Ref-8.ppm
Because…. The faster rotation (EARTH) prevents a planet to get much warmed at day-time. Thus it prevents it from emitting during the day-time hours much IR outgoing EM energy.
–
Thank you again, Bindidon, for your participation in this very important discussion on the planetary temperature the rate of rotation influence.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Now, please compare the very important you provided (Godwin-Creek-MS-upwelling-IR-) with the lunar, at the local lunar noon the upwelling IR. ”
This is known since decades.
The difference has fewer to do with the rotation speed than with Earth’s atmospheric constituents.
Bindidon,
“The difference has fewer to do with the rotation speed than with Earths atmospheric constituents.”
Please explain the 68C difference between the Lunar average surface temperature (220K) and Earth’s average surface temperature (288K).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sorry: you switch now to something different.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Sorry: you switch now to something different.”
What are you sorry about?
Mike Flynn, please stop being totally unaware of how people communicate.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop being totally unaware of how people communicate.”
What, people spouting meaningless lies is “communication”? I suppose it is, between fanatical GHE cultist losers – cooling is warming, climate controls weather, the GHE is “like a greenhouse”, and not like a greenhouse?
You losers just keep redefining words when you get caught out!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop projecting your sociopathy onto Binny.
Willard,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn, please stop being totally unaware of how people communicate.”
What, people spouting meaningless lies is “communication”? I suppose it is, between fanatical GHE cultist losers cooling is warming, climate controls weather, the GHE is “like a greenhouse”, and not like a greenhouse?
You losers just keep redefining words when you get caught out!
Willard, please stop trolling. Accept reality. You are a loser.
Mike Flynn, please stop self-identifying with Humpty Dumpty.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop being totally unaware of how people communicate.”
What, people spouting meaningless lies is “communication”? I suppose it is, between fanatical GHE cultist losers cooling is warming, climate controls weather, the GHE is “like a greenhouse”, and “not like a greenhouse”?
You losers just keep redefining words when you get caught out!
Willard, please stop trolling. Accept reality. You are a loser.
Mike Flynn, please stop imitating the anarchists from The Big Lebowski.
More irrelevant gibberish?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop parading your cultural deprivation.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Entropic man says:
May 17, 2024 at 8:12 AM
“In that time temperature increased by 0.7C from 287.3 to 288C. According to the SB equation the OLR should increase to (288/287.3)^4 *236.5 = 238.7 W/m^2, less an increment due to increased GHGs.”
–
288K and 287,3K according to the SB equation… please explain.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
All else being equal the Stefan-Boltzmann equation calculates that the intensity of emitted thermal radiation increases as the fourth power of the temperature change.
This allowed me to simplify the full equation to
emission at the new temperature = (final temperature/ initial temperature) ^4 * emission at the original temperature.
Temperatures are in degrees Kelvin.
The calculation becomes (288/287.3)^4 * 236.5 = 288.5 W/m^2.
The emission figures came from Walter’s graph. The temperatures came from GISS.
Ent, you can get things so convoluted that it’s impossible to straighten you out.
A black body at 287.3K would be emitting 386 W/m², NOT 236.5 W/m². You’ve got things even more messed up than your cult. And, that’s hard to do….
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“All else being equal the Stefan-Boltzmann equation calculates that the intensity of emitted thermal radiation increases as the fourth power of the temperature change.”
The statement is correct for a blackbody of uniform temperature. A planet (Earth) has not uniform surface temperature. The 288K is the average surface temperature, and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation doesn’t calculate planet average surface temperature.
“All else being equal the Stefan-Boltzmann equation calculates that the intensity of emitted thermal radiation increases as the fourth power of the temperature change.”
“All else being equal” is correct, since it is the same planet (Earth), thus everything else definitely being equal.
“The calculation becomes (288/287.3)^4 * 236.5 = 288.5 W/m^2.”
The (288/287.3)^4 = 1,00978 part is correct, because the New Tmean equation does calculate the planet average surface temperature.
236,5 W/m^2 is not correct.
1). Because planet doesn’t emit at an average intensity.
2). Earth is a smooth surface planet, and Φ = 0,47 .
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You could argue that the emission temperature of Earth is that of the tropopause, 255K, because that gives 240 W/m^2,
but in practice the OLR is a mixture of radiation from areas at different temperatures from the tropical surface to the lower stratosphere.
I chose surface temperatures because they were handy.
You’ve forgotten my purpose. I wanted a quick bote check that Walter’s claim of a 2W/m^2 increase in OLD was credible, which it is.
You complain about my method, so you should be able to show me something better.
I won’t hold my breath; you rattle like a hollow gourd but can contribute nothing.
Ent,
“You complain about my method, so you should be able to show me something better.”
–
I did not complain about your method!
“In that time temperature increased by 0.7C from 287.3 to 288C. According to the SB equation the OLR should increase to (288/287.3)^4 *236.5 = 238.7 W/m^2, less an increment due to increased GHGs.”
What I am saying is:
“According to the New Tmean equation the OLR should increase
(288/287.3)^4 times, or about 1 %.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ent rattles like a hollow gourd because he doesn’t understand the science, and he can’t learn.
He can’t make a whole lot of assumptions about the flux leaving Earth that is meaningful, because no one can. It can’t be done without huge error ranges, which makes any result meaningless. The only meaningful way to tell if Earth is in a warming trend is with the UAH results.
Ent is trying to make solid gold from banana peelings. When you tell him it can’t done, he complains that “…you should be able to show me something better.”
He just can’t learn….
Christos
ClintR was the one complaining.
According to the New Tmean equation the OLR should increase
(288/287.3)^4 times, or about 1 %. ”
I calculated an increase from 286.5 W/m^2 to 288.5 W/m^2. That is an increase of 288.5/286.5 *100 = 0.7%.
Fairly close to your 1%, which is not bad for a simplified calculation.
For a more detailed result, divide the Earth into small regions, do the SB calculation for each region and then combine the regional results to give the global output.
EM,
You wrote –
“For a more detailed result, divide the Earth into small regions, do the SB calculation for each region and then combine the regional results to give the global output”
Complete waste of time. You have no idea of the constantly changing emissivity, no way of measuring the actual surface temperature, and no way of isolating the anthropogenic energy component.
What are you trying to show? Nothing at all!
There is no GHE, the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and the surface cools every night, showing that all the energy received during the day has left the surface! All – none trapped or retained.
Feel free to waste your time trying to demonstrate that I am wrong.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, please stop wasting your time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
walterrh03,
“ Ark and Binny do not live on the same planet we do.”
So now you too are so infatuated with me that you can’t help but mention me in a sub-thread with which I’m not even remotely associated!
I hate to break it to you, but since Atmospheric Physics is not your strong suit, nor is Statistics, I don’t see what we could possibly have in common!
Not interested.
Look who’s ego meter just exploded.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop dehumanizing.
Willard, please stop falsely accusing me of stuff.
“who’s“?
Walter R. Hogle, please stop dreaming of space humans.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
You can’t describe the GHE, which makes you just another fanatical cultist, annoyed at being derided for being ignorant and gullible l
Mike Flynn, please stop ankle biting before your morning coffee.
They probably think that every active thermometer in the globe is being periodically calibrated at the exact time.
Anything to defend the GAT hoax.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop mind probing.
Willard, please stop trying troll. Nobody seems to be getting annoyed.
Mike Flynn, please stop abusing the official convention to PSTer properly.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are a loser.
Mike Flynn, please stop blundering.
walter: They probably think that every active thermometer in the globe is being periodically calibrated at the exact time.
I don’t think that. In fact, I think the exact opposite. I think thermometers that are calibrated are done so at different times. I also think that there are a lot of thermometers that are not calibrated periodically at all.
So, you admit that GAT is completely unrepresentative of the real world, Bdgwx. Look at my reply to Nate above.
walter: So, you admit that GAT is completely unrepresentative of the real world, Bdgwx
No. I didn’t say that. What I said is I think thermometers that are calibrated are done so at different times. I also think that there are a lot of thermometers that are not calibrated periodically at all.
“So now you too are so infatuated with me…”
***
Says a guy who steals Clint’s insults. Or, maybe you are Clint.
Mr. Asshat, please stop the silly insinuations.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner fails to grasp this thread’s object lesson.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Earlier, the slightly dimwitted bobdroege wrote –
“Swenson,
The interior of the Earth has a heat source, so insulating it will help keep it warmer longer.
Might have something to do with Lord Kelvins miscalculation.”, demonstrating his confusion about the mythical GHE.
Of course, a slippery weasel like bumbling bobby never actually describes the mythical GHE, so cannot be accused of saying it supposedly results in higher planetary temperatures!
Instead, he tries to appear clever by saying what any 12 year old child knows – insulation impedes the rate at which heat is transferred!
The Earth has cooled to its current temperature. The surface cools every night. Bobdroege is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
No GHE.
Mike Flynn, please stop using Step 1 of the Contrarian Tango – Pure Denial.
Earlier, the slightly dimwitted bobdroege wrote
“Swenson,
The interior of the Earth has a heat source, so insulating it will help keep it warmer longer.
Might have something to do with Lord Kelvins miscalculation.”, demonstrating his confusion about the mythical GHE.
Of course, a slippery weasel like bumbling bobby never actually describes the mythical GHE, so cannot be accused of saying it supposedly results in higher planetary temperatures!
Instead, he tries to appear clever by saying what any 12 year old child knows insulation impedes the rate at which heat is transferred!
The Earth has cooled to its current temperature. The surface cools every night. Bobdroege is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
No GHE.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop forgetting to refresh the page before posting.
Earlier, the slightly dimwitted bobdroege wrote
“Swenson,
The interior of the Earth has a heat source, so insulating it will help keep it warmer longer.
Might have something to do with Lord Kelvins miscalculation.”, demonstrating his confusion about the mythical GHE.
Of course, a slippery weasel like bumbling bobby never actually describes the mythical GHE, so cannot be accused of saying it supposedly results in higher planetary temperatures!
Instead, he tries to appear clever by saying what any 12 year old child knows insulation impedes the rate at which heat is transferred!
The Earth has cooled to its current temperature. The surface cools every night. Bobdroege is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
No GHE.
As usual, all Willard can do is whine. So far his best attempt at describing the mythical,GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”. No planetary heating there! Willard is both ignorant and gullible – perfect GHE cult material. What a loser!
Mike Flynn, please stop pretending you don’t realize that you misplaced your comment.
Earlier, the slightly dimwitted bobdroege wrote
“Swenson,
The interior of the Earth has a heat source, so insulating it will help keep it warmer longer.
Might have something to do with Lord Kelvins miscalculation.”, demonstrating his confusion about the mythical GHE.
Of course, a slippery weasel like bumbling bobby never actually describes the mythical GHE, so cannot be accused of saying it supposedly results in higher planetary temperatures!
Instead, he tries to appear clever by saying what any 12 year old child knows insulation impedes the rate at which heat is transferred!
The Earth has cooled to its current temperature. The surface cools every night. Bobdroege is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
No GHE.
As usual, all Willard can do is whine. So far his best attempt at describing the mythical GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”. No planetary heating there! Willard is both ignorant and gullible perfect GHE cult material. What a loser!
Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring what you yourself say a youngster knows, but perhaps not Walter R. Hogle.
Earlier, the slightly dimwitted bobdroege wrote
“Swenson,
The interior of the Earth has a heat source, so insulating it will help keep it warmer longer.
Might have something to do with Lord Kelvins miscalculation.”, demonstrating his confusion about the mythical GHE.
Of course, a slippery weasel like bumbling bobby never actually describes the mythical GHE, so cannot be accused of saying it supposedly results in higher planetary temperatures!
Instead, he tries to appear clever by saying what any 12 year old child knows insulation impedes the rate at which heat is transferred!
The Earth has cooled to its current temperature. The surface cools every night. Bobdroege is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
No GHE. If there was, you would not be claiming you couldn’t describe it! What a loser you are!
As usual, all Willard can do is whine. So far his best attempt at describing the mythical GHE is not cooling, slower cooling. No planetary heating there! Willard is both ignorant and gullible perfect GHE cult material. What a loser!
Mike Flynn, please stop xeroxing.
Earlier, the slightly dimwitted bobdroege wrote
“Swenson,
The interior of the Earth has a heat source, so insulating it will help keep it warmer longer.
Might have something to do with Lord Kelvins miscalculation.”, demonstrating his confusion about the mythical GHE.
Of course, a slippery weasel like bumbling bobby never actually describes the mythical GHE, so cannot be accused of saying it supposedly results in higher planetary temperatures!
Instead, he tries to appear clever by saying what any 12 year old child knows insulation impedes the rate at which heat is transferred!
The Earth has cooled to its current temperature. The surface cools every night. Bobdroege is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
No GHE. If there was, Willard would not be claiming he couodn’t describe it! What a loser he is!
As usual, all Willard can do is whine. So far his best attempt at describing the mythical GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”. No planetary heating there! Willard is both ignorant and gullible perfect GHE cult material. What a loser!
Mike Flynn, please stop increasing your information entropy.
Swenson,
Is your repeating yourself an early sign of dementia?
Is your forgetting that the greenhouse effect has been described for you many times, also an indication of dementia?
My understanding is that the heat source is radioactivity. If so, no need to keep it warm.
testing
ent….”All else being equal the Stefan-Boltzmann equation calculates that the intensity of emitted thermal radiation increases as the fourth power of the temperature change”.
***
The T^4 relationship came from the Tyndall experimental data where a platinum filament was heated to temperatures between about 500C and 1500C where it glowed colours. I have seen no evidence that it applies outside that range. Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both with considerable and significant experience in thermodynamics claims that it does not, that the T^4 needs to be changed to accommodate different temperatures.
It would be very tough to prove it under that range because they measured light frequencies, that is, within the visible spectrum. How would you prove it for infrared frequencies and below?
It appears to me that those claiming it covers the entire range have simply extrapolated a T^4 curve between 500C and 1500C to other frequencies without testing.
Mr. Asshat, please stop coatracking your usual stuff –
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/gerlich-tscheuschner/
This paper suggests the real value is not T^4 but T^3.74. But, hey, who cares? When you fudge, what difference does a 6.5% error make?
https://tinyurl.com/mwy3urw9
It makes a big difference, especially if the result is used in subsequent calculations.
Mr. Asshat, please stop forgetting the punchline:
Op. Cit.
Those from the peanut gallery can thank me later.
Willard,
Your nonsense is all well and good, but how does it relate to the mythical GHE which you laughingly describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Are you really as dim as you seems?
Mike Flynn, please stop injecting your sammich request wherever you go.
walter…actually, Stefan went to a lot of trouble to remove heat losses in his own experiments. He invented a measuring device that reduced heat loss via conduction/convection. However, no one has elaborated on what range of temperatures he was measuring.
The significance of Tyndall’s experiment was the absolute verification of the T^4 relationship, or thereabouts. Stefan had worked out some other relationship that was a fraction which came close to T^4.
Personally, I find the entire exercise lacking in precision. What Stefan worked out has nothing to do with power but if you look at the amended Stefan-Boltzmann relationship it supplies a rate of heat dissipation that was not in the original Stefan calculation.
So, what we have is a lot of black magic from Boltzmann’s theoretical calculations based on statistical mechanics. From Boltzmann’s fairy-tale science comes a redefinition of the entropy defined by Clausius. That, to me, was sheer arrogance, which was adopted by Planck rather than using the Clausius definition of entropy, which is about heat.
But, hey, what can you do when you replace gases with statistical data points? When you move into a fictitious environment like statistics, reality goes out the window. However, groupies have bought into the theoretical nonsense and from that comes a fairy tale world in which radiation fits a neat T^4 curve covering all temperatures.
But, what is the reality?
wee willy…”This error is likely due to the fact…”.
***
There’s that likely word again. Do you rally think Tyndall was that dumb?
Mr. Asshat, please stop denying what your own authorities are saying.
“Mike Flynn, please stop injecting your sammich request wherever you go.”
You’re an idiot, but at least you are incomprehensible to go with it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop sputtering.
“Mike Flynn, please stop injecting your sammich request wherever you go.”
Youre an idiot, but at least you are incomprehensible to go with it. That makes you a loser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop stuttering and say what you mean.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop injecting your sammich request wherever you go.”
You are an idiot, but at least you are incomprehensible to go with it. That makes you a loser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop blustering.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn, please stop injecting your sammich request wherever you go.”
You are an idiot, but at least you are incomprehensible to go with it. That makes you a loser.
Willard, please stop trolling, loser.
Mike Flynn, please stop lacking any sense of shame.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop injecting your sammich request wherever you go.”
You are a idiot, but at least you are incomprehensible to go with it. That makes you a loser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop being such a lousy red clown.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn, please stop injecting your sammich request wherever you go.”
You are an idiot, but at least you are incomprehensible to go with it. That makes you a loser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop to always show up empty handed.
“Mike Flynn, please stop to always show up empty handed.”
English expression is not your strong point, is it? Loser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop being a tosser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Is there something you want to say?
Willard, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A single principle underlies all Kelvin’s arguments about the age of the Earth–that energy is conserved. To carry out his analyses, Kelvin added three assumptions, two of which applied only to his arguments about the Earth: that the planet is rigid and that its physical properties are homogeneous. The third assumption, that there was no undiscovered source of energy, applied both to the Earth and to the Sun. We now know that the third assumption explains Kelvin’s error about the age of the Sun; the energy radiated by the Sun is generated by the fusion of hydrogen into helium in its interior, although quantitative demonstration that this is so had to await the detection of the “missing neutrinos” in 2001.
The conventional story has it that Kelvin’s third assumption was also his undoing in calculating the age of the Earth. Although it is true that the decay of radioactive elements inside the Earth provides a long-lived source of heat, ignorance of this energy source was not responsible for Kelvin’s incorrect estimate for the age of the Earth. The real mistake in his argument was pointed out by one of his former assistants, John Perry, almost a decade before radioactivity became recognized as a source of heat.
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/kelvin-perry-and-the-age-of-the-earth
Seldom is the question asked – is our Climateball contrarians learning?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You are away with the fairies again, you gullible twit. You don’t seem to realise that “A single principle underlies all Kelvins arguments about the age of the Earththat energy is conserved” is complete nonsense.
If the Earth is cooling, as Kelvin knew by measurements of energy loss, then it is losing more energy than it is receiving – from both internal and external sources. No “energy conservation”, at all!
This is what you get if you uncritically accept journalistic puffery.
You refuse to state whether you believe the planet is getting hotter, because even you don’t believe it! You can’t even say what you mean by “deniers” and “contrarians”.
You are a real loser, aren’t you? You don’t know what you believe in, and complain and whine when anybody points it out.
Carry on being an idiot – or accept reality.
Mike Flynn, please stop showing a total disregard for the history of science on a science blog.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You are away with the fairies again, you gullible twit. You dont seem to realise that A single principle underlies all Kelvins arguments about the age of the Earththat energy is conserved is complete nonsense.
If the Earth is cooling, as Kelvin knew by measurements of energy loss, then it is losing more energy than it is receiving from both internal and external sources. No “energy conservation”, at all!
This is what you get if you uncritically accept journalistic puffery.
You refuse to state whether you believe the planet is getting hotter, because even you dont believe it! You cant even say what you mean by “deniers” and “contrarians”.
You are a real loser, arent you? You dont know what you believe in, and complain and whine when anybody points it out.
Carry on being an idiot or accept reality. Maybe you could acquaint yourself with the meaning of “science”? Or keep on being a gullible and ignorant loser. Your choice.
Mike Flynn, please stop displaying your ignorance about one of your pet topic.
At least try to learn English.
If you don’t know what is wrong with –
“Mike Flynn, please stop displaying your ignorance about one of your pet topic.”, then you are ignorant.
If you write things you know to be wrong, you are either a fool or a fraud.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb about a famous bushism.
“Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb about a famous bushism.”
Willard doesnt need a new gibberish generator.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop postponing your abdication.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thank you for this other win, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Hey EBEN
I can’t find any discussion from you on the solar cycle this month.
Is something wrong?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1660432
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Eben-
Looks like May will be about 140 or more.
NOAA latest prediction might be close:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/noaa-forecasts-quicker-stronger-peak-solar-activity
But I wouldn’t bet on it being close. I think their first prediction may end up, being closer.
They say: “We expect that our new experimental forecast will be much more accurate than the 2019 panel prediction and, unlike previous solar cycle predictions, it will be continuously updated on a monthly basis as new sunspot observations become available, Miesch said. Its a pretty significant change.–
I haven’t been following their monthly update {unless they mean the 27 day forcasts]. I am looking this [linked above} “experimental forecast”. Which has quite large range in terms of a guess: 137 to 173. The lower 137 might be close, but has pick up a lot more.
Try 160 plus/minus 30.
And counter to Eben’s bravado, the SSN WILL have a new peak for November 2023, after a four month lull.
It will be difficult to get to NOAA’s 155 prediction, given that the strong months of June and July 2023 are about to fall off the back end. It depends on whether this cycle stays strong after July/August.
It could easily drop back again after next month. May and June would need together to average 150 in order for December 2023 to continue the rise over November.
After that:
Jun-Jul 161 in order to rise from December to January.
Jul-Aug 138 in order to rise from January to February.
Aug-Sep 125 in order to rise from February to March.
Sep-Oct 117 in order to rise from March to April.
Oct-Nov 104 in order to rise from April to May.
Nov-Dec 111 in order to rise from May to June.
Those apply whether or not there is a fall in the interim.
My personal target is 137 … the value where Zharkova becomes more wrong than McIntosh. Whichever one “wins”, hopefully this is enough to convince people that NO ONE has a clue in their long-term predictions of the solar cycle.
AND … it won’t be making any difference to climate.
27 day:
“This will lead to a relative lull in
activity compared to the past week. However, a couple of regions
rotating on will maintain the potential for at least moderate
activity.”
A lot depends on this predicted “lull” which is coming and it could make May, 140 or more
“It could easily drop back again after next month. May and June would need together to average 150 in order for December 2023 to continue the rise over November.”
It’s needed or experimental prediction is wrong.
But 160 for both months would a lot more helpful as to the prediction.
AND that also could cast some doubt on Valentina Zharkova prediction.
Zharkova’s prediction is already blown out of the water, especially given that she claimed her method is 98% accurate (a complete mis-statement by her of the meaning of that figure in PCA.)
Anyone can plug data into PCA and get a result, whether or not PCA analysis merited, and whether or not they know how to properly interpret the result. Case in point with her: feeding in only the last 4 cycles when there was a decreasing trend, and whammo … out pops a decreasing trend! Why didn’t she feed in ALL the cycles?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
The sun lights up for few days and flips in to full twerp mode
Flynnson
Please stop endlessly polluting this blog with your egomaniacal ramblings.
Is ‘Swenson’ a mentally deranged sock puppet of Flynn or of DREMT, or both?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Antonin Qwerty
” I can’t find any discussion from you on the solar cycle this month. ”
Even from other coolistas such as Palmowski you look in vain for something: they all post only when SC25 drops below a SSN of 50.
*
This is only EISN (estimated daily data) for May but gives us at least a hint:
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-EISN
*
The mean EISN value for May is ~ 170. An official monthly value around 155-160 for May is more probable, however.
*
Daily SSN for SC23/24/25:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CQoF9NsU9LaT4V9xWBxkO5HM8K6KjTtN/view
SC24 reached its daily maximum (220) on 2014, Feb 27; a maximum in the fifth year is rather typical, what means that SC25’s maximum might appear in 2025.
*
The Eben dachshund always tries to discredit my charts, saying the cycles would be ‘misaligned’ but never was able to explain what he means, let alone to prove his nonsensical claim.
Pretty sure he’s referring to the sunspot cycles for the northern and southern solar hemispheres being out of phase. Which was the case for SC24, and indeed why we had two peaks.
What he doesn’t understand is that in each cycle, the two hemispheres also typically have different amplitudes.
He sees the two hemispheres approximately tracking each other, and believes that tells him they must be in phase.
He doesn’t consider the possibility that one might be peaking at a low value (say 65), while the other might be destined for a later AND HIGHER peak, and just happens to be sitting at around 65 at the moment.
This is the typical one-dimensional (“I’ve got the answer I want, don’t tell me any more”) thinking we get from these people.
I never saw him mentioning the hemispheres.
Last year I generated a chart out of them:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TdHariyGF7LVurFGdVAbf4EggdfWkEpI/view
I Can’t recall having seen this data anywhere on the blog.
*
Nevertheless, this hemispheric splitting is not very relevant in a discussion about the SSN: it is global solar data.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1660603
Once more, the Eben dachshund keeps on his systematically, aggressive, polemical line, referring to a Palmowski picture which lacked as usual any scientific explanation Eben himself couldn’t provide as well.
Moreover, Eben is the leading crackpot of a new pseudo-scientific discipline: the Oblivionism.
I believe the phase of the hemispheres does have some relevance.
The different phases of SC24 made the global peak under-representative of the true strength of the cycle.
Numerically, it is similar to destructive interference of waves. Except that the effect on earth is the sum of the two waves without the interference.
So I believe we should be adding the two peaks in order to more accurately represent the cycle. Unfortunately the hemispheric data is only in its third cycle (although I’ve seen reconstructed data from earlier which I might look up again). But by adding the peaks we get:
SC23: 189
SC24: 140
SC25: 128 so far
But even that is not great, because it doesn’t account for the duration of the peaks and troughs. Instead we should be looking at the average over the entire cycle:
SC23: 82
SC24: 49
SC25: 66 to date
(To put the 66 in perspective, up to today’s date in 2013 SC24’s average was 52 and rising, reaching a peak of high 66’s in April 2015, hovering there for 10 months, before falling to 49 at the end of the cycle. It will be interesting to see which side of 66 SC25 settles on by the end of the cycle.)
Who Is Starlink Home Internet Best For?
“Starlink is available almost anywhere on planet Earth. Its advanced, low-orbiting satellites are capable of delivering solid internet connectivity even in areas where wires cant reach. However, its speeds dont match up to the lightning-fast speeds of fiber internet, and many cable internet providers offer speedier internet for cheaper prices.
This makes Starlink best-suited for rural homes, cabins, and off-grid locations where there are few internet options. Its also great to have for RVers, campers, and nomads. But, if you live in a metropolitan or suburban area, you should look into options for fiber or cable internet instead.”
https://www.homeowner.com/connectivity/starlink-review
Nomads.
But also if in a war zone- and Russia is trying to destroy your signal, in that case, if in metropolitan or suburban area or a nomad or whatever.
Climate Change Claim: People will be 31% Poorer by 2100
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/18/climate-change-claim-people-will-be-31-poorer-by-2100/
I kind of disagree as that applies to a host of hobbies that government could choose to do.
North Sea Oil Workers Cannot be Sacrificed on the Altar of Net Zero: Unions Go to War on Labours Irresponsible Green Policy
“In a move which has been remarkably underreported in England, the union Unite has launched a campaign against Labours policy of refusing licences for new oil and gas extraction in the North Sea.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/18/north-sea-oil-workers-cannot-be-sacrificed-on-the-altar-of-net-zero-unions-go-to-war-on-labours-irresponsible-green-policy/
That would be important if most members of Unions were doing any kind of real work. But those days are over.
We applied the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which explaines the so much large difference of +68Cbetween our Moon and our planet Earth.
When considering the (solar EM energy)/(surface matter) interaction process, the surfaces of Earth and Moon have those the two great differences between them. Earth rotates much-much faster than Moon, and, also, Earth’s surface is covered with water.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Earth rotates much-much faster than Moon”
The moon rotates? Freudian slip? Your rotation-denying buddies won’t like that.
Thank you, Antonin, for your response.
Antonin, when I say Earth rotates faster than Moon, what actually I do is comparing their diurnal cycles duration. What I meant by this is that Earth has much-much shorter days, and Earth has much-much shorter nights, than Moon.
–
When we say the sun rises, we do not actually mean sun moves around Earth. We know sun is always there, it is Earth’s rotation – it is Earth’s surface moves, and as it moves and as Earth’s surface is not flat, because Earth is of a spherical shape, sun appears to rise above Earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas means something very special: orbiotation, a movement in which the rotation of some celestial bodies dissolves into their orbital motion.
Hello, Bindidon.
“Vournas means something very special: orbiotation, a movement in which the rotation of some celestial bodies dissolves into their orbital motion.”
–
–
Because Earth rotates much-much faster than Moon, and, also, Earths surface is covered with water.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
From your link:
“N – rotations/day, is the planet’s AXIAL spin.”
Antonin, it is good Earth is not flat.
What do you think?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yeah … it’s also good that there is no “god”, and that water is wet.
Any other obvious statements you want me to confirm, or can we get back to addressing your correct claim that the moon undergoes axial rotation?
AQ,
“Yeah its also good that there is no “god”. . . ”
That’s interesting. Is it equally as “good” that there is no GHE, too?
Are you a pretentious idiot, or just an ordinary idiot?
Only joking, those are rhetorical questions. You don’t need to answer.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, please stop turning a blind eye to Christos’ brain fart.
I do as I wish. There is nothing you can do about it, except grind your teeth and wish it wasn’t so.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop advertising your sociopathy.
I do as I wish. There is nothing you can do about it, except grind your teeth and wish it wasnt so.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nate,
2lot demands that a hotter body surrounded by a cold sink cool..
If excluding the simple fact that the hotter body is being heatedby the sun..
Why do you do that PhilJ?
The Earth is always close to energy balance..
The simple observational fact is that in recent decades the, the Earth has been heating.
Why do you ignore these inconvenient facts, PhilJ?”
Who’s excluding the sun? The Earth has cooled despite solar input for 4 + billion years. It must continue to do so until it reaches the limit of only being warmed by the sun
The Earth must lose all the heat it gains from a constant solar input plus some measure of its internal heat
The sb temp used to determine the supposed Earth temp based solely on solar input is the limit that Earth must eventually cool to.
You are mistaken that the Earth is getting warmer. However increased solar input has raised ocean surface Temps somewhat and that heat is being transferred to the atmosphere and out to space, as it must.
PhilJ
Are you trying to behave like a sockpuppet of Mike Flynn aka Swenson?
At least it seems so to me…
The ‘cooling’ of Earth’s interior: about 50 TW, i.e. less than 1 W/m^2.
What’s that compared to Sun’s energy reaching us, PhilJ?
Less than half a peanut.
Thanks for making me laugh with your perfect tip on 2Lot. Great.
Bindidon – They all receive their training at the same chain of schools.
Yes.
And the very best would be to let them compare Earth’s ‘cooling since 4.5 billion years’ with the worldwide average of
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/ave_check.php
over a year.
Sorry, wrong link.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/ave_664a0a3f58eb4.png
The link above might be a bad one too (‘temp’).
https://tinyurl.com/mszknfmm (grrrr, d c)
Hello Bindidon,
Let’s look at this another way,
The temp of the abyssal ocean is near equilibrium with the temp of the surface beneath it, This is all geothernal heat as no solar radiation penetrates to these depths.
So take a BB with a temp around 278 K would radiate around 338 w/m2
now at 200 w/m2 solar input and for the surface to cool it must be radiating 538 w/m2 or so.
which gives a projected surface temp of around 318 K
thus i suggest the cooling effect of water on the surface is about 40k on average.
of course the Earth is much hotter than a blackbody at 278 K but this provided a much better model to start with than the fundamentaly flawaed BB earth at 0 k heated only by the sun.
Bindi has found the SURFRAD site! And, like Norman, he can’t understand any of it!
His second effort at a link shows that Colorado is warmer in summer than in winter. I guess Bindi believes that somehow proves the bogus GHE?
“The cooling of Earths interior: about 50 TW, i.e. less than 1 W/m^2.
Whats that compared to Suns energy reaching us, PhilJ?
Less than half a peanut.”
if 1 w/m2 of HEAT is insignificant, how much more backradiation that adds no heat?
HEAT is not strong enough, Phil.
Try H E A T.
Why do you keep insisting on 0.027% of Earth’s total energy budget?
Silly willy seldom attempts anything close to science, but when he does it’s always especially ridiculous. — “Why do you keep insisting on 0.027% of Earth’s total energy budget?”
Of course silly willy has no clue what that means, he’s just babbling incoherently.
Puffman should leave gaslighting to Mike Flynn, Graham D. Warner, or TS:
> The geothermal heat flow from the Earth’s interior is estimated to be 47 terawatts (TW)and split approximately equally between radiogenic heat and heat left over from the Earth’s formation. This corresponds to an average flux of 0.087 W/m2 and represents only 0.027% of Earth’s total energy budget at the surface, being dwarfed by the 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
Perhaps he secretly wishes his maths were as good as Phils.
As expected, silly willy can’t understand his own cult’s nonsense.
I predict he will just keep babbling incoherently.
Puffman, please stop sealing yourself in silly Kafka traps.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
“This corresponds to an average flux of 0.087 W/m2 and represents only 0.027% of Earths total energy budget at the surface, being dwarfed by the 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation.”
Quite irrelevant. During the night, the Earth loses all of the heat of the day, plus a little internal heat. That’s why the surface has cooled to its present temperature in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight.
Your Wiki author is as ignorant and gullible as you. Accept reality, fool.
Mike Flynn, please stop being so cringe.
Flynnson
” Quite irrelevant. During the night, the Earth loses all of the heat of the day, plus a little internal heat. ”
Completely dumb, ignorant, laughable nonsense.
The Earth loses all the heat it can during all the day, from midnight to midnight.
But you are perverse enough to intentionally ignore and deny what is measured day after day.
Awwwww, Binny,
And I thought you respected people like Baron Fourier, and his writings on heat! They were good enough for dummies like Tyndall and Kelvin, but he is not good enough for you.
Fourier wrote –
“Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself”, whilst explaining why the Earth has cooled, in spite of the Sun’s enormous radiation input.
So when you characterise Fourier’s accurate statement as “Completely dumb, ignorant, laughable nonsense.”, you just look like you are completely dumb, ignorant, laughable and nonsensical.
Maybe you believe in a GHE, which you can’t describe because you lost the description, or the dog ate it, or something.
Maybe you could read “General Remarks on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Spaces.” by Fourier (in the original French if you wish), and provide your reasons for calling Fourier’s work completely dumb, ignorant, laughable and nonsensical.
Off you go, now. Convince others you are not an idiot.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that the “part of what is peculiar to itself” is really really really smol, and please stop forgetting that your pet Baron’s ideas about heat from interplanetary space did not age very well.
Awwwww, Binny,
And I thought you respected people like Baron Fourier, and his writings on heat! They were good enough for dummies like Tyndall and Kelvin, but he is not good enough for you.
Fourier wrote
Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself, whilst explaining why the Earth has cooled, in spite of the Suns enormous radiation input.
So when you characterise Fouriers accurate statement as “Completely dumb, ignorant, laughable nonsense.”, you just look like you are completely dumb, ignorant, laughable and nonsensical.
Maybe you believe in a GHE, which you cant describe because you lost the description, or the dog ate it, or something.
Maybe you could read “General Remarks on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Spaces.” by Fourier (in the original French if you wish), and provide your reasons for calling Fouriers work completely dumb, ignorant, laughable and nonsensical.
Off you go, now. Convince others you are not an idiot.
Mike Flynn, please stop duplicating your silliest comments.
PhilJ, very interesting insights:
“Whos excluding the sun? The Earth has cooled despite solar input for 4 + billion years. It must continue to do so until it reaches the limit of only being warmed by the sun
The Earth must lose all the heat it gains from a constant solar input plus some measure of its internal heat
The sb temp used to determine the supposed Earth temp based solely on solar input is the limit that Earth must eventually cool to.”
–
–
“…the supposed Earth temp based solely on solar input is the limit that Earth must eventually cool to”
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/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the theoretically calculated one and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hello Christos,
Interesting,
but why would you assume that an Earth which has cooled to the point of no longer having an atmosphere (and therefore no oceans either), would still be spinning?
PhilJ,
“would still be spinning?”
–
What else Earth had to do to get warmed a little? <(';-)=
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Very interesting Christos,
My I suggest that the rate of spin directly correlates with the internal energy of the celestial body and that perhaps your equation is building in the actual internal heat of the body.
Wish my math was better lol
PhilJ,
“Very interesting Christos,”
Thank you, PhilJ.
equation is building in the actual Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
The Phenomenon correlates spin (N) and average surface specific heat (cp) with average surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Whos excluding the sun?”
You tried to.
“The Earth has cooled despite solar input for 4 + billion years. It must continue to do so until it reaches the limit of only being warmed by the sun. “The Earth must lose all the heat it gains from a constant solar input plus some measure of its internal heat””
And yet, currently it is not. It is warming.
The geothermal contribution to the energy balance is tiny, ~ 80 mW/M^2
Whereas the Earth has been gaining at nearly 10 times this rate at 0.7 W/M^2.
“You are mistaken that the Earth is getting warmer.”
Mistaken? Now that’s just you in denial of inconvenient facts.
Nutty Nate,
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
The Earth cannot “warm” unless you can provide a sufficiently large source of heat to overcome the 44 TW or so of the energy continuously lost from the Earth.
You are no doubt confused by the impact of heat from anthropogenic energy production and use on thermometers registering this additional heat.
The rate at which the Earth is cooling is in the order of one to four millionths of a Kelvin per annum, according to geophysicists.
Given that the Earth is hotter than outer space at around 4 K, why do you think that the Earth might magically get hotter? Outer space transferring heat to the hotter Earth? That’s what fanatical GHE cultists believe, don’t they?
Are you mistaken, or delusional?
“The Earth cannot warm unless you can provide a sufficiently large source of heat to overcome the 44 TW or so of the energy continuously lost from the Earth.”
Wow, 44 TW. That’s a lot! As usual you fail at being quantitative.
Divided by the area of the Earth, that is 44e12/(4*pi*6400^2*1000^2) =
0.085 W/m^2
So the solar input is 240 W/m^2, which is 3000 times larger!
“You are no doubt confused by the impact of heat from anthropogenic energy production and use on thermometers registering this additional heat.”
No I’m not you are. Because you never bothered to calculate how much that is providing, which is, relatively not much!
“Given that the Earth is hotter than outer space at around 4 K, why do you think that the Earth might magically get hotter? Outer space transferring heat to the hotter Earth? Thats what fanatical GHE cultists believe, dont they?”
Why do you guys keep conveniently forgetting that the Earth has a hot neighbor. It’s the sun, stoopid!
All in all this is Swenson displaying his usual extreme science and math illiteracy.
“Given that the Earth is hotter than outer space at around 4 K, why do you think that the Earth might magically get hotter? Outer space transferring heat to the hotter Earth?”
Well, you are on to something there. Space is ~ 3 K is very cold, and transfers very little to the Earth. The Earth at 288 K ought to be transferring around 5.67e-8*288^4 = 390 W/m^2. Lets allow for an emissivity of 0.95, then it ought to be transferring 370 W/m^2 to space.
But it is only abs0rbing 240 W/m^2 from the sun, which is 130 W/m^2 less then Earth seems to be emitting!
That is a problem. Something must be prevention around 130 W/m^2 from being emitted from the Earth to space.
What could it be? Could it be a greenhouse effect?
No, not according to GHE deniers. What could it be then?
Nate,
In your usual idiotic fashion, completely rejecting reality, you wrote –
“That is a problem. Something must be prevention around 130 W/m^2 from being emitted from the Earth to space.”
The problem is that you refuse to accept the fact that the Earth has cooled to its current temperature, and that the surface cools each night.
How can that be? Are you mentally defective? Stupid? Ignorant? Gullible beyond belief?
The world wonders!
“That is a problem. Something must be preventing around 130 W/m^2 from being emitted from the Earth to space.”
As expected, you have no explanation for how the 130 W/m^2 emitted from the surface, does not make it to space.
But according to your religion, it cannot be a GHE.
Thus you change the subject to your usual red herrings and insults.
Nate says:
”That is a problem. Something must be prevention around 130 W/m^2 from being emitted from the Earth to space.
What could it be? Could it be a greenhouse effect?
No, not according to GHE deniers. What could it be then?”
Water vapor of course. We know that water vapor meets the requirements of M&W in changing the lapse rate. CO2 does not.
And as usual, Bill is confused and says non-relevant stuff.
Nate seems to be declaring that water vapor isn’t responsible for a greenhouse effect. Totally weird this guy is.
Ur baiting, Im not biting.
“The Earth cannot warm unless you can provide a sufficiently large source of heat to overcome the 44 TW or so of the energy continuously lost from the Earth.”
Swenson, I understand that you are impressed with this number, but you must be mentally unable to do the math to find that this very large number of Watts still only amounts to a 0.085 W per m^2 of the Earth’s surface.
This is 1/3000 of what the sun’s heat provides to the Earth.
Oh well, ignorance must be bliss!
Nate says:
”Ur baiting, Im not biting.”
Attempting to get you to agree that water vapor satisfies M&W’s change of lapse rate criteria is baiting?
Boy you must be totally paranoid about the strength of the science wrt climate change.
Still baiting, ie saying insults for no other reason than to get a reaction.
Just stop.
I guess the question as to whether you agree that water vapor is a gas in the atmosphere ‘known’ to be capable of changing the lapse rate and thus capable of creating its own feedback cycle and is in compliance with M&W theory will never be answered by you.
Why you are afraid to go there isn’t really a mystery.
You did not address my point, Bill.
you seemed to be trying to make a lot of points. I just addressed the most obvious one.
“in compliance with M&W theory”
My point was that a GHE is required to understand the reduction in emissions from the surface when it is finally emitted to space.
If you are deferring to M&W then you must be agreeing that there is a GHE.
Nate says:
”My point was that a GHE is required to understand the reduction in emissions from the surface when it is finally emitted to space.
If you are deferring to M&W then you must be agreeing that there is a GHE.”
Must? You aren’t at all good with constructing a logical argument that would require a ”must”.
I am discussing M&W theory which hasn’t been established for CO2 but actually makes sense for water vapor as it rises in the atmosphere it condenses to water and releases latent heat which reduces the lapse rate.
But going so far to say anything that makes sense, theoretically, must in fact be true is going way too far.
When it comes to natural climate change we are only looking for in total less than .5C natural forcing from a combination of solar input and its extended feedbacks of melting ice and increasing sea level, all decreasing albedo and increasing water vapor, since the LIA, ala Dr. Syun Akasofu’s underlying LIA recovery line. That just so happens to match the entire length of the industrial age blamed for CO2 emissions.
And since the IPCC allows for a good probability that .6c could be natural, do we really need to remain concerned about CO2 emissions? Perhaps there is a IPCC paper out there explaining comprises the uncertainties they are recognizing.
“I am discussing M&W theory which hasnt been established for CO2 but actually makes sense for water vapor as it rises in the atmosphere it condenses to water and releases latent heat which reduces the lapse rate.”
Then you failed to read and understand M&W. Because it clearly discussed the CO2 GHE, and if you recall, how its increase was predicted to cause both tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, which turned out to be accurate!
It is ridiculous to cherry pick findings that you like and reject all that you don’t like, as if what they have done and found is on an a la carte menu.
It is not.
M&W calculates a forcing that can be fully attributable to latent heat from water phases changes and simply declares it as CO2 doing the job without describing any mechanism for it to do so.
If I am wrong provide a link to the study and the paragraph where the mechanism is described and tested as to be workable or just pack it in and continue with your unsupported blabbery.
“M&W calculates a forcing that can be fully attributable to latent heat from water phases”
False. Not a forcing. Show a quote saying anything like this.
Wow!
Nate declares forcing has no role in M&W theory causing CO2 to warm the surface. It is true that M&W did not detail how CO2 would warm the surface just that one can mathematically allocate through the air column. . . .whatever it is that causes the warming.
Problem is:
”In accordance with the basic laws of thermodynamics, as Earth absorbs energy from the sun, it must eventually emit an equal amount of energy to space. The difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is known as a planets radiative forcing (RF).”
https://tinyurl.com/3jau85xx
An increase in sunlight from orbital variation, an increase in UV from solar maximums both change climate forcing. Water vapor actually fits M&W lapse rate change models as it is able to change the lapse rate. Thus all you need is a little bit of solar forcing from orbit distance from the sun changes for it to evaporate more surface water and because water vapor not being evenly distributed in the atmosphere, changes to surface warming can occur in one region while not occurring in others. . .as we have seen is the nature of current climate change.
Thus a series of strong solar cycles will trigger long term feedback effects via water vapor increases on earth’s solar forcing. Thats a given.
And with a long history of increasing global precipitation, that is consistent with M&W theory.
Thus lacking is a rigorous review of natural climate change resulting from the gravitational aberrations to earth’s orbit via Newton’s law of gravity exerted on earth by the positions of various planets in the sky, solar maximums, and all its feedbacks, the total effect of which is not well established in science.
CO2’s role in how it changes the lapse rate remains a blank yet to be filled in by science. Their claim is simply that CO2 reduces outgoing radiation while completely ignoring the fact that water changes phases based upon the temperature of its surroundings so if CO2 does reduce outgoing radiation, causes local warming in the atmosphere, water vapor will slow its condensation rate and produce a negative feedback locally blocking and reducing the surface effects.
“Nate declares forcing has no role in M&W theory causing CO2 to warm the surface.”
No I didnt. You are ridiculous.
Im glad you looked up what a forcing is, finally!
Nate says:
Nate agrees: ” ”in compliance with M&W theory”
My point was that a GHE is required to understand the reduction in emissions from the surface when it is finally emitted to space.”
Nate also disagrees that: ”M&W calculates a forcing that can be fully attributable to latent heat from water phases” by saying:
”False. Not a forcing. Show a quote saying anything like this.”
and Nate agrees: ”The difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is known as a planets radiative forcing”
—————–
The sum of those positions of yours is N&W doesn’t calculate a forcing from CO2. Is that correct? If so then what is the relevance of M&W or are you just so confused you don’t know what you are saying from minute to minute?
“The sum of those positions of yours is N&W doesnt calculate a forcing from CO2. ”
Never said any such thing.
Obviously you feel you cannot win by debating what your opponent actually claims!
So you assign fake strawman claims to them.
Kindly take your fraud elsewhere, loser.
“In accordance with the basic laws of thermodynamics, as Earth absorbs energy from the sun, it must eventually emit an equal amount of energy to space. The difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is known as a planets radiative forcing (RF).”
How is it you think condensing water vapor is changing the incoming or outgoing radiation to space?
Nate says:
”How is it you think condensing water vapor is changing the incoming or outgoing radiation to space?”
You have to be kidding!
Obviously the process of the release of latent heat is via conversion to either radiation warming GHG in the atmosphere or the surface, or going to space. Every one of those things will affect the amount of radiation going to space.
“will affect” as many things do.
Latent heat and convection are two means of transferring heat from the surface to the troposphere.
The actual forcing must be radiative, at the TOA. Either SW or LW.
TOA is a bad term as the surface isn’t part of TOA and it counts. So once again all you are doing is spewing gobbledygook.
I see. As so often when you don’t understand a science term, you claim it should mean something else!
It doesn’t. Sorry.
Nate your ignorance is astounding. you are all over the place like a soup sandwich.
toa is a specialized term. it means the place in the atmosphere where emissions to space occurs.
you said: ”The difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is known as a planets radiative forcing (RF).
How is it you think condensing water vapor is changing the incoming or outgoing radiation to space?
The actual forcing must be radiative, at the TOA. Either SW or LW.”
—————————
the forcing can be at the surface, not in the atmosphere Nate. it can be due to increased insolation from orbital variation, solar maximums ,including grand maximums increases in albedo from the surface or at any level in the atmosphere. you are just so inculcated you can’t get beyond the ”the official narrative”.
“the forcing can be at the surface, not in the atmosphere Nate. it can be due to increased insolation from orbital variation, solar maximums ,including grand maximums increases in albedo from the surface or at any level in the atmosphere. you are just so inculcated you cant get beyond the the official narrative.”
False.
https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/radiative-forcing
“Radiative forcing is what happens when the amount of energy that enters the Earths atmosphere is different from the amount of energy that leaves it. Energy travels in the form of radiation: solar radiation entering the atmosphere from the sun, and infrared radiation exiting as heat.”
Nate says:
Radiative forcing is what happens when the amount of energy that enters the Earths atmosphere is different from the amount of energy that leaves it. Energy travels in the form of radiation: solar radiation entering the atmosphere from the sun, and infrared radiation exiting as heat.
————————
”solar radiation entering the atmosphere from the sun”
its absorbed or reflected at the surface as well by oxygen species and other things in the sky that isn’t at toa. toa only is applicable for outgoing radiation originating from the atmosphere. you are confounding net radiation with toa radiation. . .the latter is only a portion of the radiation that makes up net radiation.
toa does not even appear in the reference you provided a link to. not only are you parading ignorance here you are tripping over your own feet in trying to deny your goof up.
“its absorbed or reflected at the surface as well by oxygen species and other things in the sky that isnt at toa. toa only is applicable for outgoing radiation originating from the atmosphere. you are confounding net radiation with toa radiation”
You are not thinking it through, nor checking your facts.
But at least you admit that the OUTGOING portion of Radiative Forcing is measured at TOA.
And, as it turns out, so is INCOMING. SW solar enters the atmosphere at TOA, and a portion of that is reflected back out.
Can that be measured at the surface? No, because reflected light off the surface may not make it all the way out of the atmosphere. And reflected light off the surface is only a fraction of the total reflected light– the rest is reflected off clouds and atmosphere.
So again the INCOMING can only be measured at TOA!
“Radiative forcing on Earth is meaningfully evaluated at the tropopause and at the top of the stratosphere.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
Oh well!
“toa does not even appear in the reference you provided a link to.”
You think “solar radiation entering the atmosphere” and “IR radiation exiting” it are doing so at some place other than the top of the atmosphere?
Weak!
Nate says:
”So again the INCOMING can only be measured at TOA!”
thats obviously wrong. At TOA you can only measure radiation below TOA. At TOA you can’t measure the radiation emanating from where you are you must be above that.
It is true though that the Aqua and Terra satellites fly in the mid mesosphere so that some of what is considered to be TOA is above the satellites that measure it and in that region above that some of the CO2 emissions are occurring. Thus like most of natural science there is a lot of cutting a pasting going on.
“thats obviously wrong. At TOA you can only measure radiation below TOA.”
Who claims it is that low?
My understanding it is high enough to measure all IR exiting the atmosphere. And indeed Satellites are high enough > 100 mi
les.
Bill hunter writes:
“And you believe people aren’t an element of nature?”
Yes, I am an old school engineer trained with the rationalist mindset that humans are distinct from nature. Engineers harness natural resources to serve human needs.
From this standpoint, nature is a set of raw materials to be managed and utilized, not a system in which humans are an integrated part. Human intervention is both necessary and justified.
Your question compels the argument that human activities have far-reaching impacts on the environment, from climate change to biodiversity loss, underscoring our role within the natural system rather than outside it. I don’t disagree. Evidence is all around us that we must bridge the gap between human advancement and natural harmony.
I echo your implicit call for sustainable engineering practices aimed at minimizing environmental impact, and a balance where human development does not come at the expense of ecological health. This evolution not only redefines engineering practices but also repositions humanity within the broader context of nature, emphasizing coexistence over dominion.
ark…”I am an old school engineer trained with the rationalist mindset that humans are distinct from nature”.
***
I took those bs courses as well, rammed down our throats to prepare us for industry. Fortunately for me, something intervened.
“I took those bs courses as well”
If I asked you to move a mountain, or harness natural resources-metals, energy, water- to create infrastructure and technology, would you even know where to begin?
Rhetorical question.
There are engineers and there are techs. You are the latter.
ark…”Rhetorical question.
There are engineers and there are techs. You are the latter”.
***
That is a rhetorical question??? And you are criticizing my education? I wonder what the weather is like outside?
Gordon Robertson,
You should be happy with your position as an engineering tech. You get to do the grunt work that engineers don’t want to do, and then impersonate an engineer online.
No authority, no responsibility, no accountability. Sounds cool, no?
Arkady, please stop trolling.
One of the reasons the GHE is nonsense is the bogus “EEI”. And it appears Ark, Ent, and bdgwx are the biggest promoters of the EEI. So, here’s a simple question they will avoid:
Two identical objects, with emissivity 1.0, have different temperatures. The flux emitted by each is measured, and the two fluxes have an arithmetical average of 11842 W/m².
What is the average temperature of the two objects?
Puffman, please stop riddling, as it is the only work TS condescends to do.
I think it may be anything.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
They worship the Gods of averaging.
The internet provides many examples of the flaw of averages. Many examples can be found of fatal results as a result of using “averages”.
For example, “Out of 4,063 pilots, not a single airman fit within the average range on all 10 dimensions.” – US Air Force report, trying to assess if pilot deaths by accident could be lessened. Cockpits were built for average pilots, so many of them died unnecessarily.
Averages are like “air” temperatures. A curiosity, and generally quite useless.
Swenson,
These people treat real world measurements as if they were 100% accurate, just like students in high school algebra learning from a textbook for the first time.
Walter,
Science students are taught to discard reality.
For example, plotting the fall in temperature of a beaker of heated water over time. Temperature readings are taken at specified time intervals and plotted on graph paper.
The students are instructed to draw a smooth curve of “best fit” through the points plotted, generally accepting that the start and finish points are accurate, but the intervening points “should” lie on a smooth curve.
And of course, this sort of delusional thinking is reinforced over years of education, eventually to the point that some scientists fabricate and falsify data, unknowingly. Usually not harmful, but in at least one case, many years of research were wasted when the consistently reproducible results of meticulous experiments were dismissed as experimental error.
It turned out that the theory, although plausible, was wrong (not by much, but enough). First class minds had managed to fool themselves into believing that reality was inferior to clever thinking.
Trying to find out what is, rather than what “should be” is often difficult. That’s science, I guess.
Walter, What you call the “Gods of averaging” I call the 1st law of thermodynamics.
bdgwx avoids the simple question also, as predicted.
Puffman, please stop conflating questioning with cranks saying stuff.
“Puffman, please stop conflating questioning with cranks saying stuff.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop disrespecting proper PSTering protocols.
“Mike Flynn, please stop disrespecting proper PSTering protocols.”
What an idiotic thing to write!
Willard, please stop trolling.
walter: These people treat real world measurements as if they were 100% accurate
I assume I am of “these people” you refer to. If so then you can rest easy knowing that I have never assumed any real world measurement is 100% accurate. Don’t mistake my handling uncertainty correctly via well established procedures like that which is documented in JCGM 100:2008 or the use of the NIST uncertainty machine as me assuming that everything is 100% accurate.
https://uncertainty.nist.gov/
> What does that average tell you about either body?
Since TS is too busy being a pretentious blockhead to oblige – an average is meant to tell you something about the set of the two bodies.
If you want to know if a pair of tickets for the 7th game tonight between the Canucks and the Oilers, picking up the cheapest or the most expensive, which Mr. Asshat often does depending on context, won’t work. One has to do some statistics, and then have to compare with other 7th games in different markets.
And no, I won’t get into details as to which statistics to do. Our beloved TS would need to double down with more imprudent parleys for that.
> If you want to know if a pair of tickets for the 7th game tonight between the Canucks and the Oilers
… is expensive.
Willard,
You wrote “And no, I wont get into details as to which statistics to do.”
That’s because you can’t.
Just like you won’t go into the details of what the mythical GHE is supposed to do.
Gutless fanatical GHE cultist!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop acting like you have not read the blog for the last years, even if you barely read the comment threads in which you respond.
This is actually a perfect example of the folly of average temperatures, as in a global average temperature.
Suppose you have two distinct bodies, one with a temperature of 500C and one with a temperature of 100C. The average temperature is (500C + 100C)/2 = 600C/2 = 300C. What does that average tell you about either body?
I predict the alarmists will argue that the global surface database is large enough to give a more accurate average but that is not the case. It’s just as meaningless as the example above. As I reported in another thread, while the global average is reported to be close to 1C above average, temperatures in my area were average or below average. In other words, in my area the 1C ‘global’ warming is meaningless.
Besides the surface temperatures average 1 thermometer every 100,000 km^2. There is no way that 1 thermometer can tell you anything about disparities in that area.
The problem is exacerbated when it is considered the database is dependent on two a day temperatures readings that are averaged. If the high is 30C and the low is 20C the average is 25C. Anyone who has experienced 30C knows there is a major difference between that and 25C.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668183
Willard, please stop trolling.
— Antonin Qwerty says:
May 19, 2024 at 12:36 AM
Try 160 plus/minus 30.–
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1667979
…
After that:
Jun-Jul 161 in order to rise from December to January.
Jul-Aug 138 in order to rise from January to February.
Aug-Sep 125 in order to rise from February to March.
Sep-Oct 117 in order to rise from March to April.
Oct-Nov 104 in order to rise from April to May.
Nov-Dec 111 in order to rise from May to June.–
So you are predicting or saying for 7 months:
May 2024: 160 +/- 30
June 2024: 161 +/- 30
July 2024: 131 +/- 30
Aug 2024: 125 +/- 30
Sep 2024: 117 +/- 30
Oct 2024: 104 +/- 30
Nov 2024: 111 +/- 30
So, I said it needs to be 160 or more for May and June for that NOAA experimental prediction to not be disproven. Or I am looking for shortest time period needed to disprove. And you saying it could be 130. And I said it could be about 140 or more.
But let’s go with what you saying.
160 + 161 + 131 + 125 + 117 + 104 + 111 = 908 and averaged by dividing by 7 = 129.7
And what was average of last 7 months?
April: 136.5, then: 104.9, 124.7, 123, 113.5, 107.1, and Oct 2023:
99.9
Totaled: 809.6 / 7 = 115.657
115.657 + 129.7 = 245.357 and divided by 2 = 122.678571429
which is 14 month average of about 122.6
Which would disprove the experimental prediction which has range of 137 to to some high number.
But if not 160 or more for next two month, it disproves it faster- which what I am interested in.
Or last month’s 136.5, helps keep this prediction, alive.
Also if your numbers are correct, it doesn’t disprove Zharkovas prediction, yet.
It {your numbers] helps NOAA first prediction of cycle 25. Or latest NOAA experimental prediction wasn’t more accurate- though given much later. So only thing disproven is latest NOAA prediction.
“Also if your numbers are correct, it doesnt disprove Zharkovas prediction, yet.”
If you exactly correct, I will have wait 1 year, to indicate whether NOAA or Zharkovas prediction is correct.
But the trend of your numbers, would favor Zharkovas prediction.
Or in 7 months, I am still at this long and tedious thing.
Me being overly optimistic, was looking the shorter time period, of getting an answer. Which I thought could been as soon as Christmas last year.
But now, I have wait at least a couple more months.
Actually, last Christmas was an answer, just not, the answer.
“the trend of your numbers would favour Zharkova’s prediction”
You appear to have a worrying lack of understanding of what those numbers represent.
“You appear to have a worrying lack of understanding of what those numbers represent.”
Well, a bit, I was wondering about:
“Jun-Jul 161 in order to rise from December to January.
Jul-Aug 138 in order to rise from January to February.
Aug-Sep 125 in order to rise from February to March.
Sep-Oct 117 in order to rise from March to April.
Oct-Nov 104 in order to rise from April to May.
Nov-Dec 111 in order to rise from May to June.”
Do these numbers also have the same +/ – 30 and also, I assume, the year is 2024
Geez … you had no idea at all.
Whatever the SSN is for November (at the end of this month), May and June will need to average 150 or more in order for the SSN to rise again in December.
Whatever the SSN is for December (at the end of June), June and July will need to average 161 or more in order for the SSN to rise again in January.
Whatever the SSN is for January (at the end of July), July and August will need to average 138 or more in order for the SSN to rise again in February.
etc.
So, my assumptions of what you said is in fact, correct.
If you believe they could possibly be associated with a +/-30 tolerance, as you suggested, then no, you don’t understand.
“If you believe they could possibly be associated with a +/-30 tolerance, as you suggested, then no, you dont understand.”
Well can we agree, that once we were in a solar grand max, period, and at this moment, it appears we are no longer in solar grand max, though it’s possible that solar cycle 26, might be the beginning of another solar grand max {which could go on for many decades}.
Or it could be that it is Solar cycle 27, before we return to another solar grand max?
And another thing we might agree upon is the global climate is something that involves many decades of time, and if solar cycle have any effect upon global climate, a few solar cycles is unlikely to have enough time, to have much effect upon global average temperature?
But also there is difference between global climate change, and global weather change.
Global weather can change much faster.
Solar wind
speed: 416.3 km/sec
density: 3.59 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 May 24
Sunspot number: 154
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 201 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.64×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.7% Low
They haven’t given new picture of sun, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 375.9 km/sec
density: 2.77 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 21 May 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 124
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 200 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.73×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.4% Low
6 numbered spots. Two pairs of small unnumbered spots which came from farside. no spots coming from farside. 3683 probably won’t leave to farside within a day.
Solar wind
speed: 368.9 km/sec
density: 4.11 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 May 24
Sunspot number: 146
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 200 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.60×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.4% Low
9 numbered spot. The 2 pairs got number, and another one, which might grow and fade. And 3683 hasn’t left yet. no spots coming from farside, yet.
phil j…”The cooling of Earths interior: about 50 TW, i.e. less than 1 W/m^2.
Whats that compared to Suns energy reaching us, PhilJ?”
***
Phil…you need to consider the effect of that 1W/M^2 on the oceans over a billion years. There are volcanic vents feeding directly into the oceans and the temperature at those vents is in excess of 3000C.
That 1W/m^2 does not accumulate. It passes up into the atmosphere and radiates to space.
The effect on the temperature of ocean, atmosphere and surface is negligible.
ent…You don’t think that the base of the ocean being heated by an immense reservoir of heat from volcanic activity will make no difference over a billion years?
By the same token, the surface, being heated from the core will be at a higher temperature over a billion years, making it easier for the Sun to warm the surface.
Anyone who has lived on the Canadian Prairies in winter knows the Sun does not warm a heck of a lot. You can have 2 inches of ice permanently on road surface and the mid-day Sun does not melt it. In fact, nothing melts at certain times of the year.
At the same location, if you dig several hundred feet underground, you can exist in a T-shirt. Just 20 to 30 feet underground, the temperature is a constant 50F to 60F (10C to 15.5C). You can use that heat with a heat pump to significantly warm a home.
At the depth of the outer skin, temperatures are in excess of 1500C.
EM,
You wrote –
“That 1W/m^2 does not accumulate. It passes up into the atmosphere and radiates to space.
The effect on the temperature of ocean, atmosphere and surface is negligible.”
I’ll let you do the calculations, based on measurements by geophysicists and geologists. The same sorts of measurements used by Fourier and Kelvin, for example.
I get a surface temperature of around 35 K, in the absence of external heat sources like the Sun.
You mention that the heat from the interior radiates to space. Just like surface heating from sunlight, which is indiscernible beyond about 10 m or so. No heat accumulates. If it did, the surface would not have cooled to its present temperature.
If the core is say 5500 K, and outer space is say 4 K, then the core and everything along the thermal gradient from 5500 K to 4 K must cool – unless you have discovered “new physics” like Gavin Schmidt claimed to do, so frequently than he could not write a user manual for one his amateurish GCM computer models!
So yes, he Earth continues to cool. Slowly but inexorably.
Ent believes that all the thermal energy from Earth’s core radiates to space, but the energy from CO2 stays in the system for centuries, boiling the oceans.
Ent is also the one that believes passenger jets fly backward.
Cults have funny beliefs….
But, Ent avoided my simple question, proving me right again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668045
Gordon Robertson
Take the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica as an example.
Under Thwaites is a geothermal hot spot. It pumps a massive 0.1 W/m^2 into the base of the glacier, which melts some of the ice into water, which carries away the heat. The heat does not accumulate over time.
I once calculated the size of this effect. That 0.1W/m^2 is enough to melt 1mm of ice each year.
The Thwaites glacier is 600 metres thick. Without the hot spot it would be 1mm thicker.
Gordon, Swenson, Clint
You are all making the same mistake.
Geothermal heat flow is about 0.1W/m^2. The heat it released into the ocean or atmosphere moves upwards and eventually radiated to space, adding 0.1W/m^2 to the OLR.
It makes the surface very slightly warmer than it would be otherwise, but does not cause an ongoing surface warming trend because it has become part of the equilibrium.
Increasing CO2 disturbs the equilibrium.
A pulse of extra CO2 unbalances the system, causes an initial decrease in OLR, which causes heat to accumulate and raise the surface temperature.
The increase in surface temperature then increases OLR until it reaches equilibrium with the incoming radiation. The temperature then stabilises at the higher level.
Swenson,
Perhaps you don’ know of what you speak.
“If the core is say 5500 K, and outer space is say 4 K, then the core and everything along the thermal gradient from 5500 K to 4 K must cool”
Why then is the stratosphere warmer than the layer below it?
The Earth cooled enough by about 4 billion years ago to have liquid water on the surface.
So continuous cooling for 4 1/2 billion years is a myth.
bobdroege,
“Why then is the stratosphere warmer than the layer below it”
do to ozone and oxygen being excited and photolocized by uvb and uvc of course.
less ozone means less interception of uvb and a cooler stratosphere and incraesed uvb penetrating the oceans
wherever the solar radiation is absorbed there will be heating
Thanks Phil,
But that was a rhetorical question for Swenson.
Brainless bobby,
A gotcha, is it?
“Why then is the stratosphere warmer than the layer below it?”
Go on then, tell me why. Make sure to define “temperature” as you go, otherwise you’ll look like a complete fanatical GHE cultist, trying to appear smart, and Ill laugh at you.
Tell me that the stratosphere is not between 5500 K and 4 K.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
I’ll repeat your statement that I responded to
“If the core is say 5500 K, and outer space is say 4 K, then the core and everything along the thermal gradient from 5500 K to 4 K must cool
and this statement
“Tell me that the stratosphere is not between 5500 K and 4 K.”
I was pointing out that contrary to your first statement, the fact that the stratosphere warms with increasing height.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner exhibits poor sportsmanship.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2017.01087.x
Little did he know that he was anticipating cranks hundreds of years later.
Don’t appear more stupid than you have to.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop making mediocre comments.
“Mediocre”?
Your threshold for reaching a standard of mediocrity seems rather low.
Antonin, Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring the point that you are below mediocrity.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Averaging won’t overcome systematic error.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop saying stuff.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are clueless, Willard.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop forgetting that so far you lost every single formal point.
Yet you can never explain why.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop falling back on
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Exactly.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop realizing that the contrarian playbook can be reduced to these three steps, keep calm, and continue playing Climateball.
Willard, please stop trolling.
walter: Averaging wont overcome systematic error.
As I’ve explained repeatedly it depends on the context.
If the context is a single instrument with a systematic error then averaging will retain the system error.
If the context is multiple instruments each with their own different systematic error then averaging will tend to cancel some of those systematic errors.
And it is also important to note that while averaging will not eliminate the systematic error in the first context subtraction will. This is actually one reason why anomalies are used.
If you don’t understand what is going on here then ask questions. It is better to ask questions and gain further understanding than to repeatedly make statements like the above that are not entirely correct.
You are wrong. Systematic error never goes away unless you correct for it.
If what you said was true, then climate scientists wouldn’t bother to try and adjust for it.
> You are wrong.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
***
> Systematic error never goes away unless you correct for it.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
***
> If what you said was true, then climate scientists wouldnt bother to try and adjust for it.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff with More Feelings
Go away, scumbag.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop bossing people around in the subthread of their own comments.
walter: You are wrong. Systematic error never goes away unless you correct for it.
That is patently false. And all you need is middle school algebra to prove it. Let Es be the systematic error. Let Mi be a single measurement and Ti be the true value for the measurand i. Therefore Ti = Mi + Es. The measurement baseline Mb combines many individual measurements Mi such that Mb = sum[Mi, 1 to N] / N. Therefore Tb = Mb + Es. Now we let Ai be the anomaly for measurand i such that Ai = Mi – Mb. Rewriting this we have Ai = (Ti – Es) – (Tb – Es). Notice that the Es terms cancel leaving us with Ai = Ti – Tb meaning that the anomaly Ai does not containing the systematic error Es. We don’t need to correct for Es or even know what it is. That is the power algebra!
“The measurement baseline Mb combines many individual measurements Mi such that Mb = sum[Mi, 1 to N] / N. Therefore Tb = Mb + Es.”
In the real world, systematic error is not the same across all measurements, so you can’t separate the true values and the systematic errors in the sum. There can be multiple systematic errors, along with random errors, present. These errors can also be aggregated depending on the environmental conditions.
The influence is never the same across all the measurements.*
walter: In the real world, systematic error is not the same across all measurements
That is literally what systematic error is. That is it is the same error that appears across all measurements. See ISO 5725 and/or JCGM 200:2008.
walter: There can be multiple systematic errors, along with random errors, present.
There can be multiple components of the systematic error. It’s still just systematic error that is the same across all measurements. If you want to model this you just extend Es in the algebra above via Es = Es1 + Es2 + … + Esn. The algebra works out exactly the same with Es cancelling during the anomalization step.
“There can be multiple components of the systematic error. Its still just systematic error that is the same across all measurements. If you want to model this you just extend Es in the algebra above via Es = Es1 + Es2 + + Esn. The algebra works out exactly the same with Es cancelling during the anomalization step.”
Their influence will not be the same across all measurements, bdgwx. Your problem is that you think one-dimensionally.
Look at Anthony Watts’ work. He found that 96% of weather stations are poorly sited, next to sidewalks, buildings, parking lots, etc.
Do you really think that kind of systematic error has the same impact on rainy days and warm, sunny days? Or in Arizona and Alaska?
walter: Their influence will not be the same across all measurements
Having the same influence is literally the definition of systematic error. Again…refer to ISO 5725 and/or JCGM 200:2008. If you’re thinking of a context in which the influence is different for different measurements in the population then you are not thinking of systematic error. You are thinking of random error. Your statements suggest that you are conflating the terms.
“Having the same influence is literally the definition of systematic error. Againrefer to ISO 5725 and/or JCGM 200:2008. If youre thinking of a context in which the influence is different for different measurements in the population then you are not thinking of systematic error. You are thinking of random error. Your statements suggest that you are conflating the terms.”
B.2.22
systematic error
mean that would result from an infinite number of measurements of the same measurand carried out under repeatability conditions minus a true value of the measurand
NOTE 1
NOTE 2
NOTE 3
[VIM:1993, definition 3.14]
Systematic error is equal to error minus random error.
Like true value, systematic error and its causes cannot be completely known. For a measuring instrument, see bias (VIM:1993, definition 5.25).
I’m not thinking of random error. Station siting bias results in constant upward bias in the measurements.
It’s not influence cannot be the same at every station because there will be varying amounts of concrete, parking lot, sidewalk, etc.
walter: Station siting bias results in constant upward bias in the measurements.
That’s systematic error. It does not go away when averaging. However, it does go away when converting to anomalies.
walter: Its not influence cannot be the same at every station because there will be varying amounts of concrete, parking lot, sidewalk, etc.
That’s random error. It does not go away when converting to anomalies. However, it does partially go away when averaging.
Use the NIST uncertainty machine to prove this out for yourself.
https://uncertainty.nist.gov/
bdgwx: Againrefer to ISO 5725 and/or JCGM 200:2008.
Typo…that should be JCGM 200:2012.
Bdgwx, please stop, even if Walter R Hogle keeps asking for it.
“Typothat should be JCGM 200:2012.”
2.17 (3.14)
systematic measurement error
systematic error of measurement
systematic error
component of measurement that in replicate measurements remains constant or varies in a predictable manner
Did you choose this definition because it uses the word ‘constant’? If so, it’s referring to the SOURCE of the error, not the error value itself.
I cited JCGM 200:2012 because that’s the vocabulary document from the JCGM. It doesn’t really matter though since JCGM 100:2008 B.2.22 is consistent with JCGM 200:2012 2.17 or ISO 5725 3.8 (ISO 3534-2:2006 3.3.2). Notice that I gave you the ISO 5725 reference as well which is worded in the style of JCGM 100:2008. The only difference is that one is worded mathematically while the other is worded intuitively.
If you’re still having a hard time understanding the definitions let me know and I’ll guide through a simple demonstration in Excel that I think will trigger the epiphany.
Bdgwx, please stop hoping that Walter R. Hogle will ever use his brain to judge what fuels his silly culture war.
This is more evidence that you have on idea what you are quoting and what it means for measurement data reporting.
How do you define the difference between accuracy and precision?
Quick, do a Wikipedia search, you might find something.
Lovely TS, please stop playing charades and commit to a claim. Alternatively, please stop skimming my citations and read them for real. They might show that your silly talking point have both been addressed already.
Willard, quick, do a search for verb/subject agreement. You wrote –
“They might show that your silly talking point have both been addressed already.”
Grammatically incorrect, but you wouldn’t know that, would you?
That’s because you are ignorant. Who would willingly believe someone as ignorant as you?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Lovely TS, please stop playing charades and commit to a claim.”
Lovely Willard, please stop avoiding your inability to describe the mythical GHE and commit to a description.
You really are an idiot,aren’t you?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop missing the obvious point behind the quote, even if it undermines your silly idea that there must exist an average crank for the concept of average crank to be useful.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tim S,
“How do you define the difference between accuracy and precision?”
One is measurable and the other is unknown.
Final exam time:
Based on your knowledge of computer simulation software as it relates to the climate models, analyze the effects of temperature data measurement on model calibration. Explain how the combined uncertainty of calibration along with assumptions about future emission rates, effects model output and how that effects the variation between different models. Take as much time and word count as you need.
For extra credit, explain the different between the mean and median values as they relate to the standard deviation. Take all the time you need.
Tim S,
Completely pointless and irrelevant.
A stupid gotcha of larger than usual dimensions.
The IPCC states that it is not possible to predict future climate states, and then waffles about trying to predict the probability of the unpredictable climate states.
Who cares about stupid climate models, anyway? The atmosphere is chaotically unpredictable. Only people paid to be delusional and ignore reality, and the volunteer fanatical GHE cultists believe that climate models have the ability to predict the future.
Any better than a reasonably intelligent 12 year old, that is.
Lovely TS, please stop pretending that you’re some kind of Sphynx that can bait me with a silly riddle that has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Tim S,
As I recall, the median is not an input into a standard deviation calculation.
Swenson,
Chaotic behavior does not mean unpredictable.
You didn’t get to see the latest total eclipse of the Sun, being a member of a penal colony.
The motions of the Earth, Moon, and Sun, are chaotic, see the three body problem, yet Astronomers have little problem predicting eclipses.
Tim S,
You might like this paper, if you haven’t already read it:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
TS might also like:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/propagation-of-nonsense-part-ii/
TimS
I realise that sceptics like Walter and hours of struggle with metrology and statistcs. Allow me to help.
Start with precision and accuracy.
Precision is the uncertainty in an individual measurement due to the limitations of the technique. For example a mercury thermometer has markings about 1mm apart. The meniscus is visibly either close to one mark or equally between them. The rule of thumb is to read to the nearest mark or the nearest even value. Thus the precision of each measurement is about +/- 1 degree.
Accuracy is the difference between the measured value and the actual value. For example, a poorly calibrated thermometer might have all the markings offset by 3 degrees so that it underreads a true 20C as 17C and all measurements are 3C too low.
Go out in the real world and changes in wind, sunlight and time of day can affect the accuracy, so you put the thermometer in a Stevenson screen and take measurements at the same time each day. Even so, temperatures vary from place to place, with weather and seasonally. You end up with a sample of measurements,not all the same.
Plot the data as a frequency distribution and you get a bell curve.
The point midway between the highest and lowest values is the median. The average of all the measurements is the mean.
The width of the bell curve and it’s shape give you the standard deviation, the average difference between each measurement and the mean. The smaller your standard deviation, the more precise your mean.
If the median and mean are different, that indicates there is an outlier in the data or the distribution curve is not symmetrical. There may be other possibilities, but those are the most common.
You’ve got it. If the distribution is symmetrical the mean and median coincide. If the distribution is asymetric, with a long right tail, the median is offset towards the long tail relative to the mean.
EM,
“Plot the data as a frequency distribution and you get a bell curve.”
If you get a bell curve, someone’s faked the measurements – or a miracle has occurred.
In general, statistics are useless, as commonly used. What has happened has happened, and nothing will, change that.
Many people and organisations (insurance companies, fanatical GHE cultists, and so on) believe that the future can be predicted by examining statistics. Madness.
Feel free to believe that the future is a reflection of the past. It might even work for you – who knows? The future is uncertain.
Mike Flynn, please stop contradicting yourself in the very same sentence, say by saying “generally, statistics are worthless.”
EM,
“Plot the data as a frequency distribution and you get a bell curve.”
If you get a bell curve, someones faked the measurements or a miracle has occurred.
In general, statistics are useless, as commonly used. What has happened has happened, and nothing will, change that.
Many people and organisations (insurance companies, fanatical GHE cultists, and so on) believe that the future can be predicted by examining statistics. Madness.
Feel free to believe that the future is a reflection of the past. It might even work for you who knows? The future is uncertain.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop hiding your PSTering behind a copypasta.
EM,
“Plot the data as a frequency distribution and you get a bell curve.”
If you get a bell curve, someones faked the measurements or a miracle has occurred.
In general, statistics are useless, as commonly used. What has happened has happened, and nothing will, change that.
Many people and organisations (insurance companies, fanatical GHE cultists, and so on) believe that the future can be predicted by examining statistics. Madness.
Feel free to believe that the future is a reflection of the past. It might even work for you who knows? The future is uncertain.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop polluting TS’ riddles.
EM,
“Plot the data as a frequency distribution and you get a bell curve.”
If you get a bell curve, someones faked the measurements or a miracle has occurred.
In general, statistics are useless, as commonly used. What has happened has happened, and nothing will, change that.
Many people and organisations (insurance companies, fanatical GHE cultists, and so on) believe that the future can be predicted by examining statistics. Madness.
Feel free to believe that the future is a reflection of the past. It might even work for you who knows? The future is uncertain.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop making comments that are both mean and below average,
For the record, precision involves two concepts. One is repeatability and the other involves fine definition. Do you get the same measurement each time with the same condition, and how fine or coarse is the reading.
Accuracy is tricky. It is like asking what is real? Technically speaking, accuracy is traceability to a know standard. In this country that is NIST.
For extra credit, what is the most important information on a calibration report?
By the way, this is coming from my own memory and belief. If Wikipedia has a different answer, then so be it.
“For extra credit, what is the most important information on a calibration report?”
I suppose that would be another calibration date.
The only important information in a calibration report is the as-found condition. If it is in tolerance but not perfect they might do a tweak. If it is out, then the service history is important for the decision of increasing the service interval or possibly retiring the instrument. Meanwhile, some regulated organizations may be required to do an investigation of the impact of an out-of-calibration instrument.
Tim S,
If I was reviewing the calibration report, before I looked at the data, I would check that the instruments (cal lab) used to calibrate the instrument (my gas meter) were in calibration.
ant…”Earth rotates much-much faster than Moon
The moon rotates? Freudian slip? Your rotation-denying buddies wont like that”.
***
I have no problem with it because I know what Christos means. The Moon does rotate around the Earth as an external axis. The fact that it keeps the same face pointing at Earth is proof that the lunar motion is curvilinear without local rotation.
Christos is clearly talking about the lunar day as the period in which the Moon is on the far side of the Earth from the Sun. He is actually referencing the near side which always faces Earth. The far side is fully lit when the Moon is between Earth and the Sun.
Heads up Gordon … the term “curvilinear” refers to a POINT, not a rigid body. The moon’s centre of mass undergoes curvilinear motion, the moon does not.
AQ,
Assuming Newton was right, considering the Moon as an assemblage of miniscule particles each attracting each other gravitationally, then each particle has individual motion, relative to any chosen reference point in the universe.
As Newton pointed out, a cannonball fired from a sufficient height with sufficient speed, would follow a path which would never intersect with the Earth’s surface. A parabola, in fact, is an ellipse with one focus at infinity, so the Moon is following the same ballistic trajectory as a cannonball.
Now, a cannonball fired from a smoothbore cannon has no spin, in theory, around any axis.
I am not sure what you mean by saying the Moon has no curvilinear motion, unless you consider a parabola and ellipse not to be curves. There are other motions superimposed on its elliptical trajectory, for example chaotic variations of the Moon’s orbit, and physical librations, the reasons for some of which are not clearly understood.
The fact remains that the Moon as a whole falls continuously towards the Earth, without ever reaching the surface. We only ever see the bottom of the falling body, and a little bit of the sides, when viewed from a distance.
From outside the orbit, all sides the Moon can be seen, so that from a vast distance (say that of the “fixed stars”, the Moon would appear to be rotating on its axis, as excursions from the focus of its orbit would be indiscernible.
Not that any of that has any effect to an observer on the Earth’s surface. The Moon appears to rise and set, travel across the sky, always showing one face.
Mike Flynn, please stop misreading comments.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ant is just trying to redefine science, as usual.
Curvilinear applies to a point. It also applies to an object.
Cool story Mikey. Now … back to the topic … “curvilinear” applies only to point motion.
cLInt … if you look at any text on the topic, it will refer to the motion of a rigid body as a rotation superimposed on the curvilinear motio of the centre of mass. Any attempt to say otherwise is the redefinition.
According to Wikipedia – (and pretty well everyone else) –
“The motion of an object moving in a curved path is called curvilinear motion.[1] Example: A stone thrown into the air at an angle.”
According to AQ –
“curvilinear” applies only to point motion.”
Whom to believe?
Ant has to find some way to pervert reality because he’s lost the Moon issue.
He can’t come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
He’s got NOTHING.
Wikipedia? Oh dear.
Don’t own a physics text book?
The link for that WP claim is a GOOGLE BOOK.
In the very next paragraph of that book it says “consider a ball during lofted six”.
With grammar like that, clearly that book has never been properly proofed.
You people really have no concept of how to search for a valid source, with your only criterion being “it must agree with me”.
AQ,
You didn’t give a reference at all for your statement, so starting with Wikipedia was better than nothing. I note that the Wikipedia reference was to a textbook published by Cambridge University Press, so you could always write to them if you are not happy with the English grammar used by the authors.
Maybe you believe NASA (NTRS) –
“The laws of curvilinear motion are established and the transverse forces on elongated airship hulls moving along a curved path are investigated.
General method
This note deals with the steady motion of a rigid body on a curvilinear path through a perfect fluid otherwise at rest, so that the position of the body relative to the path remains constant.”
Once again, whom to believe?
I don’t share your uncritical belief in “textbooks”, physics or otherwise. If you wish to believe that an object cannot follow a curvilinear path, that is your choice. Trying to impose your beliefs on others by appealing to your own authority might make you appear to be a patronising dimwit. Others can decide for themselves.
How about –
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-01sc-classical-mechanics-fall-2016/mit8_01scs22_chapter16.pdf
Back in my days, bicycle were made of many particles.
Whacky Wee Willy,
In your usual pointless and irrelevant fashion, you provided a meaningless link.
Go on, tell me it includes the word “curvilinear”.
I wouldnt be surprised if it doesnt , based on your previously demonstrated levels of gullibility and ignorance.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop being so abhorrently inane when you can’t score with a wide open net.
Whacky Wee Willy,
In your usual pointless and irrelevant fashion, you provided a meaningless link.
Go on, tell me it includes the word “curvilinear.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’ , based on your previously demonstrated levels of gullibility and ignorance.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying new ways to get a sammich from me.
Whacky Wee Willy,
In your usual pointless and irrelevant fashion, you provided a meaningless link.
Go on, tell me it includes the word “curvilinear”. Lie if you wish.
I wouldnt be surprised if it doesn’t, based on your previously demonstrated levels of gullibility and ignorance.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please try to stop playing dumb if you can.
Whacky Wee Willy,
In your usual pointless and irrelevant fashion, you provide a meaningless link.
Go on, tell me it includes the word “curvilinear”. Lie if you wish.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t, based on your previously demonstrated levels of gullibility and ignorance.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop chirping, it won’t make me spoon feed you.
Whacky Wee Willy,
In your usual pointless and irrelevant fashion, you provide a meaningless link.
Go on, tell me it includes the word “curvilinear”. Lie if you wish, or just try diverting.
I wouldnt be surprised if it doesn’t, based on your previously demonstrated levels of gullibility and ignorance.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“I dont share your uncritical belief in textbooks, physics or otherwise.”
True, he prefers to just make it up.
Nate, please stop trolling.
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be – Albert Einstein
***
Too bad Albert did not take his own advice. Gravity is what is, space-time is what Albert thought ‘should be’. In fact, he had to redefine time to make it fit his peculiar world.
The Future of the Submarine – Emerging Threats, Sensors & Transparent Oceans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S96oRLoE0Zk
Maybe by 2050, you need brickhouses in Van Allen belt?
DEVELOPING: Iranian Presidents Helicopter Suffers Accident or Incident Either Way, It Went Down.
https://instapundit.com/
–UPDATE (5:27 pm): Its not an obit, since theres no official word yet, but currently, the WaPo is going with protg and trusted confidant of Irans supreme leader, 85-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Raisi was elected president in 2021 after a decorated career as an ultraconservative in Irans judiciary.
No mention of the many executions that Raisi signed off on. Even the House of Stephanopoulos is noting that in the late 1980s, International rights groups estimate that as many as 5,000 people were executed. Raisi served on the commissions.
UPDATE (6:05 pm): If Raisi Is Dead: Implications for the Islamic Republic of Iran.–
UPDATE (11:01 pm):
The Spectator Index
@spectatorindex
Follow
BREAKING: No survivors from Iranian helicopter crash
7:54 PM May 19, 2024
“UPDATE (6:05 pm): If Raisi Is Dead: Implications for the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
It’s good time for the West to take advantage, like it did in 1945:
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/japan-reconstruction#:~:text=After%20the%20defeat%20of%20Japan,%2C%20economic%2C%20and%20social%20reforms.
The Soviet Obsession With Venus Revealed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydibFhTuimY
Interesting stuff, I didn’t know about. And I didn’t realize exactly how many missions were flown by the Soviets.
It would interesting land on polar regions- but very hard, utter darkness and still quite hot. Flying in atmosphere near poles would easier, but it would/could be quite dim- depending on elevation.
Or could quite bright if high enough. Though a bit lower could have brightly lit sky.
Only a small amount of sunlight penetrates as far as the surface so think of twilight on Earth.
There is a second source of light. The surface temperature is 730K. At that temperature the landscape glows faintly red.
Australia
After a chilly weekend down south, the cold temperatures spread way up north, with Queensland and the NT recording their first subzero nights of the year.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Why do averages matter? Averages, in Crowleys formulation, synthesise singularities into generalities; and prediction (outside the narrow world of gambling on cards or dice, where the odds are predetermined) depends on the production of such generalities. Without prediction there can be no applied or social sciences. If you dont have the concept of an average then you really arent going to be able to do economics, demography, evidence-based medicine, or any other social or natural science which deals with quantitative information which varies.
Thus, take life insurance. Until late in the seventeenth century life insurance was sold at a fixed price, like bread or beer. No matter how old you were you paid the same for the insurance, and you received the same pay out as anyone else purchasing that amount of insurance. You cant do life insurance, as we understand it, until you have the concept of a life expectancy; and you cant have the concept of a life expectancy until you have the concept of an average. Edmund Halley, he of Halleys comet, was the first to put the sale of annuities (in effect a form of life insurance) on a sound basis (1693).
https://engelsbergideas.com/reviews/the-invention-of-the-average/
May our cranks read this essay studiously, there will be a questionnaire.
“Thus, take life insurance.”
No thanks. You may take it if you wish, and good luck to you. You’ll need it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop pretending that the average commenter at Roy’s expects you to cooperate on anything.
I realize I’m above average and that’s why I like Mike Flynn, who is also above average.
Mr. Asshat, please stop confusing properties of a set with those of an individuals, although in your case we should rather speak of improprieties.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop . . . ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to change the conventions to PSTer.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Not here, Mike.
This way, please.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner has decided he will last word a thread of mine.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Earlier, bobdroege wrote –
“Swenson,
Is your repeating yourself an early sign of dementia?
Is your forgetting that the greenhouse effect has been described for you many times, also an indication of dementia?”
Unfortunately, bumbling bobby cannot find even one of the “descriptions’ he claims to know about.
He is so unsure of himself that he won’t even say that a GHE exists, in case someone asks what this mythical GHE is supposed to do! All baffled bobby would be able to say is that he knows what the GHE is supposed to do, but either can’t or won’t tell anybody what it is!
What an idiot! Not the sharpest knife in the drawer is bobdroege.
The cult doesn’t understand science. They don’t get to just throw crap against the wall. A description/defintion of the GHE can NOT violate the principles of physics. They can’t understand that simple reality.
It’s the same with the Moon issue. They have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”, so they have NOTHING.
Puffman, please stop trying to relitigate an issue you lost so many times already while ignoring Mike Flynn’s lies.
Clint
You can’t say what physics laws are broken by the greenhouse effect.
Because none are broken by the greenhouse effect.
Your model of orbit without spin is broken as well, because the ball on a string is rotating on its internal axis, being forced to rotate because the string is rotating.
You got less than nothing.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668174
Puffman, please stop imitating Graham D. Warner.
Clint,
Two can play at that game.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668190
In rhetoric, you are supposed to state your thesis, provide evidence for your thesis, and then repeat your thesis.
You are missing the middle part.
Brainless bobby,
You wrote –
“You cant say what physics laws are broken by the greenhouse effect.”
The GHE is mythical. You can’t or won’t even say what it is supposed to do!
How sad is that?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
“The GHE is mythical. You cant or wont even say what it is supposed to do!
How sad is that?”
Pretty sad, you won’t acknowledge that I have described the greenhouse effect many times, specifically for you.
You seem to only remember the one I was satirizing you with.
And I have said what it is supposed to do, that is make the surface of the Earth warmer than it would be without polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere.
“And I have said what it is supposed to do, that is make the surface of the Earth warmer than it would be without polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere.”
I see. That is why you wrote “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”
, is it?
What you suppose, and reality, are two different things. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature (unless you can demonstrate otherwise), and the surface cools each night.
You still can’t, or won’t, describe the GHE. No surprise there, nobody can. Claiming that you or someone else has is just stupid.
The Earth is cooling, you fool – it has no choice. It is hotter than the environment which contains it – Sun and all. As you say, the Sun cannot even raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface above 100 C!
Try again.
Swenson,
“What you suppose, and reality, are two different things. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature (unless you can demonstrate otherwise), and the surface cools each night.”
See the graph at the top of the page.
I see that reality sticks in your craw.
Yes, early dementia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
I don’t know if it’s your dementia, bob. It could be you just don’t have an understanding of science, and you can’t learn. Your wiki link has been debunked before. So, I’ll just address a few points:
“The greenhouse effect occurs when greenhouse gases in a planet’s atmosphere insulate the planet from losing heat to space, raising its surface temperature.”
Wrong. O2 and N2 insulate. The two gases are poor emitters of infrared. CO2 emits to space.
“The absorp.tion of longwave radiation prevents it from reaching space, reducing the rate at which the Earth can cool off.”
“Slowing the cooling” is NOT “warming”. Warming is identified by increasing the temperature.
“Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be about -18C (-0.4F)…”
Wrong. That’s an imaginary sphere. That ain’t science.
There is NO viable description/defintition of the GHE nonsense because the GHE is bogus.
> O2 and N2 insulate.
Puffman, please stop doubling down on Step 2 –
Saying Stuff
Clint,
“Wrong. O2 and N2 insulate. The two gases are poor emitters of infrared. CO2 emits to space.”
Wrong, O2 and N2 do not insulate against IR, they are transparent to IR, as you say, O2 and N2 are poor emitters, so they are also poor abzorbers.
“Slowing the cooling is NOT warming. Warming is identified by increasing the temperature.”
When an object is being heated, if you slow the cooling, you wind up causing an increase in the temperature of the object. For example, if you have a pot of water on a stove, and you set the heat to keep the pot just below boiling, and then you put a lid on it, the temperature goes up.
“Wrong. Thats an imaginary sphere. That aint science.”
Well, no, the surface is the surface of an oblate spheroid. If you don’t know that, put a lid on it.
Don’t be a blithering idiot, bumbling bobby.
You wrote –
“When an object is being heated, if you slow the cooling, you wind up causing an increase in the temperature of the object. For example, if you have a pot of water on a stove, and you set the heat to keep the pot just below boiling, and then you put a lid on it, the temperature goes up.”
Put a pot of water in the Sun. Put a lid on it. The water heats more slowly, and to a lower temperature. Idiots use pointless and irrelevant analogies, hoping that people will accept that a mythical GHE exists. It doesn’t.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and continues to do so.
You are as delusional as fools like Willard. Here’s Willard’s description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling”. Here’s you, trying to turn fantasy into fact “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”
No GHE. Linking to non-description of the GHE on Wikipedia is plain silly. Your link contains the following piece of arrant nonsense – “The absorption of longwave radiation prevents it from reaching space, reducing the rate at which the Earth can cool off.” Not even any mention of warming, is there? And, of course, there is no physical law which can prevent radiation from the surface reaching space. Irrelevant and misleading anyway, as the surface cools immediately it emits radiation. Night is an example.
The Wikipedia article is a farrago of misinformation, written by fanatical GHE cultists.
For dummies like you.
Carry on.
I never expect bob to understand. He’s actually tried to find ways ice can boil water. That’s how desperate and confused he is.
But, that’s why this is so much fun….
Puffman, please stop trying to be an Artful Dodger, as we all need to bow to TS.
“Puffman, please stop trying to be an Artful Dodger, as we all need to bow to TS.”
Completely incomprehensible. What is the idiot babbling about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting so much that it turns into braying.
“Puffman, please stop trying to be an Artful Dodger, as we all need to bow to TS.”
Completely incomprehensible. What is the idiot babbling about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
“Put a pot of water in the Sun. Put a lid on it. The water heats more slowly, and to a lower temperature.”
Yes, but maybe it gets hotter, depending on what the pot and lid are made of, butt
butt
butt
The heat from the Sun is not enough to exceed the boiling point of water at atmospheric pressure.
Clint,
” Hes actually tried to find ways ice can boil water. Thats how desperate and confused he is.”
Yes, and I succeeded, even finding a video of someone doing exactly that.
But your addiction to the ice can boil water fallacy comes from your confusion about how solids and gases emit and abzorb radiation.
Have you checked out a physics text lately.
Swenson,
Did you read the first sentence?
“raising its surface temperature.”
That’s what is usually called warming
Brainless bobby,
Butt, butt, butt . . . you sound like your brain is slowing to a halt.
As you agree, unconcentrated sunlight cannot even heat water to boiling point. Are you concerned that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will enable sunlight to boil water?
That would be a good thing, surely. Have lots of giant steam engines in the tropics, generating unlimited free electricity with their sun-powered boilers.
Sounds good for the rest of us, who could live anywhere else but the arid deserts where the steam engines were. Heating or air conditioning would be free! Charge your EV for nothing!
Only in your fantasies, fool. No GHE. CO2 heats nothing. You are an idiot.
Carry on.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
Did you read the first sentence?”
The first sentence of what, fool? The Book of Mormon?
Mike Flynn, please stop forgetting that you already made one inane comment.
“CO2 emits to space.”
Fiberglass fibers emit heat to the air.
Yet a thick layer of fiberglass still insulates!
The fact that CO2 emits to space does not mean it cannot be insulating.
Earth surface emits at 288 K. CO2 at the TOA emits at 220 K.
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/images/outgoing-radiation-thumb.png
Thus the emissions in the CO2 wavelength bands to space are LESS that the emissions in the same wavelength bands at the Earths surface.
In addition, the Earth surface emits heat by convection. No heat is emitted at the TOA to space by convection.
Swenson,
The first sentence in the wiki article where you claimed there was no mention of warming.
“Not even any mention of warming, is there?
What is your grade level for reading?
“Lots of experiments disprove predictions and assumptions Nate. Thats why science does experiments and doesnt rely on just predictions and assumptions.”
In a good experiment an unexplained result can ONLY be explained by new science.
In this instance ‘experimenter error’ is the main suspect.
“Unfortunately, bumbling bobby cannot find even one of the descriptions he claims to know about.”
Standard Swenson tr0lling tactic.
1. Ask for a description.
2. Get shown descriptions.
3. Ignore descriptions.
4. Claim no one ever showed him a description.
Repeat 47,000 times.
Nate, an invalid description is not a description.
You children might understand when you grow up.
Clint,
Tell me more about adding energy by adding bricks.
You may be referring to the example of “bricks in a box”, bob. That’s an easy example.
A well insulated box contains two bricks. The box and both bricks have a temperature of 70F. A third brick, also at 70F, is added to the box. The temperature of the box does NOT increase although more energy was added to the box.
It’s an easy concept to understand. You may have to get an adult to explain it to you.
“Nate, an invalid description is not a description.”
I see, the ones shown to him by Roy Spencer are invalid then?
Again, stuff gets declared, with insults, but nothing is demonstrated, no evidence is provided, no links to science sources that agree.
That is not being an adult. That is just tr0lling.
Child Nate, if a belief violates the principles of physics, then it’s are invalid.
Dr. Spencer does not challenge the GHE nonsense based on physics. Physics is not his area of expertise. He challenges the nonsense based on his knowledge of climate.
This has all been explained to you numerous times, but you can’t understand it. You’re a child of the cult. That’s NOT an insult, it’s reality….
Puffman, please stop affirming the consequent.
Thanks Clint,
you funny
“Dr. Spencer does not challenge the GHE nonsense based on physics. Physics is not his area of expertise. ”
He has a PhD in meteorology. That means he has learned how heat is transferred in the atmosphere.
What qualifies you to dismiss standard atmospheric physics?
Nate says:
”He has a PhD in meteorology. That means he has learned how heat is transferred in the atmosphere.
What qualifies you to dismiss standard atmospheric physics?”
Most of us recognize that warmer stuff warms cooler stuff so yes CO2 can create some warming. Dr. Spencer has estimated it at less than .5C per doubling after feedback.
Here is an example for the Arctic winter:
”Strong temperature inversions form in winter, which slow winds near the ground. Temperature inversions are where air at the surface is cooler than the air above. These inversions disconnect the surface air from the air above. Katabatic winds flowing off the Greenland ice sheet, driven by gravity, can be very strong.”
https://tinyurl.com/bdetaacv
“What qualifies you to dismiss standard atmospheric physics?
Most of us recognize ”
The question was for Clint.
Nate says:
”What qualifies you to dismiss standard atmospheric physics?
Most of us recognize. The question was for Clint.”
How can he answer that when you have never been able to provide a reference to what exactly is the ”standard atmospheric physics” that you claim Clint is dismissing?
I have been trying to get you to provide a scientific reference to exactly what that physics is. . .to no avail. Your last effort here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
The above paper purports to prove that CO2 is either not saturated or isn’t incapable of changing the lapse rate in the abstract. However, neither in the body of work nor in the conclusion does he purport to prove any of that.
We see from uplooking IR spectra that the sky is saturated or very near to it in the CO2 longwave bands. And nobody has yet established CO2 as being capable of changing the lapse rate.
Water does that by releasing latent heat that warms the water resulting from the condensation of water vapor. . .slowing convection by warming the sky outside of the energy neutral effect of pressure change.
So unless you have something new to dispute the uncertainties in your effort to prove this from a few months ago. . .there is no legitimate ”standard atmospheric physics” for Clint to dismiss.
That makes your challenge nothing more than the ramblings of blow-hards.
The question was for Clint. He doesnt need your ‘help’.
Clint is the one who claims
Roy’s description of the GHE must be invalid, because “Physics is not his area of expertise”
So clearly, Clint needs to tell us what is his area of expertise, that enables HIM to know that atmospheric physics in all the descriptions given here, including Roy’s, is invalid.
Otherwise we can assume he has no relevant expertise!
“https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
The above paper purports to prove that CO2 is either not saturated or isnt incapable of changing the lapse rate in the abstract. However, neither in the body of work nor in the conclusion does he purport to prove any of that.”
This total mischaracterization shows that you did not understand the paper.
And why should you, being an auditor not a scientist?
I will only discuss direct, complete, quotes from it.
OK lets work on this claim in the conclusion of the paper than
”Increasing the optical thickness increases the mean emission height and if the atmosphere is not isothermal, a change in emission height translates in a change in outgoing radiative flux.”
So where is it established that longwave photons at CO2 bandwidths seen from space originated at the surface and wasn’t a product of water vapor emissions absorbed in areas of the atmosphere that are either isothermic or in the stratosphere where the lapse rate is reversed? In areas of the atmosphere where the lapse rate is reversed emissions would increase with height.
“So where is it established ”
All you have read is the conclusion.
Thus you cannot honestly claim what you ask for is not in the paper.
The solution is simple. Read the damn paper!
“So where is it established that longwave photons at CO2 bandwidths seen from space originated at the surface ”
No one has claimed that! Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.
If they don’t originate from the surface how does forcing actually work. what you have is a slip shod theory of forcing that has no force behind it. M&W establishes a change in the lapse rate and only water has been shown to accomplish that trick and thats accomplished by moving extra energy above and beyond IR surface radiation, in the form of latent heat, into the air column.
“If they dont originate from the surface how does forcing actually work.”
How bout learning what a forcing is, before commenting on it?
LOL! A forcing is something with a force behind it. Mythical forcings need not apply.
If you won’t be bothered to learn what a forcing is, then we can safely disregard your opinions about them.
Well we do know you can’t explain it.
So you are here trying to criticize climate science papers, and to try to point out why they are wrong.
But it is also clear that you need my help to understand them, to hold your hand and guide you step by step through them!
Then you hope your pre-conceived notions that they are wrong will turn out to be correct.
No I don’t want you to explain science papers for me. I just want you to say is give a list of physical facts that start with CO2 absorbing a photon high in the atmosphere that ends up with how that energy decides surface temperature, while giving full consideration to the fact that convection can reverse the effects of a full spectrum reflector attached to a ceiling that still fails to warm the floor. I have asked you to do that and all you ever come up is theories that recognizes conditionals that may or may not be true that make the difference as to whether the theory will actually work in practice.
If you want to use M&W please provide the equations that consider the above and how they were arrived at as being true. Manabe himself said he didn’t prove the equations but simply applied them.
I gave you papers, you don’t read or understand them, yet are certain they must be wrong. When you speak about the science you mostly get it all mixed up.
E.g. latent heat is not a radiative forcing!
Now you ask me to explain the content of these papers to you. I have tried before, to no avail. It just leads to you throwing ad-hom grenades. There is no evidence you are here to learn.
Obviously your opinion that they must wrong is not based on understanding what’s in these papers, or understanding the science at all. It is based purely on your prior biases.
“that recognizes conditionals that may or may not be true”
like the NOT isothermal atmosphere?
Anybody with three or more neurons should understand this condition is met!
The Earth’s troposphere is self-evidently not isothermal, because it has a lapse rate!
Nate says:
”I gave you papers, you dont read or understand them, yet are certain they must be wrong. When you speak about the science you mostly get it all mixed up.”
Besides reading them you have already admitted they don’t establish CO2 as a significant cause of global warming.
Further you throw M&W at me then claim it has nothing to do with radiative forcing. If it doesn’t its not a factor in climate change as you have already agreed that climate change is a result of changes in forcing.
Nate says:
”E.g. latent heat is not a radiative forcing!”
LMAO! how ignorant can you be? Of course latent heat is not a radiative forcing. . .it is energy that changes the lapse rate by warming the resultant water when condensing. This warming creates a forcing.
You have your head absolutely stuck in a textbook that says the release of latent heat occurs without a temperature change. Yes it occurs without a temperature change but where the heck do you think that energy goes?
It warms the water species in the atmosphere and warms CO2. But having your head stuck like in quicksand in a textbook you fail to grasp the fact that this energy is reabsorbed into the atmosphere.
Nate says:
”Now you ask me to explain the content of these papers to you. I have tried before, to no avail. It just leads to you throwing ad-hom grenades. There is no evidence you are here to learn.
Obviously your opinion that they must wrong is not based on understanding whats in these papers, or understanding the science at all. It is based purely on your prior biases.”
Thats the game you play Nate. You throw out a paper and when somebody says the paper doesn’t prove CO2 is a significant contributor to climate change, you simply claim it does but you can’t explain why, nor point to the section in the paper where that fact is proven.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
” ”that recognizes conditionals that may or may not be true”
like the NOT isothermal atmosphere?
Anybody with three or more neurons should understand this condition is met!
The Earths troposphere is self-evidently not isothermal, because it has a lapse rate!”
——————–
LMAO! it did not claim that the atmosphere had to be isothermal it said warming could occur from increases in CO2 if the isothermal hypothesis hypothesis was untrue.
That hypothesis states that the atmosphere would be isothermal if it were not for the gas laws and the phase change of water.
If true then CO2, which neither changing phases in the atmosphere nor is a factor in the gas laws, CO2 can’t change the lapse rate and force a change in convection.
If the atmosphere simply had to be isothermal to prevent CO2 from being a factor in the event that CO2 was saturated as a single layer your author would have simply stated that, but he didn’t.
Worse even there are significant areas in the atmosphere fulltime isothermic such as the tropopause where the extinction and radiative dominance of water in the troposphere gives over to an increase and new domination of the radiative characteristics of oxygen and its species in the stratosphere. CO2 is just a weakling in both those layers incapable of shaping any kind of lapse rate in their presence.
“Besides reading them you have already admitted they dont establish CO2 as a significant cause of global warming.”
False. Quote me.
“Further you throw M&W at me then claim it has nothing to do with radiative forcing.”
False. Quote me.
“If it doesnt its not a factor in climate change as you have already agreed”
FALSE. Stop being a lying piece of sh*t.
“That hypothesis states that the atmosphere would be isothermal if it were not for the gas laws and the phase change of water.”
Point?
The atmosphere is observably NOT isothermal. There are no if, ands, or buts about it.
“If true then CO2, which neither changing phases in the atmosphere nor is a factor in the gas laws, CO2 cant change the lapse rate and force a change in convection.”
Irrelevant nonsense.
CO2 does not need to do any of that in order to radiate to space from a higher and colder level.
Which produces a radiative forcing! Otherwise know as the GHE.
“If the atmosphere simply had to be isothermal to prevent CO2 from being a factor in the event that CO2 was saturated as a single layer your author would have simply stated that, but he didnt.”
Of course he did. You obviously missed a key point of the paper.
It is precisely the T drop with height of the atmosphere which reduces the emissions when that highest radiating level increases in height with increasing CO2.
Nate says:
May 26, 2024 at 3:29 PM
If true then CO2, which neither changing phases in the atmosphere nor is a factor in the gas laws, CO2 cant change the lapse rate and force a change in convection.
Irrelevant nonsense.
CO2 does not need to do any of that in order to radiate to space from a higher and colder level.
Which produces a radiative forcing! Otherwise know as the GHE.
——————-
1. thats the claim where does the evidence exist?
2. what is the physical connection to the surface and how does that come to be without changing the lapse rate?
3. co2 already exists every where in the atmosphere that it can get to regardless of the local atmosphere temperature so where is this new ”physical vs ”imaginary” new radiation radiating from?
these are the specific questions you have clearly demonstrated you have no answer for.
“1. thats the claim where does the evidence exist?”
In the paper. In Modtran. In the observations.
“2. what is the physical connection to the surface and how does that come to be without changing the lapse rate?”
Off topic. We’ve been over this many times before. You never pay attention or learn.
“3. co2 already exists every where in the atmosphere that it can get to regardless of the local atmosphere temperature so where is this new physical vs imaginary new radiation radiating from?”
The issue is, for each wavelength, what is the effective radiating level (ERL) in the atmosphere, and what is the pressure and T gradient there.
What happens in the upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere, when CO2 increases, including the effect of pressure broadening.
For example, the 15 micron abs0r.ption peak pressure broadens. It gets WIDER when CO2 increases. In the wings of the peak the ERL is lower, than in the center.
The ERL in the center rises into the stratosphere, thus does not experience colder T, while the wings rise in the troposphere and do experience a colder T.
The NET result is a reduction in emissions around the 15 micron peak.
This is all discussed in detail in the paper.
Read it, get informed, come back with intelligent questions.
Nate says:
” ”1. thats the claim where does the evidence exist?”
In the paper. In Modtran. In the observations.
————————–
The observations and underlying science stops at the point that CO2 is absorbed in the atmosphere. Its not a model for any resulting surface temperature.
.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”2. what is the physical connection to the surface and how does that come to be without changing the lapse rate?”
Off topic. Weve been over this many times before. You never pay attention or learn.
——-
Gee the surface temperature is off topic. How hilarious can this charade get?
.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”3. co2 already exists every where in the atmosphere that it can get to regardless of the local atmosphere temperature so where is this new physical vs imaginary new radiation radiating from?”
The issue is, for each wavelength, what is the effective radiating level (ERL) in the atmosphere, and what is the pressure and T gradient there.
What happens in the upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere, when CO2 increases, including the effect of pressure broadening.
For example, the 15 micron abs0r.ption peak pressure broadens. It gets WIDER when CO2 increases. In the wings of the peak the ERL is lower, than in the center.
The ERL in the center rises into the stratosphere, thus does not experience colder T, while the wings rise in the troposphere and do experience a colder T.
The NET result is a reduction in emissions around the 15 micron peak.
This is all discussed in detail in the paper.
Read it, get informed, come back with intelligent questions.
———————-
Gee Nate who cares of CO2 does the twist or the watusi up in the atmosphere. When you say: ”physical connection to the surface” is ”off topic”. How fake can your claim that CO2 is is currently capable of warming the surface be?
Not to speak of all you gave us what an untested theory of an imaginary object ”wings” experiencing cooler temperatures. All you are doing is spewing gobbledygook.
“Gee Nate who cares of CO2 does the twist or the watusi up in the atmosphere. ”
You did! Because that is what the GHE FORCING IS, the one you have been constantly demanding explanation for.
“how does forcing actually work.”
But, not anymore, now you moved on to other things…
Until you bring it up again, later, having not recalled this discussion..
Thus, discussions with you are totally pointless.
“Not to speak of all you gave us what an untested theory of an imaginary object wings experiencing cooler temperatures. All you are doing is spewing gobbledygook.”
Such details matter in science. And you’ve been demanding just such detailed explanations, which are in the paper you havent read, yet are able to dismiss.
That interest was obviously not genuine. We now see that you actually can’t be bothered to learn about the details.
Because, regardless, you are certain they must be unproven!
So thats that!
Now I expect more ad-homs and complaints that I havent explained anything.
Which we now know is disingenuous baiting.
Nate says:
Gee Nate who cares of CO2 does the twist or the watusi up in the atmosphere.
You did! Because that is what the GHE FORCING IS, the one you have been constantly demanding explanation for.
how does forcing actually work.
————————-
So you are talking about the missing hotspot.
So what you are telling me the world is panicking over some forcing way up in the atmosphere where we have no idea of what it has done, where we aren’t measuring the effects, where no long term climate trends have been recorded and we are just assuming its the cause for the surface warming.
Oh Boy!!
“I just want you to say is give a list of physical facts that start with CO2 absorbing a photon high in the atmosphere that ends up with how that energy decides surface temperature, ”
First part explained.
Results in warming of the upper troposphere via the first law of Thermodynamics. Do you seriously doubt that affects temperature at the surface?
All weather, such as warm fronts, cool fronts, storminess, is transported across continents in the upper troposphere or the lower stratosphere, via the jet stream.
And yet it affects us on the surface. A warm front moves through and the warm temperatures propagate down to the surface by various means, air subsidence, radiation, reduced convection.
Yes?
And we know that the variations seen in the troposphere temperature in UAH data are highly correlated with T measured at the surface.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1995/mean:24/plot/uah6/from:1995/mean:24
Nate says:
” ”I just want you to say is give a list of physical facts that start with CO2 absorbing a photon high in the atmosphere that ends up with how that energy decides surface temperature,”
First part explained.
Results in warming of the upper troposphere via the first law of Thermodynamics. Do you seriously doubt that affects temperature at the surface?”
——————-
yes!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
All weather, such as warm fronts, cool fronts, storminess, is transported across continents in the upper troposphere or the lower stratosphere, via the jet stream.
And yet it affects us on the surface. A warm front moves through and the warm temperatures propagate down to the surface by various means, air subsidence, radiation, reduced convection.
Yes?
———————-
No!
1) the upper troposphere is 4 to 6 miles high. weather fronts are typically 1 mile high. And the jet stream is 4-8 miles high.
2) unusual hotspot warming has not been observed in the upper troposphere.
you just skip over those facts and remain inculcated despite the lack of physical evidence.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says
”And we know that the variations seen in the troposphere temperature in UAH data are highly correlated with T measured at the surface.”
—————-
yes lesser warming Nate in the lower troposphere as opposed to hotspot warming. we know that convection works to reduce surface warming so if forcing is arising from warming in the upper troposphere it should be relatively greater than the surface warming in higher levels of the atmosphere where convection is less effective.
but that’s not been observed. thus since the atmosphere is relatively transparent to SW compared to LW and water vapor is reduced by lower temperatures at higher elevations the effects being seen are likely a combination of present and/or recent past increases in SW insolation due to orbital variation and or solar grand maximum/LIA recovery and the associated feedbacks of sea level rise and ice decreases that can continue if nothing else changes for thousands of years.
the nice thing is that humans are adaptable and if some concerning anthropogenic sourced warming is ever discovered we can fix that lickety split.
“And the jet stream is 4-8 miles high.”
you just skip over this fact and remain inculcated.
“All weather, such as warm fronts, cool fronts, storminess, is transported across continents in the upper troposphere or the lower stratosphere, via the jet stream.
And yet it affects us on the surface. ”
Sounds like you are unsure how jet-stream driven weather ends up affecting us on the surface.
Yet it does.
Thankfully, meteorology doesnt need YOU to understand how the atmosphere works, in order to predict the weather.
If I add CO2 it reduces the outgoing LW radiation at the TOA, and this is what is called a forcing. So we are no longer debating that occurs it seems.
Now, you are motivated to deny that the warming propagates down to the surface.
But as noted, weather driven warming in the upper atmosphere DOES propagate down to the surface.
Physics is clear: if the upper troposphere warms by whatever means, then convection from the surface is reduced. Radiation from the surface is reduced.
Ordinary experience tells as that when warm humid air moves in aloft overnight, the surface doesnt cool off much, as it would with a cool dry upper atmosphere. Both radiation and convection from the surface are reduced.
The net result is a warmer surface in the morning. Then the sun heats it up further.
If this effect persists for a long time, it is known as a Heat Dome, and it causes a heat wave at the surface.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1904441/spain-cordoba-weather-forecast-temperatures-heat-dome
Similarly, we can add an extra layer of insultation on top of our existing attic insulation. The top surface of the existing insulation is now insulated, in winter, from the cold outside air and WARMS.
Seemingly you would be skeptical that this warming of the top surface would propagate downward all the way to the house below. But it DOES.
That is the entire point of adding extra attic insulation.
Nate says:
”If I add CO2 it reduces the outgoing LW radiation at the TOA, and this is what is called a forcing. So we are no longer debating that occurs it seems.”
——————-
For how long? It can’t transfer it downwards if downwards is warmer. You have an incomplete theory that doesn’t itemize the disposition of any light that CO2 might absorb. In the troposphere water vapor will absorb the vast majority of CO2 emissions as the top of the troposphere is defined as the beginning of the extinction of water. If water absorbs that energy water vapor will emit that energy in a wider range of frequencies that ~90% will bypass the CO2.
The problem with Modtran and the political science of climate change is all it addresses is CO2 capturing some outgoing light in the troposphere and above the troposphere and the theory dies on the vine right there leaving an immense gap in our scientific knowledge of CO2 effects on climate.
Nate says:
”Now, you are motivated to deny that the warming propagates down to the surface.”
——————
So you claim. . .again without any evidence. You have a bad habit of doing that.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”But as noted, weather driven warming in the upper atmosphere DOES propagate down to the surface.”
——————
I have already acknowledged that. The Great Convective loops transporting energy to the poles do create great inversions above the poles in Winter.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Physics is clear: if the upper troposphere warms by whatever means, then convection from the surface is reduced. Radiation from the surface is reduced.”
————————
Perhaps by a small so far undetected amount. But the vast majority of energy transported by convection is latent heat and the latent heat is sensitive to temperature, thus any inter-atmospheric warming convection will just blow through by reducing its condensation rate and overwhelming any warming effect that could be even remotely possibly created by CO2.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Ordinary experience tells as that when warm humid air moves in aloft overnight, the surface doesnt cool off much, as it would with a cool dry upper atmosphere. Both radiation and convection from the surface are reduced.”
——————-
I agree that’s a great example of the impotence of CO2 and the power of water, which is known to change the lapse rate..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
The net result is a warmer surface in the morning. Then the sun heats it up further.
If this effect persists for a long time, it is known as a Heat Dome, and it causes a heat wave at the surface.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1904441/spain-cordoba-weather-forecast-temperatures-heat-dome.
——————
Indeed water vapor is really good at that. CO2 not so much as it doesn’t change its concentration much, especially in comparison to water that isn’t evenly distributed so we can see the effect in weather but not climate. . . at least that is the current state of science on our understanding of natural climate change. No way to parse between that and anthropogenic effects. Of course we have an evil elitist political movement rising once again is it does repetitively that wants to experiment on humans by treating them like lab rats by force. I could care less if you want to volunteer but I figure you figure you will be exempt or at minimum unharmed. Thus you get the Leonardo DiCaprios of the world cruising to conferences to limit the use of fossil fuels in a small private ocean liner that uses an amount of fuel by the mile of an entire fleet of 4 fully loaded Boeing 747’s.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
Similarly, we can add an extra layer of insultation on top of our existing attic insulation. The top surface of the existing insulation is now insulated, in winter, from the cold outside air and WARMS.
———————
Yes it does by blocking convection effectively. Turn your fiberglass batts into gas and it won’t. the gas will just rise up and contact the roof sheathing and pass the heat right along. You though imagine the gas not rising and passing on the heat but accumulating it for decades and. . .changing the lapse rate. this is not the case. The sorry fact is that the upper atmosphere is a lot colder than it would be if there were no greenhouse gases indicating that in whole they have plenty of ability to not be insulating.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
Seemingly you would be skeptical that this warming of the top surface would propagate downward all the way to the house below. But it DOES.
——————–
LMAO! This imaginary insulation in your mind does wonders. But real insulation keeps the fiberglass molecules from moving up to the roof sheathing.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”That is the entire point of adding extra attic insulation.”
———————-
Let me know when you install your CO2 insulation in your attic. I want to come buy and get a real laugh.
As a reminder this has already been tested many times such as here: https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
See I am a nice guy and I am trying to save you from a real embarrassment and a loss of money.
“Perhaps by a small so far undetected amount. ”
Bwa ha ha!
“But the vast majority of energy transported by convection is latent heat and the latent heat is sensitive to temperature, thus any inter-atmospheric warming convection will just blow through by reducing its condensation rate and overwhelming any warming effect that could be even remotely possibly created by CO2.”
You saying stuff. Unsupported feelings, that just so happens to support your narrative, but don’t agree with physics.
And you are leaving out the fact that added water vapor is a GHG, so that produces additional GHE, ie a positive feedback.
“As a reminder this has already been tested many times such as here: https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf”
Bwa ha ha!
The authors admitted that they detected back radiation. They admitted that by 1LOT, it should have resulted in a slight warming. They admitted that they could not explain this lost heat.
‘many times’? Post a few others that are not crappy.
Let me know when they’ve done the experiment on a real atmosphere, with water vapor, clouds, a lapse rate, etc.
Nate says:
”Similarly, we can add an extra layer of insultation on top of our existing attic insulation.”
The fact you actually believe that CO2 is like insulation despite the huge amount of evidence against it and no evidence for it shows how bankrupt your arguments are, how ignorant you are, and how inculcated you are. CO2 does not and will not perform like fiberglass batt insulation. . . because the entire strategy of insulation is to prevent air movement transporting the heat where it can radiate freely.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
” ”Perhaps by a small so far undetected amount.”
Bwa ha ha!”
What is actually hilarious is how you cling to the 3rd grader radiation/insulation model despite mounds of evidence it doesn’t work. The tiny bit that it may work would be due to an ever so slight delay in a convective response. . .but thats next to meaningless in any experiment in terms doing what you claim it will do.
The negative feedback from convection is huge and can be seen in all the energy budgets yet your ilk continues to wave your arms to dismiss without any evidence whatsoever perhaps half of atmospheric physics to focus in on an alleged radiative effect that isn’t diminished by negative feedback but has shown no capability to change the lapse rate except to the extent that water does create a change to the lapse rate. It’s like a case of stolen valor. . .its as shoddy physics as the stolen valor is shoddy as a claim to heroism.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
” ”But the vast majority of energy transported by convection is latent heat and the latent heat is sensitive to temperature, thus any inter-atmospheric warming convection will just blow through by reducing its condensation rate and overwhelming any warming effect that could be even remotely possibly created by CO2.”
You saying stuff. Unsupported feelings, that just so happens to support your narrative, but dont agree with physics.”
BS! Trenberth’s budget recognizes the watts delivered by surface thermals and latent heat via convection. You are selectively ignoring that fact to make the erroneous claim you just made above.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”And you are leaving out the fact that added water vapor is a GHG, so that produces additional GHE, ie a positive feedback.”
The positive feedback must arise from the change in the lapse rate. The negative part are the watts going up.
It may well be the case there isn’t even a greenhouse effect except to a slight extent of a few degrees due to temperature inversions. Convective heat loss may represent a surface heat loss the equivalent of any greenhouse effect. According to Stefan Boltzmann equations equilibrium from a planet in a 1370 watt radiation field and 30% albedo should be 342.5 watts.
That means that surface albedo could be as high as 10% or more and there would be no greenhouse effect within the range of error recognized as possible from non-representative sampling, particularly of high elevation locations.
The positive effect as laid out in the M&W theory is simply that change in lapse rate. If it goes up without creating a slowing of the lapse rate the ”net effect” on the surface would be nothing within the multiple layer model as there would be zero effect of CO2 on restraining convection. Water condensation adds heat to the atmosphere and restrains convection due to the fact that water and ice aren’t gases, are heavier and will slow convection and is by far a more robust GHG than CO2.
Now indeed from a perspective of radiation from the surface there is a greenhouse effect that operates on the surface where optically the surface can actually see the radiation and it will warm as compared to looking at an empty sky and days would be hotter and nights colder.
But we know that the effect is saturated within the frequencies intercepted by CO2 as this is almost entirely absorbed in the first few meters of the surface where hardly any reduction in atmospheric mean temperature has occurred. The exception being only those regions of the earth where higher layers of the atmosphere are warmer than the lower layers. This allows for the atmosphere to warm the surface up to the temperature of the atmosphere.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
” ”As a reminder this has already been tested many times such as here: https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf”
Bwa ha ha!
The authors admitted that they detected back radiation. They admitted that by 1LOT, it should have resulted in a slight warming. They admitted that they could not explain this lost heat.”
—————–
Thats because its not lost heat. The net radiation from the heated disk is warmer than the gases in chambers. There is no temperature difference between the CO2 chamber and the common air chamber. . .but you just can’t see that temperature with an IR detector. I suppose you believe that the temperature of the chambers doesn’t matter and all that matters is if something emits IR.
If it were otherwise we would see a temperature response rather than playing ignorant about the fact of backradiation from CO2 not warming the heated surface any more than any gas that we choose to put in the chamber.
The explanation you are searching for is quite simple. Its not that the CO2 doesn’t warm the heated surface its just that it doesn’t any more than gases or chambers full of gases in general.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
” many times? Post a few others that are not crappy.
Let me know when theyve done the experiment on a real atmosphere, with water vapor, clouds, a lapse rate, etc.”
I will take that as an admission you don’t have any evidence either way yourself. You reject what you just tried to claim due to the lack of enough experiments. I will take that as a concession by you for the entire argument you have tried to advance here. You have zero evidence. We have Seim, Pratt, Wood’s as the most popular ones bandied about. You have none.
“What is actually hilarious is how you cling to the 3rd grader radiation/insulation model despite mounds of evidence it doesnt work. ”
Where is it then?
In your contrarian mind there are ‘mounds of evidence’. In reality you have not shown it to us.
“The fact you actually believe that CO2 is like insulation despite the huge amount of evidence against it and no evidence for it shows how bankrupt your arguments are, how ignorant you are, and how inculcated you are.”
Wow, lot of ad-homs piled on there.
Yet none of the ‘huge amount of evidence’ that you fantasize exists, is ever shown!
Sorry, the one crappy Seim and Olsen paper is not a ‘mound of evidence’ nor even a ‘huge amount’.
It is just one poorly carried out paper that can’t explain its errors.
“CO2 does not and will not perform like fiberglass batt insulation. . . because the entire strategy of insulation is to prevent air movement transporting the heat where it can radiate freely.”
This is just an auditor lacking a general understanding of what insulation is and does, and so naively assumes that the insulation bought at a hardware store is the only material that qualifies as insulation!
If you drop for a moment the contrarian thinking, you could acknowledge that the GHE reduces outgoing radiation, as Roy Spencer and all your other skeptic heroes do, thus the Earth must warms.
And the result is that a higher T difference between the surface and space is required to emit the same amount of heat as input from the sun.
This is exactly the effect that adding another layer of fiberglass insulation does for your attic. The T difference between the house and outside is increased for the same heat input.
Thus both phenomena qualify as insulating effects. Sorry.
” many times? Post a few others that are not crappy.
Let me know when theyve done the experiment on a real atmosphere, with water vapor, clouds, a lapse rate, etc.
I will take that as an admission you dont have any evidence either way yourself. ”
So we are going with the 3rd grader playground taunt?
So no ‘many times’ no ‘mounds of evidence’ no ‘huge amounts of evidence’ can be expected?
As ever, this was all jus the standard BILL SAYING STUFF, that in the end cannot be supported.
Why do you think that is an effective debating technique, when you always end up getting caught empty handed?
Nate says:
”Sorry, the one crappy Seim and Olsen paper is not a mound of evidence nor even a huge amount.
It is just one poorly carried out paper that cant explain its errors.”
——————
So you claim with zero evidence.
But the thermometer doesn’t lie. The explanation you are searching for is quite simple. Its not that the CO2 doesnt warm the heated surface its just that it doesnt any more than gases or chambers full of gases that are in contact with each other whether the chamber has pure CO2 in it or it has common air in it.
If your hypothesis doesn’t work your hypothesis is wrong. Awaiting your proof, remaining skeptical.
“So you claim with zero evidence.”
False, the paper has been discussed and the flaws pointed out several times here by several posters.
And it does you no good to keep misrepresenting this single flawed paper as ‘many times’, or ‘mounds of evidence’ or ‘huge amounts of evidence’, when the reality is it is one controversial paper.
In science, results that appear to overturn laws of physics are published from time to time, and certainly these require multiple replications by multiple different groups to be believed.
Recently there have been claims of room-temperature superconductors, that could not be replicated.
No discovery then.
Nate says:
” ”so you claim with zero evidence.”
False, the paper has been discussed and the flaws pointed out several times here by several posters.”
————————-
Lets see the chamber thermometer shows the chamber to be the same temperature whether the gas is a ghg or not.
Seems to me your criticism is based upon your belief that if a gas radiates its going to make the heated plate warmer even when the gas is in physical contact with plate.
That means your criticism illogically concludes the experiment is flawed because your belief about greenhouse gases begs the question as to a ghg having a ”unique” and ”separate” ability to warm an object.
I assume that means you believe that the uniqueness of that ability of a ghg to warm a remote object is not limited to cases where you have a barrier (like a vacuum space) between the gas and the object.
Thats pretty block headed of you.
As discussed, as nauseum, even the authors agreed that according to two laws of physics: The First Law of Thermodynamics, and Kirchhoff’s Law, the back surface should have warmed a small amount.
And they agreed that these laws are valid. Both these Laws have been thoroughly tested and repeatedly confirmed over the last century and a half.
The fact that it didnt warm as predicted, they admitted, could not be explained, but also admit they may not have accounted for all heat losses. Experiments like this are tricky.
And as we discussed at length, their radiation detector warmed as a result of the back radiation from CO2, as expected.
Meanwhile we have Swanson’s experiment, that did find back radiation heating.
Hunter jumps to the Seim and Olsen paper as if it’s absolute proof of something. But, they reported that their IR detector measured a reduction in IR exiting the chamber (Figure 7). That energy must appear somewhere, yet they claim the temperatures in both chambers remain the same. They report that the temperature of a thermocouple on the rear wall appears to follow the same trajectory with or without CO2 (Figure 6), but they stopped the run before that temperature achieved steady state. Also, that thermocouple is also measuring the temperature of the air in the rear chamber, not just the effects of back radiation.
They continue by reducing the thickness of the rear plate, switching to thin AL foil. Then, they begin to measure the IR radiation received by a rear mounted IR detector, with the results shown in Figure (9). As they note in Section 3.5:
Their whole effort is flawed from the beginning, as they describe the method used to heat the rear plate. They wrote in Figure 3 that:
Nowhere do they provide a description for how they measured the temperature of the AL plate (or foil), or control that temperature. Any back radiation from the CO2 case would tend to warm those plates, an effect which would vanish if they actively maintained that temperature as a constant.
Thus, their conclusions are without merit.
Nate says:
”As discussed, as nauseum, even the authors agreed that according to two laws of physics: The First Law of Thermodynamics, and Kirchhoffs Law, the back surface should have warmed a small amount. And they agreed that these laws are valid. Both these Laws have been thoroughly tested and repeatedly confirmed over the last century and a half.
The fact that it didnt warm as predicted, they admitted, could not be explained, but also admit they may not have accounted for all heat losses. Experiments like this are tricky.”
—————
BS, you are making stuff up. And there is nothing tricky about it at all. See below.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”And as we discussed at length, their radiation detector warmed as a result of the back radiation from CO2, as expected.”
Of course it did. Thats because it hadn’t already warmed from contact with the gas inside the chamber. The detector was outside of the chamber peering through a small window with zero contact with the gas in the chamber that was being heated by conduction and convection.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter jumps to the Seim and Olsen paper as if its absolute proof of something.”
———————–
What it absolutely proves Swanson is that if you are going to heat something either the medium, the gas, must be in contact with the object to be heated or that gas must be IR active if it is not in contact. But having both conditions present doesn’t change the resultant equilibrium temperature. . .still cold objects cannot warm warmer objects.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”But, they reported that their IR detector measured a reduction in IR exiting the chamber (Figure 7). That energy must appear somewhere, yet they claim the temperatures in both chambers remain the same. They report that the temperature of a thermocouple on the rear wall appears to follow the same trajectory with or without CO2 (Figure 6), but they stopped the run before that temperature achieved steady state. Also, that thermocouple is also measuring the temperature of the air in the rear chamber, not just the effects of back radiation.
They continue by reducing the thickness of the rear plate, switching to thin AL foil. Then, they begin to measure the IR radiation received by a rear mounted IR detector, with the results shown in Figure (9). As they note in Section 3.5:
After 40 minutes the backscatter in the rear chamber increased 17 W/m2 with CO2 in the front chamber. The measured backscatter is then about 80% of the reduced IR radiation out of the front window.”
—————–
Duh!!
E. Swanson says:
”Their whole effort is flawed from the beginning, as they describe the method used to heat the rear plate. They wrote in Figure 3 that:
A black-painted Al-plate (or a black-painted Al-foil) is heated by a 500 W halogen lamp. The distance to the lamp was adjusted to warm the plate to about 100˚C.
Nowhere do they provide a description for how they measured the temperature of the AL plate (or foil), or control that temperature. Any back radiation from the CO2 case would tend to warm those plates, an effect which would vanish if they actively maintained that temperature as a constant.
Thus, their conclusions are without merit.”
No flaws here. You are reading between the lines that they ”maintained” the plate temperature at 100C throughout the experiment when this was merely part of the initial set up.
This would be a much easier experiment for you to duplicate Swanson than your one where you wanted to remove the atmosphere in contact with the plates to show your effect. You are the one manipulating an experiment and trying to sell it as proof of what goes on in earth’s atmosphere. You are the flawed scientist, not Seim and Olson.
“Of course it did. Thats because it hadnt already warmed from contact with the gas inside the chamber. The detector was outside of the chamber peering through a small window with zero contact with the gas in the chamber that was being heated by conduction and convection.”
That is gobbldegook, Bill.
We are talking about the CHANGE in its temperature when CO2 is introduced, and no other change. It warmed as a result of introducing CO2. And that was due to the 17 W/m^2 of back radiation that it received and abs0orbed from the CO2.
Thus this, all by itself, confirms that back radiation can warm things.
“BS, you are making stuff up. And there is nothing tricky about it at all.”
Nope, I didnt.
Seim response to my emailed questions which are numbered:
“Hello Nathan
Some answers to your questions:
1. You measure a back radiation of 17 W/m^2 at the rear wall of the apparatus from the CO2 in the front section of the . But you don’t measure the expected rise in temperature of the gas in that rear section of 2.4-4.0 C. Instead you measure ~ 0.25 C rise. I am puzzled by this. Do you have any physics explanation for this?
Sorry, we have not found a physical explanation. The paper would have been much better if we had such an explanation! But we decided to publish it anyway and hope for some response from other scientists, with more knowledge about radiation theory than we possess.
2. The 17 W/m^2 is hitting the rear wall, which is ~ a black body, thus it should be absorbed and heating the wall. It seems you are finding that it is not? Isnt this a violation of the First Law and of Kirchoff’s Law?
We agree that the following response to increased IR radiation, absorbed in the back wall should be:
– The absorbed energy should rise the temperature of the back wall. Thermal energy transfer to the air in the back chamber should rise its temperature. This process should continue until balance is obtained with the incoming IR energy and the loss of energy due to higher IR radiation from the back wall. This conservation of energy is expected from the first law of thermodynamics and Kirchoff’s Law. But these laws are valid, so some other explanation must exist!
– One explanation is that so much energy is lost due to losses through the walls and windows in the boxes. But the measurements of losses done by us do not support this.
– The loss of energy due to expansion of the gas during heating (First Law) was also discussed, and found not to be the cause of the missing heating.
3. “The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter. This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b).” So then are we to conclude that the Stefan Boltzmann Law has a problem? I don’t understand?
We do not state that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is wrong, but that there must be some other physical mechanism(s) that can explain the experimental results.
4. “The near-identical heating curves for all the three gases indicate that the thermal energy transfer is only driven by the temperature of the back wall of the rear chamber. Without extra heating of the walls in the rear chamber, the air temperature cannot increase. These findings might question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC.”. But there is extra heating of the walls that should be coming from the back-scatter radiant power hitting it. So it seems you are casting doubt on basic radiative heat transfer principles here. No?
Note that the walls inside the two boxes are covered with thin, high-polished Al-foil. They reflect all IR radiation efficiently (based on tests done by us). IR radiated out from the back wall is mainly reflected out the front window. The walls are heated thermally, and the temperature is close to identical to the air temperature.
5. Is it possible that the expected rise you calculated is incorrect? I didnt see any indication of the total heating power input to the experiment? If it is much larger than the emitted black body radiation power from the rear wall, then the SB-law calculate temperature rise from eq 2 will be an overestimate.
The heating of the back wall was done in several different ways to ensure that energy loss through the rear side of the source did not influence the results. For the black-painted metal plate and the Al-foil the temperature was close to 100 oC. The back wall around the plate was heated from ca 20 to ca 50 oC. As you mention more IR radiation is emitted by the IR source than from the Styrofoam back wall. But when the IR radiation out of the front window was measured, the detector scanned the IR out the front window and the presented value is the average IR value. So we did not use the Eq. 2 to compute IR from the plate, but measured IR output directly through the front window!
I hope the answers to your questions is satisfactory! If not, please contact me again!
Best regards,
Thorstein Seim
Hunter wrote more bogus stuff:
So what? I was just quoting what they wrote about adjusting the distance between the lamp and the AL plate/foil> In Section 3.4.1, they wrote:
Average temperature? Over what time period? How close is “close” and would the temperature continue to change after 20 minutes? Certainly, the temperatures in the two chambers do continue to change after 20 minutes, so why wouldn’t the temperature of the plate/foil also change, since it’s being cooled via convection augmented by the small fan in the rear chamber?
Hunter is grasping at straws, lacking any critical thought. He can’t understand that my GPE demo was not about testing CO2’s effects within the atmosphere.
Swanson says:
Article quote: ”When we warm the thin Al-foil the temperature of the foil increases quickly to 85˚C after ca 20 seconds and reaching a maximum value after ca 20 minutes. The average temperature of the plate is close to 100˚C.”
Average temperature? Over what time period? How close is close and would the temperature continue to change after 20 minutes?
Certainly, the temperatures in the two chambers do continue to change after 20 minutes, so why wouldnt the temperature of the plate/foil also change, since its being cooled via convection augmented by the small fan in the rear chamber?
Hunter is grasping at straws, lacking any critical thought. He cant understand that my GPE demo was not about testing CO2s effects within the atmosphere.”
————————
Good lord Swanson the authors say the maximum temperature for the Al-foil was reached in 20 minutes. That would be when the cooling rate equals the input rate. This wan’t the main experiment he was testing if the ”mass” of the AI-plate was a factor and it wasn’t.
You need to explain what you see as potential ramifications of your concerns. I see no ramifications other than perhaps its blowing your theory to pieces and the fact you are running around like a chicken with its head cut off groping for its own head.
Nate the authors explained: ”We do not state that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is wrong, but that there must be some other physical mechanism(s) that can explain the experimental results.”
they did not say their experiment was flawed nor did they as you claim say that the lack of warming was a violation of the laws of physics as you faked what they actually said which I quote above.
And how hard is it for you to imagine what that physical mechanism is? Obviously Stefan-Boltzmann only deals with radiative transfer of energy and there is a lot more than just radiative transfer of energy going on in this box. . .just in case you didn’t notice. The gases in the box heat the same whether they are radiative active or inactive. . .thus the correct answer is that radiation only warms something if it isn’t already warmed by something else. Fact is convection can override the radiation effects of a solid blackbody barrier. Overriding CO2’s weak ability to radiate is a piece of cake.
In other words the requirements of The First Law of Thermodynamics, and Kirchhoffs Law were satisfied in advance or concurrently by convection. Its like if you have a mass of a million tons moving at 10km/sec and its in touch with an object of any size moving in the same direction at 10km/sec. . .the million ton object isn’t going to accelerate that other object of any size.
thus this answer meets what I have stated many times. GHG in an atmosphere are necessary for a greenhouse effect but not sufficient for a GHE, unless of course they hold special properties like the ability to change phases in the atmosphere and slow convection as a result.
Hunter wrote:
Well, I thought it strange that when using the AL foil, it took only 20 seconds for the foil temperature to reach 85C, but ~19.5 minutes for the temperature to reach a “maximum value”. We don’t know what that “value” might be, only that the “average temperature of the foil is close to 100˚C”. Did they adjust the position of the lamp to maintain that “maximum value”, or what?
Earlier, when they used the heavier AL plate, the temperature of the rear chamber continued to increase after 20 minutes (Figures 5 and 7). But. for the foil case, they provide no plot of temperature vs. time, except Figure 9 where the back scatter continues to increase after 20 minutes, which indicates that they ended the run(s) before steady state was achieved. We are left in the dark to speculate from their comments as to what they observed.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter wrote:
You need to explain what you see as potential ramifications of your concerns.”
Well, I thought it strange that when using the AL foil, it took only 20 seconds for the foil temperature to reach 85C, but ~19.5 minutes for the temperature to reach a maximum value.
———————-
The foil has very little heat capacity and very high conductivity. The slower warming of the foil above the 85deg is in sync with the warming of the air in the chamber as we have agreed that the hotter the environment gets the warmer the surface gets because you are slowing cooling and effectively adding heat capacity to the system. Since system heat capacity is an issue I would assume the experimenters might have wanted to verify it as a ”system” heat capacity vs the heat capacity of the ”plate”. Since the plate and the air and multiple chambers of the box experiment are all a single thermodynamic system the experiment doesn’t prove that radiation can’t warm anything but it does prove its not necessary for their to be anything but additional heat capacity in the system via common air that is capable of doing the same thing as the radiative active gas.
The main criticism of the 3rd grader radiation model is precisely that it doesn’t provide any additional greenhouse effect than does restricting convection.
So this is beautiful and morphs nicely into the Manabe/Wetherald model including the need that something must be capable of actually changing the lapse rate and water steps in nicely for that 2 degrees of the greenhouse effect expected. The question is what causes the water feedback. It could be retreating ice and rising sealevel from a recovery of the Little Ice age that works out over many decades, shows up strongly in the ice core records of the last 125,000 plus years explains the Roman Optimum, Medieval Warm Period and Minoan warm period seen as perhaps the largest event in the last approximate 3,000 years.
It could also be feedback from the recent solar grand maximum and the recent rare gathering of the gas giant planets in one small Octant of the sky.
Real science isn’t about guessing who might be building Frankenstein’s monster.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”Earlier, when they used the heavier AL plate, the temperature of the rear chamber continued to increase after 20 minutes (Figures 5 and 7). But. for the foil case, they provide no plot of temperature vs. time, except Figure 9 where the back scatter continues to increase after 20 minutes, which indicates that they ended the run(s) before steady state was achieved. We are left in the dark to speculate from their comments as to what they observed.”
Sounds like they did exactly as you did in your experiment huh Swanson?
“they did not say their experiment was flawed nor did they as you claim say that the lack of warming was a violation of the laws of physics as you faked what they actually said which I quote above.”
FALSE. What is wrong with your brain?
Here is what I stated:
“As discussed, as nauseum, even the authors agreed that according to two laws of physics: The First Law of Thermodynamics, and Kirchhoffs Law, the back surface should have warmed a small amount.
And they agreed that these laws are valid. Both these Laws have been thoroughly tested and repeatedly confirmed over the last century and a half.”
Here is what they stated:
” The absorbed energy should rise the temperature of the back wall. Thermal energy transfer to the air in the back chamber should rise its temperature. This process should continue until balance is obtained with the incoming IR energy and the loss of energy due to higher IR radiation from the back wall. This conservation of energy is expected from the first law of thermodynamics and Kirchoffs Law. But these laws are valid, so some other explanation must exist!”
Here is more that I stated:
“The fact that it didnt warm as predicted, they admitted, could not be explained”
And here is what they stated:
“Sorry, we have not found a physical explanation. The paper would have been much better if we had such an explanation! But we decided to publish it anyway and hope for some response from other scientists, with more knowledge about radiation theory than we possess.”
Here is more that I stated:
” but also admit they may not have accounted for all heat losses. Experiments like this are tricky.”
And here is how they put it:
” One explanation is that so much energy is lost due to losses through the walls and windows in the boxes. But the measurements of losses done by us do not support this.
The loss of energy due to expansion of the gas during heating (First Law) was also discussed, and found not to be the cause of the missing heating.”
Hunter guy keeps on trying to turn lead into gold, dancing around the facts from S&O’s experiment. Hunter speculates, sort of, writing:
Sorry, Hunter guy, S&O didn’t “prove” anything. But, they did show that the thermal IR Radiation exiting the chamber was reduced in the CO2 case and the back radiation toward the rear of the chamber was increased. That their “instruments” did not detect an increase in temperature of the heated plate proves nothing.
Hunter tosses in another attempt to denigrate my GPE demo, writing:
In my demo, the temperatures of the plates were measured with thermocouples embedded within the plates. My demo experiment was run until the temperatures were nearly constant.
I repeat, S&O did not say how they measured the temperatures of the heated AL plate/foil. They also did not describe the mounting for the AL foil, perhaps it was taped to the inner surface of the rear wall. That would cause conduction heat exchange between the painted foil and the AL foil which covered the rear wall. The same situation would obtain if they taped that foil to the outside of the rear wall (which was also covered with reflective foil), increasing convection in both cases.
E. Swanson says:
”the experiment doesnt prove that radiation cant warm anything”
I didn’t say that Swanson. I said the radiative active CO2 gas only warmed the chamber the same amount as the non-radiative gases the experimenter used.
If you want to dispute that the correct way of doing so is to replicate the experiment.
Hunter Guy wrote:
Which proves nothing, given the serious problems with their experiment. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Besides, they did not provide such data for the AL foil case, which should have warmed much faster.
S&O mention heating of the rear wall, not the rear chamber temperature, as being of importance (see Nate’s comments above). But, one must not ignore the convection within the two chambers, augmented by fans, and the very high conduction rate across the two thin layers of plastic film. I see no reason to expect that the rear chamber’s air temperature would be warmer with CO2 in the front chamber than without, especially given the poor control on the temperature of the rear AL plate/foil heating surfaces.
E. Swanson says:
”I said the radiative active CO2 gas only warmed the chamber the same amount as the non-radiative gases the experimenter used.
Which proves nothing.”
How can you claim that Swanson? They built the two chamber box and applied energy to a heating plate and all the chambers warmed by the same amount regardless of which gas was in the chamber.
How can that happen if we consider true your belief, for which you have no experiment to show us?
“Fact is convection can override the radiation effects of a solid blackbody barrier. Overriding CO2s weak ability to radiate is a piece of cake.”
Not in this setup, with its two horizontal boxes, separated by a plastic sheet.
Swanson says:
”I see no reason to expect that the rear chambers air temperature would be warmer with CO2 in the front chamber than without, especially given the poor control on the temperature of the rear AL plate/foil heating surfaces.”
———————–
the data provided in detail for the experiment had no foil, just a 274gram black painted aluminum plate as a heat source inside the box.
the 6 gram black painted aluminum foil replaced (substituted) the plate in a separate run for which no graphs are provided except that the experimenters noted no change in experiment except that things heated up faster because of no delay in warming a 6 gram piece of aluminum foil vs a 274 gram aluminum plate, as would be expected.
Your criticisms do not amount to anything unless you detail what changes should have occurred if they did it differently. And to support such claims you should conduct your own experiment. As it is all you are is a science denier. The experiment has been adequately described, the results adequately detailed and you still disagree without a single fact to rest on.
Your other whinings are all also off target.
1) ”Hunter jumps to the Seim and Olsen paper as if its absolute proof of something.”
Wrong! Absolute proof never exists. Here we are not talking the only proof. We have RW woods, Pratt, other experiments by S&O and others that show the same results. There is no experiment of this nature that shows anything different.
2) ”That their instruments did not detect an increase in temperature of the heated plate proves nothing.”
It proved that both radiative and non-radiative gases when in contact with the heat source do the same thing.
3) ”In my demo, the temperatures of the plates were measured with thermocouples embedded within the plates. My demo experiment was run until the temperatures were nearly constant.”
The plates in your experiment were substituted for gases and separated by a vacuum. That’s not a model of the earth’s atmosphere.
4) ”I repeat, S&O did not say how they measured the temperatures of the heated AL plate/foil.”
Wrong again. You should actually read the experiment before making such claims! They said: ”The warming of the Al-plate was
also measured, but no extra heating was found by filling CO2
in the front chamber. (The temperature was measured with a Fluke 62 Max IR thermometer).”
You should cease and desist with your buffoonish criticisms and if still in doubt conduct your own replication or ask your side why they haven’t done that. Our side has been doing it for over a 100 years with no response from your side.
Nate says:
Fact is convection can override the radiation effects of a solid blackbody barrier. Overriding CO2s weak ability to radiate is a piece of cake.
Not in this setup, with its two horizontal boxes, separated by a plastic sheet.
—————————
Nate makes a completely vacuous criticism here. Seems that Nate can think of a single thing to make his comment relevant.
Hunter Guy, I continue to claim that the S&O paper does not present adequate information to describe their work. And, replying to your other points:
1- AIUI, Pratt pointed to errors in the R.W. Woods experiment.
2 – S&O’s experiment did not “prove” anything, only presenting the same result in both of their experimental setups.
3 – I never claimed that my demonstration represented the effects of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. I do claim that it showed that back radiation from the GP would warm the BP.
4 – Yes, S&O used a handheld IR thermometer. That does not tell us HOW they used it. For example, did they mount the device such that it always measured the same spot? How was the instrument positioned wrt the 500 watt halogen lamp, given that the hand held device is speced to operate at temperatures below 50C. Recall that the outside of the rear insulation was covered with foil which would result in a strong IR field from the 500 watt lamp reflected back toward the thermometer.
FYI, I did attempt an experiment somewhat like S&O’s, but found my version difficult to operate. For example, filling the Styrofoam tube with CO2 from a pressure tank cooled the gas which tended to leak. For that and other reasons, I abandoned the effort.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter Guy, I continue to claim that the S&O paper does not present adequate information to describe their work.”
————————–
I am well aware of what you are ”claiming” but you don’t have a relevant argument to make in support of your claim.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
” And, replying to your other points:
1- AIUI, Pratt pointed to errors in the R.W. Woods experiment.”
———————–
There were no errors reported. Woods like others made some adjustments to get a better understanding of how such adjustments might change outcomes. But nothing was found to support the idea of the 3rd grader atmospheric radiation model working to any significant degree.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”2 S&Os experiment did not prove anything, only presenting the same result in both of their experimental setups.”
——————–
Indeed nothing S&O did different in the experiments produced any result that showed CO2 works better as a GHG than does common air. In addition you or anybody else has found a variation to changes that fact.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”3 I never claimed that my demonstration represented the effects of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.”
————————-
Then obviously your experiment means nothing regarding climate change.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”I do claim that it showed that back radiation from the GP would warm the BP.”
—————————
I can accept the fact that common air is a poor transfer agent for heat from it to any object it is not in physical contact. But that fact has no application in climate change as earth is not surrounded by a ring of common air not in contact with the surface.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
4 Yes, S&O used a handheld IR thermometer. That does not tell us HOW they used it.
———————-
Did they really need to get into that detail for you to understand? Seriously, LMAO!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”For example, did they mount the device such that it always measured the same spot? How was the instrument positioned wrt the 500 watt halogen lamp, given that the hand held device is speced to operate at temperatures below 50C.”
LMAO!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”Recall that the outside of the rear insulation was covered with foil which would result in a strong IR field from the 500 watt lamp reflected back toward the thermometer.”
So what its not going to change the ambient temperature of the room to any material degree. You are really getting desperate here.
Convection:
“Not in this setup, with its two horizontal boxes, separated by a plastic sheet.
Nate makes a completely vacuous criticism here.”
Bill has no sensible science response. Just throws an ad-hom.
Do you think convection is as significant in a horizontal space as in a vertical column like the atmosphere?
Do you honestly think that convection can transfer heat through a plastic barrier?
Convection could transfer heat within the rear box, and within the front box.
Unlike the atmosphere, there is no water evaporation and condensation, which is the largest driver of convection there.
Bill, the fact is, as an auditor, you simply don’t have the expertise to judge whether this is a good paper or not. Both Swanson and I can at least draw on extensive experience doing experiments and measurements, and understanding heat transfer principles.
Just stop pretending that your judgement of this paper’s merits is based on anything more than its support for your narrative.
Based on this admission from the authors:
“Here is what they stated:
The absorbed energy should rise the temperature of the back wall. Thermal energy transfer to the air in the back chamber should rise its temperature. This process should continue until balance is obtained with the incoming IR energy and the loss of energy due to higher IR radiation from the back wall. This conservation of energy is expected from the first law of thermodynamics and Kirchoffs Law. But these laws are valid, so some other explanation must exist!”
all we can conclude from their results is that their analysis of the expected rise in temperature must have been flawed. They neglected some unaccounted for heat loss.
In the first setup, with the illuminated Al plate, there is significant heat loss out the back of the box, as they later admit is a problem. But they only show data from this setup.
So that’s about it. Nothing else in the paper applies to the real atmosphere.
Nate says:
”Convection:
Not in this setup, with its two horizontal boxes, separated by a plastic sheet.
Nate makes a completely vacuous criticism here.
Bill has no sensible science response. Just throws an ad-hom.
Do you think convection is as significant in a horizontal space as in a vertical column like the atmosphere?”
——————-
I guess they don’t teach you that stuff in school.
Yes, you restrict convection by putting a narrow gap between panes of glass in a multiple glazed window as air masses can’t accelerate in a narrow space since it collides with the necessary downwelling air masses. The earth has major convection cells that move air from warm equator to the poles, just as this experiment has the warming plate at one end and a cooler windows at the other end.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
Do you honestly think that convection can transfer heat through a plastic barrier?
———————–
Come on Nate stop just throwing stuff at the wall. Obviously convection moves air from hot to cold and conduction moves the heat through the barriers. Are you always so one track minded that you think that processes don’t work in combinations, like both anthropogenic warming from say UHI or boiling an egg and the physics of natural warming.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
Unlike the atmosphere, there is no water evaporation and condensation, which is the largest driver of convection there.
—————–
And yet it still masks warming from CO2. You made quite an admission there Nate. Keep thinking for yourself, you will eventually figure it out that way.
Nate says:
The authors stated according to Nate: ”The absorbed energy should rise the temperature of the back wall.”
—————————
The question here is expectation of what CO2 can do that air cannot compensate for. the chambers were filled with air when he established the position of the heat lamp. Thus any increase in the temperature of the aluminum plate/foil is already baked into the experiment via the ”control” since the common air has the same effect as the CO2. One cannot claim from the ”control” (common air) that the plate did not warm from the confined gases in the box. One can only conclude they warmed the same. So obviously the only flaw here is your conclusion that the experiment was flawed.
You will have to go somewhere else to find a flaw your claims are bogus.
Nate says:
Bill, the fact is, as an auditor, you simply dont have the expertise to judge whether this is a good paper or not. Both Swanson and I can at least draw on extensive experience doing experiments and measurements, and understanding heat transfer principles.
Just stop pretending that your judgement of this papers merits is based on anything more than its support for your narrative.
———————–
Nate desperately goes for an ad hominem and claims greater experience in experiments. But its obvious from the above this claim doesn’t hold a gram of water. Auditors make a living devising tests of claims and fully understand that all you can glean from an experiment is the difference between the control and the results. It is more than obvious that neither you nor Swanson make a living judging the results of experiments as even an internship would have baked that out of you.
Hunter’s reply was noted.
“One cannot claim from the control (common air) that the plate did not warm from the confined gases in the box. One can only conclude they warmed the same. So obviously the only flaw here is your conclusion that the experiment was flawed.
You will have to go somewhere else to find a flaw your claims are bogus.”
You missed the point I made. Which was they made a specific analysis of the expected rise in temperature, based on certain assumptions.
Obviously their analysis was wrong, or their assumptions were wrong. This is not a good result.
That simply doesn’t tell us anything about the real atmosphere and its GHE, and its analysis by others, it only tells about this one poorly designed experiment by authors who don’t understand what they are missing.
“Auditors make a living devising tests of claims ”
Sure Bill, sounds like you believe there is no use in our society for technical expertise of scientists or engineers, because auditors can do it all.
Bwa ha ha ha ha!
Nate says:
”You missed the point I made. Which was they made a specific analysis of the expected rise in temperature, based on certain assumptions.
Obviously their analysis was wrong, or their assumptions were wrong. This is not a good result.”
What somebody’s assumptions are have no impact on the experiment. Assumptions are a product of the imagination not physics.
You are just piling ignorance on top of ignorance here. Since common air is only the control model you have zero information regarding how much the common air in warming the chambers warmed the aluminum plate.
Thus the expected rise in temperature from CO2 above and beyond the rise in temperature of caused by warming a container of common air has been proven false. But you pile ignorance on ignorance when you then claim that the plate did not warm from filling compartments of a box with any gas.
Thus your claim of the experiment being poorly done solely on the basis that no rise in temperature was observed between changing CO2 in for common air isn’t based on simple logic. If the experiment is flawed you certainly don’t know how it is flawed. And since there is no experiment showing the GHE in an experiment within the atmosphere there is no evidence of what you believe to be of any importance.
Auditors know full well that when you can’t get a good explanation for results that somebody is just guessing. The next step for the auditor in discovering this is to bring it everybody’s attention and if possible estimate the impact of the poorly arrived at results.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate also says:
”Sure Bill, sounds like you believe there is no use in our society for technical expertise of scientists or engineers, because auditors can do it all.”
——————
Lets just say that what is needed is more skill of more people who claim to be a scientist.
There are plenty of scientists that don’t ignorantly mouth off about what they think they know and actually don’t.
Same for auditors. Auditors need training in the fields they audit. I have tons of it having worked with passive solar energy for years and was coached by one of the most famous of radiant system designers and have a small library on the topic some texts I have had since the early 1970’s when my interest in alternative sources of energy was piqued at a point in time when monopolistic powers were being formed to control access to energy. It was becoming a popular topic in architecture and alternative energy systems; which sort of died off in the late 1980’s because of plenty of inexpensive fossil fuels. Before that I didn’t major in meteorology but did take upper division classes in meteorology thinking at one point I would go for two degrees. So I may have spent more time as an auditor it at least taught me something about how to interpret results of an experiment. . .something you are obviously lacking.
“You are just piling ignorance on top of ignorance here. Since common air is only the control model you have zero information regarding how much the common air in warming the chambers warmed the aluminum plate.
Thus the expected rise in temperature from CO2 above and beyond the rise in temperature of caused by warming a container of common air has been proven false.”
So ignorant, Bill. Science is not just handwaving.
Science needs to be quantitative. They made an analysis of the quantitative rise of temperature expected based on certain assumptions.
Obviously, as I already clearly explained, their prediction was wrong. Their assumptions were wrong or their experimental design was poor. They have no idea why it failed to agree with observations.
Thus this experiment proved nothing useful.
And Bill, you really can’t bring yourself to admit that the expertise of scientists and engineers are useful in society. And that in reality, auditors NEED to rely on the technical expertise of others.
Nate says:
Science needs to be quantitative. They made an analysis of the quantitative rise of temperature expected based on certain assumptions.
——————
Sheesh Nate you never quit. It is quantitative. The experiment was a comparison between common air and enhanced CO2. He gave you the starting temperature, turned on the light, gave you all the warming curves and they were the same with no difference between common air and pure CO2. Your claim of no quantification is completely bogus.
Nate says:
”Obviously, as I already clearly explained, their prediction was wrong. Their assumptions were wrong or their experimental design was poor. They have no idea why it failed to agree with observations.”
Lots of experiments disprove predictions and assumptions Nate. Thats why science does experiments and doesn’t rely on just predictions and assumptions.
The experimental design was first class you haven’t found any flaws with that at all. And your claim that they have no idea why it failed to agree with observation is also completely bogus.
You reported that they told you: ” This conservation of energy is expected from the first law of thermodynamics and Kirchoffs Law. But these laws are valid, so some other explanation must exist!”
Well obviously Nate! We all know that conduction between two objects operates across that barrier like radiation, runs in two directions, and warms by contact rather than radiation. Obviously you cause the plate to be in contact with the gases energy is going to be exchanged and the more the difference in temperature there is the faster conduction operates. . .just like radiation. So why in this day in age do we ‘pretend’ we don’t know that the other explanation is? Gee its damaging to ones career. The ugly mob with the tar and feathers is running amok. People are getting fired, insulted, and their characters impugned. Far better to let others with half an operating braincell figure out the obvious.
“The experimental design was first class you havent found any flaws with that at all.”
Says noted experimental scientist, Bill!
Err, ok, not so noted, and not so sciency, and mostly just crank-y.
If so good, then why is most data with the first design which later needed an overhaul!?
Reminder that I asked them about their results:
“Do you have any physics explanation for this?”
The answer:
“Sorry, we have not found a physical explanation. The paper would have been much better if we had such an explanation! But we decided to publish it anyway and hope for some response from other scientists, with more knowledge about radiation theory than we possess.”
Even they admit they have no physics explanation for their results.
But you seem to..
“Lots of experiments disprove predictions and assumptions Nate. Thats why science does experiments and doesnt rely on just predictions and assumptions.
In a good experiment an unexplained result can ONLY be explained by new science.
In this instance experimenter error is the main suspect.
nate says:
” ”The experimental design was first class you havent found any flaws with that at all.”
Says noted experimental scientist, Bill!”
——————-
Actually if you read the sentence its you Nate. You read it carefully and were unable to sustain a single criticism of the test.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
nate says:
”If so good, then why is most data with the first design which later needed an overhaul!?”
——————-
Designing good experiments does involve attempting to improve the design when results don’t turn out as predicted. Nothing unusual there.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
nate says:
Reminder that I asked them about their results:
Do you have any physics explanation for this?
The answer:
Sorry, we have not found a physical explanation. The paper would have been much better if we had such an explanation! But we decided to publish it anyway and hope for some response from other scientists, with more knowledge about radiation theory than we possess.
———————–
Well the real truth is that all the documented knowledge of mankind is merely an infinitesimal fraction of all potential knowledge. The odds are for random questions (assuming one could actually think of a population of potential science questions that would be representative of all unknown stuff) the number of things we could state we do know would be very very small. If you want to measure things like that. . .good luck on accepting any science at all.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
nate says:
Even they admit they have no physics explanation for their results.
But you seem to..
—————————–
Well I do have experience working with convection. And since there is a law that if you expose something to something warmer than it was previously exposed to. . .isn’t it your contention that is the law underlying backradiation? What you left out is how this experiment shows more than one way to skin the cat (or since you are trying to be dense as possible the air the surface warmed is a lot warmer than outerspace and in contact with the surface so the surface will cool more slowly.
Nate says:
June 3, 2024 at 4:00 PM
”Lots of experiments disprove predictions and assumptions Nate. Thats why science does experiments and doesnt rely on just predictions and assumptions.”
In a good experiment an unexplained result can ONLY be explained by new science. If you apply the same laws you apply to claim backradiation warms the surface you will find, obviously, conduction will accomplish the same result. Every single argument you have made for backradiation also applies to all means of transferring heat provided the correct condition exists. . .name contact in the case of conduction. Now if you put a vacuum space between the air and the surface all bets would be off. . .but our climate isn’t a vacuum.
“Well I do have experience working with convection. ”
Good, then where is your quantitative analysis of its effect here?
The problem with all your ‘theories’, Bill, whether about water vapor condensation cancelling the CO2 effect, or alignment of the planets altering Earth’s temperature, or the LIA recovery causing the current warming, or in this instance, convection explaining the failed back-radiation warming prediction, is that they are NEVER EVER quantitative predictions.
You show no math, no calculation, no numerical prediction.
That makes them very easy to shoot from the hip, yet difficult to falsify.
Thus your ‘theories’ are always just hand-waving, not real science, which needs to be falsifiable.
Nate says:
”Well I do have experience working with convection.”
Good, then where is your quantitative analysis of its effect here?
The problem with all your theories, Bill, whether about water vapor condensation cancelling the CO2 effect, or alignment of the planets altering Earths temperature, or the LIA recovery causing the current warming, or in this instance, convection explaining the failed back-radiation warming prediction, is that they are NEVER EVER quantitative predictions.
————————-
I agree that’s a problem because experimental setups are expensive and its not in the best interest of those who possess these resources to share.
We hope to look to government for assistance in protecting public trust resources. But when governments are corrupt themselves the government ceases consider the needs of the public and begins to look to its own needs and how to use the resources they hold under the Public Trust Doctrine to their own benefit.
Certainly this can be done, both develop a convective theory and determine the effects of the planet orbit disruption via the motion of the planets. No doubt the sun also contributes and we don’t understand how it operates. Astronomers are still looking for another undiscovered planet that disrupts Neptune’s orbit. So obviously there is a lot of work to still do there.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Nate says:
That makes them very easy to shoot from the hip, yet difficult to falsify.
Thus your theories are always just hand-waving, not real science, which needs to be falsifiable.
—————————
All you are doing Nate is arguing that somebody can shoot from the hip. . .just not me.
Obviously there already are theories of convection. Simply takes a will to pay attention to them. It often is difficult to strip the horse blinders off institutions whose pecuniary interests are contrary to the matter.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-heat-transfer-d_430.html
“Obviously there already are theories of convection. Simply takes a will to pay attention to them. ”
Go ahead, pay attention to them. Give us your quantitative predictions.
You won’t. Because then it might be falsified.
Predictions?
Mankind isn’t emitting convection Nate.
What is needed is research into what is causing warming.
Obviously the S&O experiment strongly suggests that ghg and convection effects of are a thermodynamic response to variation not a cause of the variation. If either were the cause what is the statistical probability they would be equal every time?
As Dr. Syun Akasofu and many other climate trained scientists say we need to understand natural climate change to understand anthropogenic changes. When you have a real handle on that then
anthropogenic effects can be far better understood.
I have suggested starting with Milankovitch and Ice core data to better understand the ”lesser” variations seen in both.
Here is a good one to look at Milankovitch underpinnings as a primer: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ab5365#ajab5365f4
why is none of this discussed in the IPCC process? Obviously the 100k year variation is a mathematical repetition caused by orbits of planets that aren’t varying their orbital periods resulting a lot of mini-cycles within the larger Milankovitch cycles.
Near as I can tell understanding natural climate change hasn’t been mandated by the UN its all about anthropogenic. . .so the mandate is intentional to maintain as much ignorance as possible while evil power seekers attempt to have their way with the world.
So not planning on offering anything quantitative, then.
You’re here just to tell other people who have the expertise, to go ahead and work that out. But you already know the outcome.
Interesting.
Nate says:
”So not planning on offering anything quantitative, then.
Youre here just to tell other people who have the expertise, to go ahead and work that out. But you already know the outcome.
Interesting.”
So now Nate the pot is running around calling the kettle black. He’ll dream up any dumb excuse.
We already have the IPCC which has bought into the unique effects of CO2 as only being responsible for about half the modern warming. So we are sitting here with them only having confidence in CO2 providing somewhere between .7k to 1.2K warming over a century and a half and a doubling of CO2. Sounds quite unremarkable.
Bill hunter says:
”Youre here just to tell other people who have the expertise, to go ahead and work that out. ”
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, ”have the expertise”.
seems to me all those people obviously didn’t have the expertise.
not because i said so, though.
after all they all to a man expected the S&O experimental setup to produce a different effect.
If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. Richard Feynman.
and i guess the reason is that conduction also follows the laws of thermodynamics. who would have thought!
aq…”curvilinear applies only to point motion”.
***
You won’t find the following i most textbooks because they have a hand me down mentality and don’t think through the issues with curvilinear motion.
Why would it be the case that curvilinear only applies to point motion? Rectilinear motion is defined as motion in a straight line with all particles moving in parallel at the same speed. We need an equivalent definition for motion along a curved line, hence curvilinear motion.
Newton use the term curvilinear motion to describe the motion of the Moon under Earth’s gravitational force. He described the natural lunar motion as linear motion and that motion is bet into curvilinear motion by gravity. In essence, it’s a resultant path between lunar linear momentum and gravitational force.
What you seem to be missing is that a uniform sphere’s motion is described by it COG. It is more convenient with a uniform rigid body to use the COG to do calculations but that does not mean curvilinear motion applies onto to points.
So, if we need an equivalent for rectilinear motion applied to motion along a curved path, we need to change coordinate systems. We don’t have to but polar coordinates makes life easier. We have a radial line from an axis tracing the motion along a curve.
The radial line’s axis is determined instant by instant so that the trajectory of the motion is along an instantaneous tangential path to the radial line. We can also draw a chord between two point on the curve so that motion is parallel to the chord at any instant. Then we can determine the radial line as being perpendicular to the chord. That method is used to find the axis of the radial line.
At any rate, consider a circular path. We have a radial line, or radius, tracking a COG moving along the circle. Whereas rectilinear motion must always be along a straight line, curvilinar motion can only be determined each instant. Also, in lieu of straight lines, all particles in a rigid body during curvilinear motion must move along concentric circles in the case of circular motion. Concentric circles are parallel lines.
That takes care of parallel motion. But the speeds must be the same as well. No problem. The radial line cuts through a line of particles in a rigid body that are moving in parallel. The radial line with a constant velocity must have a constant angular speed, therefore each particle touching the radial line and moving with it are also moving at constant speed.
I can hear the howls from the non-believers. We know that each particle along the radial line moves with a different velocity but the particles along that radial line are constrained to complete a revolution in the same time. Therefor the angular speed, which is a scalar, is the same for each particle.
A simpler way of looking at this is that each particle toward the outside must traverse a longer path. To complete the orbit in the same time, a requirement in a rigid body, each particle must move faster to move the extra distance in the same time.
Remember, angular speed has nothing to do with individual particles, with a radial line it is the rate at which the line changes angle with the x- or y-axis.
To generalize curvilinear motion to any continuous curve, not just a circle, the curve is taken instant by instant as if each instantaneous section is the circumference of a circle with radius, R. An ellipse has a property by which lines drawn from each focal point to a point on the ellipse, when bisected, gives the radial line to the tangential motion of the point.
That property is the root of longitudinal libration in an elliptical orbit. If you track a point using that method, it is obvious that the radial line formed at each instant represents a line perpendicular to the tangential face which is the near side of the object.
> You wont find the following i most textbooks because they have a hand me down mentality and dont think through the issues with curvilinear motion.
Mr. Asshat, please stop saying stuff 100% of the times and do some basic research. You could start with 1% research / 99% saying stuff and go from there.
wee willy…you might start by critiquing my point re curvilinear motion and do it scientifically. We both know you lack that ability, don’t we?
Mr. asshat, please stop acting like your silly point has not been refuted a thousand times already.
Willard has zero argument here so he resorts to throwing around insults. He looses again.
Gill, please stop pretending you haven’t read the many chapters I wrote on Moon Dragon sillyness, including the unphysicality of Mr. Asshat’s modest proposal, more so that I just did, a bit below.
The only thing I recall is you introducing the idea of isometry which only has a role in symbolic animation of motion. I can agree that only has some kind of ”asshat” relationship to science.
Gill, please stop assuming that anyone should care about your memory problems.
Willard still has no science to back up his mouth.
Gill, please stop trying to make people work for you simply by becoming increasingly obnoxious.
For you Willard I have to agree it would be excessive work for you to say anything half-way intelligent.
Gill please stop trying to get free room service.
Gordon Robertson
Your model does not explain the Roche Limit or why the Moon is not spherical. It bulges at the closest and most distant points to Earth.
ent…what does your reply have to do with curvilinear motion. Smells pretty fishy to me, as one might expect a red-herring to smell.
Can you not critique my proof for curvilinear motion?
EM,
Is your response an example of “when stumped, divert”?
For example, if you have no clue about physics, just say something diverting like “The GHE is a stack of blankets”. That will certainly cause a diversion, as people roll around on the floor laughing at you.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, please stop giving Mr. Asshat a free pass on the incongruity of implying that a somewhat rigid body keeps “straight” while its two sides are going at different speeds.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop giving Mr. Asshat a free pass on the incongruity of implying that a somewhat rigid body keeps “straight” while its two sides are going at different speeds.”
What are you babbling about?
A two sided somewhat rigid body? I’d like to see one of those, but I cant look into the alternate universe where you and Mr. Asshat live.
I think you are losing your grip on reality. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
[he’s definitely strange, isn’t he]
Gordon Robertson
“Can you not critique my proof for curvilinear motion? ”
I just did. Your model of curvilinear motion does not explain the stress and strain on the Moon along the Earth/Moon radial line.
At best it is inadequate. At worst it is wrong.
EM,
You wrote –
“Your model of curvilinear motion does not explain the stress and strain on the Moon along the Earth/Moon radial line.”
Curvilinear motion does not have a “model”, as far as I know. Here’s a definition from Wikipedia – “The motion of an object moving in a curved path is called curvilinear motion”.
I’m guessing you are referring to the effects of the force of gravity on the Moon, but please correct me if my assumption is wrong. It all seems a bit strange, and nothing to do with either the motion of the Moon, the mythical GHE, or anything at all, really.
Mike Flynn, please stop relying on knowledge that is not in the two and a half books you read.
“We know that each particle along the radial line moves with a different velocity but the particles along that radial line are constrained to complete a revolution in the same time. Therefor the angular speed, which is a scalar, is the same for each particle.”
Unlike Clint, Gordon at least gets this part right.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner butts in after everyone has departed.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
In a cold winter it is a bad idea warming a house with renewable energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What about a battery storage system?
Like this?
https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/powerwall
No, that’s a battery.
Coal trains are full of Tesla fuel.
Mike Flynn, please stop thinking that Australia, your country, is the whole world.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yes.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner can’t resist being a jerk.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Nate says:
May 20, 2024 at 8:27 AM
Given that the Earth is hotter than outer space at around 4 K, why do you think that the Earth might magically get hotter? Outer space transferring heat to the hotter Earth?
Well, you are on to something there. Space is ~ 3 K is very cold, and transfers very little to the Earth. The Earth at 288 K ought to be transferring around 5.67e-8*288^4 = 390 W/m^2. Lets allow for an emissivity of 0.95, then it ought to be transferring 370 W/m^2 to space.
But it is only abs0rbing 240 W/m^2 from the sun, which is 130 W/m^2 less then Earth seems to be emitting!
That is a problem. Something must be prevention around 130 W/m^2 from being emitted from the Earth to space.
What could it be? Could it be a greenhouse effect?
No, not according to GHE deniers. What could it be then?
–
–
Thank you, Nate, for your questioning:
“But it is only abs0rbing 240 W/m^2 from the sun, which is 130 W/m^2 less then Earth seems to be emitting!
That is a problem. Something must be prevention around 130 W/m^2 from being emitted from the Earth to space.
What could it be? Could it be a greenhouse effect?
No, not according to GHE deniers. What could it be then?”
–
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth’s average surface temperature is T.earth =288 K.
Moon’s average surface temperature is T.moon =220 K
The Moon at 220 K ought to be transferring around 5.67e-8*220^4 = 133 W/m^2. Lets allow for an emissivity of 0.95, then it ought to be transferring 126 W/m^2 to space.
But it is only absorbing 240 W/m^2 from the sun, which is 114 W/m^2 more then Moon seems to be emitting!
That is a problem. Something must be adding around 114 W/m^2 …
What could it be?
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“But it is only absorbing 240 W/m^2 from the sun,”
WRONG!
Earth receives, on average, the solar constant less the albedo affect. Or, 1370 W/m² less 30% = 960 W/m².
The bogus “240” comes from treating flux as energy. That ain’t science.
Puffman, please stop denying a famous theorem.
Christos,
Moon: “but it is only absorbing 240 W/m^2 from the sun, which is 114 W/m^2 more then Moon seems to be emitting!”
No! The Moon has albedo 0.11. So it absorbs 303 W/m2.
”
The Moon at 220 K ought to be transferring around 5.67e-8*220^4 = 133 W/m^2.”
As you know the slow rotation and lack of ocean to retain heat makes this a bad estimate!
Not so for the Earth.
“Puffman, please stop denying a famous theorem.”
Unless you can say what the “famous theorem” is. Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop seeking being skooled by Christos himself.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop seeking being skooled by Christos himself.”
Have you been taking idiot pills? If so, they are definitely working.
Mike Flynn, please stop commenting before your morning coffee, it makes you grumpier than you already are.
Willard,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn, please stop seeking being skooled by Christos himself.”
Have you been taking idiot pills? If so, they are definitely working.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop searching for your pills without putting your glasses on, and please stop accusing that someone stole them from you.
Cheers.
Nate,
“No! The Moon has albedo 0.11. So it absorbs 303 W/m2.
The Moon at 220 K ought to be transferring around 5.67e-8*220^4 = 133 W/m^2.
As you know the slow rotation and lack of ocean to retain heat makes this a bad estimate!
Not so for the Earth.”
–
–
Earth at 288 K emits 240 W/m^2.
Moon at 220 K emits 303 W/m^2, but ought to be transferring around 5.67e-8*220^4 = 133 W/m^2.
How “the slow rotation and lack of ocean to retain heat” disappear the
303 W/m^2 – 133 W/m^2 = 170 W/m^2 ?
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Willard,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn, please stop seeking being skooled by Christos himself.”
Have you been taking idiot pills? If so, they are definitely working.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb over a geometric fact that, were you really aware of what is being discussed, you would already know.
Willard,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn, please stop seeking being skooled by Christos himself.”
What are you babbling about in your incomprehensible fashion?
Have you been taking idiot pills? If so, they are definitely working.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop repeating your silly provocations, it provides me a tell more than anything.
Willard,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn, please stop seeking being skooled by Christos himself.”
What are you babbling about in your incomprehensible fashion?
Have you been taking idiot pills? If so, they are definitely working.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop exuding your mental pus.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop seeking being skooled by Christos himself.”
What are you babbling about in your incomprehensible fashion?
Have you been taking idiot pills? If so, they are definitely working.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop admitting your ignorance of the reason why we divide by four.
Willard,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn, please stop seeking being skooled by Christos himself.”
What are you babbling about in your incomprehensible fashion?
Have you been taking idiot pills? If so, they are definitely working.
“. . . we divide by four.” Do you really? Bully for you!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring the very first fact one learns in the energy balance model rigmarole.
“How the slow rotation and lack of ocean to retain heat disappear the
303 W/m^2 133 W/m^2 = 170 W/m^2 ?”
Christos, this is disingenuous.
You know VERY well that the dark side of the Moon, because it has a low heat capacity and has 29 times as long as the Earth to cool each night, cools to MUCH lower temperatures, and emits very little radiation.
While the lit side has low heat capacity and 29 times as long to heat up, and heats up to a very high temperature (~380 K), and emits much MUCH more than the average temperature would, because of the T^4 factor in the emission.
Thus it is a horrible approximation assign its average temperature to its whole surface to estimate how much it radiates from the Moon.
OTOH, for the Earth, because its ocean has a high heat capacity, and due to its fast rotation, its dark side cools down relatively little, and its lit side heats up relatively little, compared to the average temperature.
Thus it is a reasonably good approximation to assign its average temperature to the whole surface to estimate how much it radiates.
These are just the mathematical facts.
Nate, shall we continue down the thread at:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668302
Christos
Nate says:
”You know VERY well that the dark side of the Moon, because it has a low heat capacity and has 29 times as long as the Earth to cool each night, cools to MUCH lower temperatures, and emits very little radiation.
While the lit side has low heat capacity and 29 times as long to heat up, and heats up to a very high temperature (~380 K), and emits much MUCH more than the average temperature would, because of the T^4 factor in the emission.”
Indeed yes Nate we know that greenhouse gases cool the daytime temperatures and warm the nighttime temperatures from not having greenhouse gases.
Gill, please stop using a “yes” to hide a “but” that serves as a misdirection the size of Texas.
There was no ‘but’ there Willard.
Gill, please stop hiding your “but” behind an “and” for you did not yes-and-ed but you indeed yes-but-ed with your untruth about nights, which would deserve its “just deserts” if you know what I mean.
As usual Willard showing his political loyalty but embarrassingly hasn’t a shred of science to back up his arguments.
Gill, please stop conflating the argument I made and supported here with your own pet deflection.
Willard still has no science to back up his mouth.
Gill, please stop being such an abject free rider.
And Willard continues to attempt to mask his ignorance by deflection. But after about 3 times it gets too obvious what his objective is.
Gill, please stop hiding your deflection by whining about imaginary deflections.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
This August, though, 1,300 special-needs students in the Oakland Unified School District will start riding into the future aboard 74 fully electric buses, operated by a startup called Zum. Most special-ed students, they have health issuesasthma and stuff like that. They go to school on this noisy, smelly, rough ride, just to get their access to education, says Kim Raney, executive director of transportation at the Oakland Unified School District. So this is really going to be a game-changer.
But the students wont just be enjoying a quiet, clean journey to schooltheyll also be helping revolutionize the way we all get electricity. The newfangled buses are no ordinary EVs: Theyre equipped with vehicle-to-grid technology, or V2G, which allows them to both charge and give power back to the grid.
[…]
Zums buses start operating at 6 or 6:30 am, drive kids to school, and finish up by 9 or 9:30 am. While the kids are in classwhen theres the most solar energy flowing into the gridZums buses plug into fast-chargers. The buses then unplug and drive the kids home in the afternoon. They have large batteries, typically four to six times a Tesla battery, and they drive very few miles, says Vivek Garg, cofounder and COO of Zum. So theres a lot of battery left by end of the day.
After the kids are dropped off, the buses plug in again, just as demand is spiking on the grid. But instead of further increasing that demand by charging, the buses send their surplus power back to the grid. Once demand has waned, around 10 pm, the buses start charging, topping themselves up with electricity from nonsolar sources, so theyre ready to pick up kids in the morning. Zums system decides when to charge or discharge depending on the time of day, so the driver just has to plug in their bus and walk away.
On weekends, holidays, or over the summer, the buses will spend even more time sitting unuseda whole fleet of batteries that might otherwise be idle. Given the resources needed to make batteries and the need for more grid storage, it makes sense to use what batteries are available as much as possible. Its not like youre placing a battery somewhere and then youre only using them for energy, says Garg. Youre using that battery for transportation, and in the evening youre using the same battery during the peak hour for stabilizing the grid.
https://www.wired.com/story/these-electric-school-buses-are-on-their-way-to-save-the-grid/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to PSTer me in my own thread.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner always ends up PSTering.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
It’s the sun stuoopid
https://youtu.be/qUZ0Obpihbc
That’s the first time I’ve heard the Dzhanibekov effect being applied to Sun, by someone else.
I always thought it was a good fit, both in the regularity and the quickness, of the polarity flips.
Bumbling bobdroege wrote earlier –
“So continuous cooling for 4 1/2 billion years is a myth.”
And yet, the Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Continuously. Bobdroege finds reality unsettling. He is a fanatical GHE cultist, so ignorant tha5 he can’t even describe his GHE!
A sample of bobdroege’s ignorance –
“Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”
Anybody who believes this is even more ignorant and gullible than bobdroege. Even other fanatical GHE cultists like Bindidon know that bobdroege’s bizarre claim is “such nonsense”.
Swenson,
“And yet, the Earth has cooled to its present temperature.”
is just as true as this
And yet, the Earth has warmed to its present temperature.
Don’t be a complete idiot bobby.
Only an idiot would claim cooling is warming – a fanatical GHE cultist idiot,for example.
Bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop abusing HTML special characters to bypass Roy’s moderation.
Ooooooooh! The rabid attack dog will bite me if I dont do as I am told!
You dimwit, I do as I wish. There is nothing you can do about it, is there?
Poke yourself in the eye with a fork, hold your breath until you turn blue – watch me laugh in derision.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop bragging about how degenerate you can be.
Swenson,
When did I claim cooling was warming.
Your claim
“And yet, the Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Continuously.”
Not true, reality sits at the top of this page.
Bumbling bobby,
“Not true, reality sits at the top of this page.”
Which of course has nothing at all to do with the temperature of the planet, however you define it.
Still no GHE. You refuse to even provide a description, and are reduced to pointless and irrelevant analogies about pots and lids.
Swenson,
“Which of course has nothing at all to do with the temperature of the planet, however you define it.”
Yeah, right, the temperature of the lower troposphere has nothing to do with the temperature of the planet. (Sarc tag)
“Still no GHE. You refuse to even provide a description, and are reduced to pointless and irrelevant analogies about pots and lids.”
Putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, which is between the Sun and a bunch of thermometers six feet above the surface, makes those thermometers read moar hotter moar better, on average over time, especially at night.
The pot and lid analogy was to inform those who think reducing the rate of cooling can’t warm an object with a simple experiment one can do if they have access to a kitchen.
What, tell me you don’t have access to a kitchen, do you have all your food brought to you? Especially the Maypo?
Brainless bobby,
You wrote –
“Yeah, right, the temperature of the lower troposphere has nothing to do with the temperature of the planet. ”
Exactly. Lower troposphere temperatures don’t even accurately reflect surface temperatures.
Surface temperatures vary between about -90 C and +90 C. Neither allows the “temperature of the planet” to be calculated. Nobody can say what the “temperature of the planet”, and it is irrelevant anyway.
You have gone back to your previous idiocy, writing “Putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, which is between the Sun and a bunch of thermometers six feet above the surface, makes those thermometers read moar hotter moar better, on average over time, especially at night.”
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
“Exactly. Lower troposphere temperatures dont even accurately reflect surface temperatures.”
You missed the sarc tag.
Actually the increase in temperatures in both the surface and the troposphere are matching quite well.
“Surface temperatures vary between about -90 C and +90 C. Neither allows the temperature of the planet to be calculated. Nobody can say what the temperature of the planet, and it is irrelevant anyway.”
Measured and averaged by several world wide organizations.
You should be familiar with them if you want to argue against AGW.
But you are just a bogan in a penal colony, who cares what you spew.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Why do some people find it hard to recognize actual tr0lling?
Swenson has over 20% of all posts. The vast majority are tr0lling, with little relevant facts or arguments, but lots of insults and repetitions of old tired talking points.
#2
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bob d…”When an object is being heated, if you slow the cooling, you wind up causing an increase in the temperature of the object. For example, if you have a pot of water on a stove, and you set the heat to keep the pot just below boiling, and then you put a lid on it, the temperature goes up”.
***
Duh??? When you put a lid on the pot you increase the pressure. You might notice that if the temperature is too high, it will cause the lid to rattle. That’s higher pressure steam lifting the lid. We all know that keeping a volume constant while increasing the pressure also raises the temperature.
Gordon,
Putting a loose fitting lid on a pot, does not increase the pressure, because it leaks out, may make the lid rattle as it keeps the pressure from going up by venting off the pressure.
You have to have a good seal on the lid to get any pressure increase.
Keep to twidgetry, let the monkey’s mates and the boiler mates take care of the steam.
Braindead bobby,
Still heating imaginary pots with imaginary heaters?
You claim adding CO2 to your stove will make pots even hotter! You said “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”
Save a lot of power do you, bumbling bobby?
If you use enough CO2, you won’t have to pay a power bill ever agin, will you? Even Bindidon knows you are talking “nonsense”, and he’s a fanatical GHE cultist himself!
What’s this GHE of yours supposed to do, anyway? Make the Earth hotter while it cools? Even at night?
You really are stupid, aren’t you? Accept reality. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. There is no GHE.
Mike Flynn, please stop pretending that you have any other technical skills than to write O&G brochures, except perhaps when you get biblical.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It makes you look like the loser that you are.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to evade your PSTering obligation, the only one that makes you have the last word, and lose.
Swenson,
Reading challenged are you?
“You claim adding CO2 to your stove will make pots even hotter! You said Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.
I wasn’t talking about stoves.
And I never said adding CO2 to a stove will make pots even hotter.
Try reading and understanding.
Braindead bobby,
You wrote –
“Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”
You then claimed that you weren’t talking about stoves! Doesn’t your CO2 thermometer heating work around stoves? You haven’t talked about the Earth, the Sun, the atmosphere – or the GHE, either.
Does this mean that your silly statement only applies in your fantasy?
I can believe that.
Swenson,
You don’t get it so I’ll try again, more slowly and with smaller words.
The stove, water, and lid experiment is designed to show that if you reduce the rate of cooling of something that is heated by a constant source, the temperature of the water will go up.
That is similar the the argument that reducing the rate of infrared through the atmosphere, ie, reducing the rate that the surface of the Earth cools to space, will cause a rise in temperature of the surface of the Earth.
Sounds like another description of the greenhouse effect to me.
“Sounds like another description of the greenhouse effect to me.”
That’s because you are an idiot, perhaps.
Accept reality – the EartH has cooled to its present temperature. No GHE.
The surface cools each night – no GHE.
Argue away – not a single fact will be changed.
Swenson,
Are you ridiculing people of much lower than average intelligence?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Moon at 220 K emits 303 W/m^2, but ought to be transferring around 5.67e-8*220^4 = 133 W/m^2.
How the slow rotation and lack of ocean to retain heat disappear the
303 W/m^2 133 W/m^2 = 170 W/m^2 ?
Moon is a smooth surface celestial body.
Thus for Moon the Φ = 0,47
Let’s calculate:
Φ*(1 – a)*So = 0,47(1 – 0,11)*1370 W/m^2 =
= 0,47*0,89*1370 W/m^2 = 573,071 W/m^2
When “averaging” by dividing by “4” we shall obtain:
573,071 W/m^2 /4 = 143,27 W/m^2
this result (143,27 W/m^2) is very close to the “Moon at 220 K ought to be transferring around
5.67e-8*220^4 = 133 W/m^2.”
Conclusion:
Moon’s surface has a strong specular reflection. The specular reflection of Moon’s surface is ignored in Moon’s
Energy in = Energy out
radiative energy balance estimation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate says:
May 21, 2024 at 8:12 AM
CO2 emits to space.
Fiberglass fibers emit heat to the air.
Yet a thick layer of fiberglass still insulates!
The fact that CO2 emits to space does not mean it cannot be insulating.
Earth surface emits at 288 K. CO2 at the TOA emits at 220 K.
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/images/outgoing-radiation-thumb.png
Thus the emissions in the CO2 wavelength bands to space are LESS that the emissions in the same wavelength bands at the Earths surface.
In addition, the Earth surface emits heat by convection. No heat is emitted at the TOA to space by convection.
–
–
You correlate the blackbody theoretical emission curves at some temperatures with greenhouse gases emission bands and conclude it has something to do with Earth’s surface emission behavior.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“You correlate the blackbody theoretical emission curves at some temperatures with greenhouse gases emission bands and conclude it has something to do with Earths surface emission behavior.”
Something to do with?
The surface emits according to the SB law, and its emissivity which is high ~ 0.95.
As one can see the emission from the top of the atmosphere is much LESS, as it should be, because, as explained, it is emitting in certain bands from high altitude GHG @ low temperatures.
What is the problem with that?
Nate says:
”The surface emits according to the SB law, and its emissivity which is high ~ 0.95.
As one can see the emission from the top of the atmosphere is much LESS, as it should be, because, as explained, it is emitting in certain bands from high altitude GHG @ low temperatures.
What is the problem with that?”
It doesn’t matter what the surface emits. Its all about what the ‘system’ emits. . .and thats about 241w/m2 which is on average what it receives.
Nate,
“You know VERY well that the dark side of the Moon, because it has a low heat capacity and has 29 times as long as the Earth to cool each night, cools to MUCH lower temperatures, and emits very little radiation.
While the lit side has low heat capacity and 29 times as long to heat up, and heats up to a very high temperature (~380 K), and emits much MUCH more than the average temperature would, because of the T^4 factor in the emission.
Thus it is a horrible approximation assign its average temperature to its whole surface to estimate how much it radiates from the Moon.”
–
I agree,
“OTOH, for the Earth, because its ocean has a high heat capacity, and due to its fast rotation, its dark side cools down relatively little, and its lit side heats up relatively little, compared to the average temperature.”
The temperature differentiation is not so intense as on Moon’s surface.
“Thus it is a reasonably good approximation to assign its average temperature to the whole surface to estimate how much it
radiates.”
–
No, it is not a reasonably good approximation. Because planets and moons emit the very most of the outgoing IR EM energy during the intensive solar lit hours.
When EM energy hits surface matter, the EM energy Interacts with surface matter. The SW incident gets reflected, and also it gets transformed instantly into re-emitted IR.
Only a small portion gets absorbed in the inner layers.
The absorbed portion is formidably larger for the less the surface temperature differentiated Earth. But stil, in the inner layers the absorbed portion for Earth too, it is much-much smaller than the transformed instantly, during the intensive solar lit hours, the portion of the incident SW EM energy which instantly is re-emitted as IR EM outgoing energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“No, it is not a reasonably good approximation. Because planets and moons emit the very most of the outgoing IR EM energy during the intensive solar lit hours.”
They emit according to their temperature. That’s all.
“When EM energy hits surface matter, the EM energy Interacts with surface matter.”
And heats it. And heat is conducted to the volume. In the case of the ocean the SW passes through the surface into the bulk water.
“The SW incident gets reflected, and also it gets transformed instantly into re-emitted IR. Only a small portion gets absorbed in the inner layers.” ”
False. This is where you depart from the ordinary laws physics.
“The absorbed portion is formidably larger for the less the surface temperature differentiated Earth. But stil, in the inner layers the absorbed portion for Earth too, it is much-much smaller than the transformed instantly, during the intensive solar lit hours, the portion of the incident SW EM energy which instantly is re-emitted as IR EM outgoing energy.”
This is made up fantasy.
Look, Christos, we already KNOW the temperatures of the Earth’s surface, and thus we know how much it emits.
Go ahead and calculate using the measured temperatures how much emits, if you like.
Nate,
“You know VERY well that the dark side of the Moon, because it has a low heat capacity and has 29 times as long as the Earth to cool each night, cools to MUCH lower temperatures, and emits very little radiation.
While the lit side has low heat capacity and 29 times as long to heat up, and heats up to a very high temperature (~380 K), and emits much MUCH more than the average temperature would, because of the T^4 factor in the emission.
Thus it is a horrible approximation assign its average temperature to its whole surface to estimate how much it radiates from the Moon.”
I agree,
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A planet does not emit at its average surface temperature (Tmean).
Therefore, a planet’s average surface temperature (Tmean) cannot be associated with any kind of planet surface Infrared Emission Spectrum.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos….it has been discovered that the Moon does not cool as quickly as thought when the lit side moves to a part of the orbit where it is no longer heated by sunlight and dissipates heat via radiation. The reason is that radiation is an inefficient means of heat dissipation and it takes longer for the dark side to cool since the radiation input from the sun heats the lit side faster than radiation can dissipate it from the dark side.
Earth does not have the same problem since it has an atmosphere and oceans to hold the heat longer. Even the land surface cannot cool as quickly via radiation due to the inefficient dissipation by radiation. Here, in Vancouver, Canada, after a hot summer’s day, the night can remain quite warm, enough to walk around in a T-shirt at 3 AM.
Unfortunately, S-B equations do not have a means of determining the rate of radiation. The original Stefan equation was only a relationship between temperature and radiation with no provisions for dissipation rate. The newer version, with Boltzmann, is based on a statistical analogy and is purely theoretical.
> Earth does not have the same problem since it has an atmosphere and oceans to hold the heat longer.
Mr. Asshat, please stop describing the greenhouse effect while Mike Flynn has his back turned.
Oh dear, Willard.
Your refusal to describe the GHE has got you really stuck, hasn’t it?
Now all you can do is accuse other people of describing the mythical GHE – those who don’t believe it exists!
Do you like Bindidon’s dismissal of CO2 in relation to the GHE? He refuses to describe the GHE, anyway, so his opinion is completely valueless. Maybe you prefer bobdroege, who also refuses to describe the GHE, but claims CO2 makes thermometers hotter – but not where this miracle is supposed to occur. He specifically avoids any mention of the Earth, Sun, or atmosphere, being involved in his miracle.
Go on Willard, be proud. Refuse to describe the GHE to demonstrate how intelligent you are! That will show everybody who’s the clever one, won’t it? Loser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring the sammich Mr. Asshat just made for you.
Oh dear, Willard.
Your refusal to describe the GHE has got you really stuck, hasnt it?
Now all you can do is accuse other people of describing the mythical GHE those who dont believe it exists!
Do you like Bindidons dismissal of CO2 in relation to the GHE? He refuses to describe the GHE, anyway, so his opinion is completely valueless. Maybe you prefer bobdroege, who also refuses to describe the GHE, but claims CO2 makes thermometers hotter but not where this miracle is supposed to occur. He specifically avoids any mention of the Earth, Sun, or atmosphere, being involved in his miracle.
Go on Willard, be proud. Refuse to describe the GHE to demonstrate how intelligent you are! That will show everybody whos the clever one, wont it? Loser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop making nonsense.
Gordon,
“christos.it has been discovered that the Moon does not cool as quickly as thought when the lit side moves to a part of the orbit where it is no longer heated by sunlight and dissipates heat via radiation. The reason is that radiation is an inefficient means of heat dissipation and it takes longer for the dark side to cool since the radiation input from the sun heats the lit side faster than radiation can dissipate it from the dark side.”
Thank you, Gordon, for your respond.
I think, for all planets and moons, the lit side, while interacting with solar radiation, during the intensive solar lit hours, the lit side strongly emits IR radiation.
I think, the solar imput (in form of HEAT)) is relatively smaller, when compared with the day-time IR emitted EM energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Gordon,
“…radiation is an inefficient means of heat dissipation and it takes longer for the dark side to cool …”
–
“…land surface cannot cool as quickly via radiation due to the inefficient dissipation by radiation. Here, in Vancouver, Canada, after a hot summers day, the night can remain quite warm, enough to walk around in a T-shirt at 3 AM….”
–
I think you are very much right. Also solar input takes long time to warm land enough – it becomes warm at nights in late July and August.
Here in Athens, Greece it is May 22 now, it is quite hot during the days, it is about 27C, but as sun sets, the temperature quickly drops to 19C, which is quite cool.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
You stopped responding to me.
As I noted.
“Look, Christos, we already KNOW the temperatures of the Earths surface, and thus we know how much it emits.
Go ahead and calculate using the measured temperatures how much emits, if you like.”
This has been done by various people, and they find that for the Earth, there is not much difference from the approximation using the average T.
Christos,
You also never responded to this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668399
The surface emits according to the SB law, and its emissivity which is high ~ 0.95.
As one can see, the emission from the top of the atmosphere is much LESS, as it should be, because, as explained, it is emitting in certain bands from high altitude GHG @ low temperatures.
What is the problem with that?
Thank you, Nate.
I will continue, I’ll be back in some couple of hours.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate,
“…we already KNOW the temperatures of the Earths surface, and thus we know how much it emits.
Go ahead and calculate using the measured temperatures how much emits, if you like.
This has been done by various people, and they find that for the Earth, there is not much difference from the approximation using the average T.”
*******
“The surface emits according to the SB law, and its emissivity which is high ~ 0.95.
As one can see, the emission from the top of the atmosphere is much LESS, as it should be, because, as explained, it is emitting in certain bands from high altitude GHG @ low temperatures.
What is the problem with that?”
–
–
Thank you, Nate.
I use a method I call “Planets and moons temperatures comparison”.
I examine all planets and moons temperatures, along with their respective major features affecting those temperatures.
I am inviting you to visit my site, where I am explaining what I have discovered.
Please visit,
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I am inviting you to visit my site”
No thanks.
Im asking you questions. You are evading answering.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Today’s guest, Gavin Schmidt, has been a leader in measuring the variations in Earth’s climate, modeling its likely future trajectory, and working to get the word out. We talk about the current state of the art, and what to expect for the future.
https://tinyurl.com/mike-flynn-was-not-available
A pity that Mike Flynn wasn’t available.
“Todays guest, Gavin Schmidt, has been a leader in measuring the variations in Earths climate.”
Who has he been leading? A collection of 12 year olds, averaging historical weather observations?
Just another bumbling, blundering, bearded buffoon, who couldn’t even convince the Royal Society that he was smarter than the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann!
Oh dear, Willard, you are a gullible and ignorant chap if you follow someone as dim as Gavin Schmidt. He’s not even a scientist, you know.
[laughing at gullible and plaintive cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop refusing Sean Carroll an hour on your cooling planet tired line.
“Todays guest, Gavin Schmidt, has been a leader in measuring the variations in Earths climate.”
Who has he been leading? A collection of 12 year olds, averaging historical weather observations?
Just another bumbling, blundering, bearded buffoon, who couldnt even convince the Royal Society that he was smarter than the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann!
Oh dear, Willard, you are a gullible and ignorant chap if you follow someone as dim as Gavin Schmidt. Hes not even a scientist, you know.
[laughing at gullible and plaintive cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop being the dumbest dumbbell in the history of dumbbells.
“Todays guest, Gavin Schmidt, has been a leader in measuring the variations in Earths climate.”
Who has he been leading? A collection of 12 year olds, averaging historical weather observations?
Just another bumbling, blundering, bearded buffoon, who couldnt even convince the Royal Society that he was smarter than the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann!
Oh dear, Willard, you are a gullible and ignorant chap if you follow someone as dim as Gavin Schmidt. He’s not even a scientist, you know. Who’s the dumbest dumbbell?
[laughing at gullible and plaintive cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re in my thread, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re drooling on the counter, Mike.
Time to call a Uber.
Willard is a monkey.
Walter uses insult because he is incapable of rational debate.
EM,
What has debate to do with the mythical GHE?
Are you mad, believing that physical facts can be changed by debate or consensus?
Willard does not debate rationally in the first place.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop blaming otters for your own inadequacies.
ent…”Walter uses insult because he is incapable of rational debate”.
***
Ent…wee willy really is a monkey, nothing irrational there. In fact, he is a hideous orangutan.
Mr. Asshat, please stop being an ignominious jerk.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re in my thread, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I can find your way back home all by yourself, Mike.
wee willy re Gavin Schmidt’s leadership…
1)when Lindzen challenged him to a debate, he ran and hid.
2)engineer, Jeffrey Glassman, revealed Schmidt’s utter confusion about positive feedback, yet Schmidt programs his confusion into climate models as leader of NASA GISS. That’s one reason the models are running unrealistically hot.
3)When Schmidt’s buddy Michael Mann had his chicanery revealed in the Climategate email scandal, where Mann’s ‘trick’ hid declining temperatures in proxy data, Schmit openly defended him on their site realclimate.
Schmidt may be a leader in the chicanery-based alarmist climate science, but he is no leader in real science.
Mr. Asshat, please stop misrembering most of these silly war stories contrarians fabricated to feel they need to get room service.
wee willy….I have to give you credit for participating in this forum with a brain disorder. Then again, you won’t feel too badly being wrong all the time.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You refer to contrarians like Schmidt and Mann, a matching pair of balding, bearded, bumbling buffoons, do you?
Pretending that the planet has not cooled to its present temperature is just contrary to current scientific knowledge. Schmidt can be excused, because he is not even a scientist. Mann, on the other hand, is supposedly a geologist, and should know something about the history and structure of the planet.
He denies his training anyway, preferring fantasy to fact.
Mike Flynn, please stop interposing yourself between me and Mr. Asshat like you were some kind of human shield.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You refer to contrarians like Schmidt and Mann, a matching pair of balding, bearded, bumbling buffoons, do you?
Pretending that the planet has not cooled to its present temperature is just contrary to current scientific knowledge. Schmidt can be excused, because he is not even a scientist. Mann, on the other hand, is supposedly a geologist, and should know something about the history and structure of the planet.
He denies his training anyway, preferring fantasy to fact.Just like you.
Mike Flynn, please stop your silly No U.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey, Mike – still here?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
If Graham D. Warner could stop PSTering, that’d be great.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Earlier, bobdroege claimed he had described the GHE many times
He went on to say –
“Pretty sad, you wont acknowledge that I have described the greenhouse effect many times, specifically for you.
You seem to only remember the one I was satirizing you with.”
Which begs the question, why does bumbling bobby only manage to provide satirical descriptions? Is it because every GHE “description” he provides is so obviously ridiculous, that he is forced to claim he was really only joking or trying to make fun of someone?
Rather like Bindidon, insisting “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”. After many repetitions, Bindidon suddenly changed his tune, and wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. because I never would ever believe such nonsense.””
I cannot say that I will wait with bated breath while bobby crafts a GHE description which is not a joke, or satirical. I couldn’t hold my breath that long!
Flynnson isn’t only dement: he is also a perverse liar.
Oh dear, Bindidon, what you wrote is what you wrote.
Don’t blame me for your idiocy. I suppose you could claim that you never said anything at all – and anybody who says otherwise is a liar!
So what are you saying about the GHE now? Nothing at all?
Colour me unsurprised!
[another fanatical GHE cultist who apparently never intentionally said anything at all]
Flynnson
I repeat: you are dement and a LIAR.
I never wrote from my own conviction: “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”
The opposite is the case: you yourself, Flynnson, have repeatedly polemically asked other commentators in various posts over the past few years:
“Do you think that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?”
I then polemically turned your nonsense back in your direction by falsely claiming that you yourself were convinced of this.
That, Flynnson, is the truth – a truth that you ‘coincidentally’ do not remember.
Oh well, Binny, I suppose you wrote “I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.” just for fun.
Fair enough. In other words, increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface does not make the thermometer hotter. I agree, adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not increase temperature of thermometers. Nonsense, as you say.
Of course, you can’t describe the mythical GHE now, can you?
Maybe you could claim that you have never described the GHE at all, and anybody silly enough to think you might have, is demented and a liar. I agree with you – you have never described the mythical GHE, and neither has anyone else!
Anyone who claimed they did is quite obviously a demented liar! I agree wholeheartedly!
Thank you for your support.
See Bindi in full meltdown: “Flynnson isn’t only dement: he is also a perverse liar.”
Bindi used to pretend he knew some science. But he could never provide any. It was only pretend.
Now, he’s in full meltdown because he’s learned he can not rely on his cult. He can not trust the “institutions”, or the astrologers from centuries ago. His cult beliefs have gone up in smoke. He’s got NOTHING.
Puffman, please leave gaslighting to Mike Flynn.
Binny,
You wrote “I then polemically turned your nonsense back in your direction by falsely claiming that you yourself were convinced of this.”
Are you really admitting that you intentionally lie in order to antagonise someone who you believe to be elderly, Infirm, and suffering from dementia?
Oh you hero, you! Picking on the elderly – particularly if you think they suffer from dementia!
You’re a cowardly little grub, arent you?
Now you claim that CO2 is irrelevant anyway.
You wrote –
“Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form. CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
Like bobdroege, I just wanted to kid you because you 100% deserve it.”
That’s your excuse for intentionally lying about the GHE? You believe an aging, ailing, dementia sufferer deserves to be lied to? You really are a poor excuse for a human being, aren’t you?
Carry on picking on the elderly. They know you are just another fanatical GHE cultist idiᰤot, completely impotent to harm them.
Mike Flynn, please stop relying on that old, tired, and unfunny bit.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Do you agree that gloating about intentionally lying to people you think are elderly, frail, and suffering from dementia is the mark of a shameful individual, or do you think it shows a fine, upstanding, manly personality?
Of course not – you think it’s a mark of superiority to attack the elderly and dementia afflicted from your Tower of Anonymous Cowardice.
Keep refusing to describe the GHE, if you think that makes you look intelligent. Or do you want to stick with “not cooling, slower cooling”?
You lose either way.
Mike Flynn, please stop pouting.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Do you agree that gloating about intentionally lying to people you think are elderly, frail, and suffering from dementia is the mark of a shameful individual, or do you think it shows a fine, upstanding, manly personality?
Of course not you think its a mark of superiority to attack the elderly and dementia afflicted from your Tower of Anonymous Cowardice.
Keep refusing to describe the GHE, if you think that makes you look intelligent. Or do you want to stick with “not cooling, slower cooling”?
You lose either way.
Mike Flynn, please stop sprouting.
Willard, please stop trolling.
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. It small amount of warming has not been measured, yet.
The father of CO2 causing global warming, lived in frozen wasteland, and hoped rising CO2 would warm his world.
It hasn’t.
Much later we got the Ozone scare, which costs billion dollars, which didn’t fix anything.
The CO2 scare has cost trillion of dollars, and didn’t lower CO2 levels {which would made the father of global warming happy}.
What higher global CO2 does do, is it’s more plant food. Before Ozone scare, people thought we could grow enough food, and every one would starve to death. And currently India exports food.
India is not big, very warm, has highest population in the world.
It’s roughly, all about stealing our money. Mostly by corporations which control governments, and get the trillions of dollars.
That has to be the most uneducated, willfully ignorant thing I’ve read… Hopefully, one day, science will take center stage in people’s lives
gb…you are right. The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation makes it clear that the amount of heat that can be diffused into a gas mix by on gas depends entirely on the mass percent of that gas.
CO2, at an overall concentrations of 0.04%, has a mass percent of 0.06% in the atmosphere. That’s the limiting value in degrees C that it can raise the atmospheric temperature.
We know there are 2500 molecules of N2/O2 for every CO2 molecule and people have theorized as to how much heat it can induce in the 2500 molecules. There it is, 0.06C for very 1C warming of the atmosphere, a trivial and insignificant amount.
“CO2, at an overall concentrations of 0.04%, has a mass percent of 0.06% in the atmosphere. Thats the limiting value in degrees C that it can raise the atmospheric temperature. ”
Even if CO2 was such tiny trace gas, say it was 25% of the atmosphere, it’s still a weak greenhouse gas.
Or as I said, Venus at Earth distance from the sun, would be colder than Earth, and Venus has about 90 atm of CO2, or about 95%.
As everyone says the greenhouse gas on Venus is it’s clouds [the battery acid clouds [thought far stronger acid than in a battery- more like Alien blood].
No planet in our Universe could be hot, merely due to the amount a CO2 in it’s atmosphere.
Arkady wrote +
“Hopefully, one day, science will take center stage in peoples lives.”
In the case of fanatical GHE cultists, highly unlikely. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, but GHE cultists refuse to accept reality.
Mike Flynn –
Please stop butchering your own syntactic convention.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Only the one means that one of the descriptions was meant to ridicule you, the others not so much.
Reading grade level?
5 maybe 6?
Bumbling bobby writes –
“Swenson,
Only the one means that one of the descriptions was meant to ridicule you, the others not so much.
Reading grade level?
5 maybe 6?”
Bobby, like Bindidon, tries to find someone who is elderly, infirm, suffering from dementia and senility. Then he gloats about telling lies to ridicule this helpless individual.
He is too cowardly to admit which of his “descriptions” was an intentional lie of course, because the gutless wonder who boasts about his ability to lie to people he sees as defenceless, cannot bring himself to admit that he is actually incapable of standing up for anything at all!
Bobdroege might take pleasure in victimising the old, the frail, suffering from dementia or senility, because that’s his standard. He can pleasure himself where he likes, when he likes, and as often as he likes. That still makes him a wanker!
Would you value the opinions of such a cowardly bully?
Swenson,
“He is too cowardly to admit which of his descriptions was an intentional lie of course, because the gutless wonder who boasts about his ability to lie to people he sees as defenceless, cannot bring himself to admit that he is actually incapable of standing up for anything at all!”
No sir, I have pointed out which one I was using to ridicule you, and it’s not a lie, because it is actually true and defendable.
Remember, ridicule is not an effective debunking tool.
And can you point out where I boasted about lying?
No, you can’t.
Are you a defenseless little drooler who doesn’t like when people tell he doesn’t know much about anything.
You think I can’t stand for anything.
I stand up for Science, particularly Physics, Chemistry, and Astronomy.
Nurse Ratchet, Swenson needs his meds
Bumbling bobby, boastsing about ridiculing people you characterise as elderly, frail, and suffering from dementia might not get you the praise you expect.
References to “little drooler” and “Nurse Ratchet, Swenson needs his meds” show your disdain for the more vulnerable members of society. You and your ilk represent the dregs of that same society.
Your attempts to weasel your way out of refusing to describe the GHE on the grounds you were only ridiculing an old, sick, frail, demented person, shows the sort of person you claim to be.
Now you say “No sir, I have pointed out which one I was using to ridicule you, and its not a lie, because it is actually true and defendable.”, which of course is probably a lie – or possibly a figment of your imagination.
Which one is that? Can’t say? Won’t say? Come on, surely you can outmatch a little drooler, who needs his meds, who is elderly, frail and suffering from dementia! Show everyone how clever you are.
You are really an idiot, aren’t you?
Swenson,
Stop playing stoopid.
You know which description it was.
You know I have described the greenhouse effect for you many times and many ways.
Time to be a man and stop lying.
Maybe if you stopped ridiculing me, I would stop ridiculing you.
You could show where I have boasted about anything.
Brainless bobby,
You haven’t provided any descriptions at all.
You have attempted a few stupid “explanations” of something you can’t describe, but as for a description of the GHE, you just refuse to even try!
At least EM was clear when he wrote “The GHE is a stack of blankets”. It’s a description of the GHE, at least.
Can you do better?
Or are you just going to keep being an evasive idiot?
Swenson,
Of course I have described the greenhouse effect.
The presence of polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere retards the ability of the surface to cool to space by abzorbing infrared radiation, resulting in the surface being warmer than it would be otherwise.
Man up and stop lying.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
There is a guy who like riddles. Here is one:
What did Diddy do, and when Diddy do it?
Can you prove that Diddy did it?
What about the night Diddy went into the woods with the telegraphist’s daughter and they didit didit didit?
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
3.2.1 In general, a measurement has imperfections that give rise to an error (B.2.19) in the measurement result. Traditionally, an error is viewed as having two components, namely, a random (B.2.21) component and a systematic (B.2.22) component
NOTE Error is an idealized concept and errors cannot be known exactly.
Source: https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/jc/jcgm/publications
Calling the samples imperfect is being extremely generous.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop confusing your pet contrarian topic with a formal definition – and that “contrarian” is extremely generous.
Weird Wee Willy,
Contrarians? That would be idi&$8204;ots like you, trying to contradict nature!
Keep trying. You’ll keep losing.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop acting Karen-like without ever doing any kind of due diligence.
Weird Wee Willy,
Contrarians? That would be idiots like you, trying to contradict nature!
Keep trying. Youll keep losing. As Feynman said “Nature cannot be fooled.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to pass as a contrarian – you’re a crank!
Weird Wee Willy,
Contrarians? That would be idiots like you, trying to contradict nature!
Keep trying. You’ll keep losing. As Feynman said “Nature cannot be fooled.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop copypasting like a crank!
Willard, your responses just continue to prove that it is generally pointless to try to engage with you.
Weird Wee Willy,
Contrarians? That would be idiots like you, trying to contradict nature!
Keep trying. Youll keep losing. As Feynman said “Nature cannot be fooled.”.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop pretending that your Very Deep thoughts are very deep when you can’t even grok a trivial definition.
“Walter R. Hogle, please stop confusing your pet contrarian topic with a formal definition and that “contrarian” is extremely generous.”
Yes, formal definitions are too much for idiots like you to cope with.
You prefer words to mean anything you want them to!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to fill in as the second kid in Walter R. Hogle’s trench coat.
“Walter R. Hogle, please stop confusing your pet contrarian topic with a formal definition and that “contrarian” is extremely generous.”
Yes, formal definitions are too much for idiots like you to cope with.
You prefer words to mean anything you want them to!
Willard, please stop trolling.
I guess Willard also thinks that station siting bias would have the exact same impact on a hot, summer day and a cold, snowy day in the dead of winter.
Walter R Hogle, please stop confusing error and uncertainty, which makes you go where even Tony does not dare to go, and the lords of Climateball know that he would if he could.
You’re a monkey.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop disgracing Pat with your confusion.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop PSTering me in my threads, Mike Flynn.
That’s the theory, now for the real world.
If I am measuring with a ruler, I can only use the lowest graticule to determine scientific error. If my ruler has a minimum graticule of 1/16 inch, it can only be scientifically claimed an error of +/- 1/32 inch. However, if you make very accurate, measurements, perhaps using a microscope and adjusting for parallax, you could theoretically get that error down to much less than 1/32 inch. In science, you’d have to explain your methodology and why you think the error is less than the standard error margin.
Error is not that important, but in science, it is used to control the ‘possible’ error. It is not claiming the error is real, only that it is possible and within certain bounds. When many such measurements are involved, there are techniques for combining errors.
And how about the case where a scientist makes an error in measurement, or in summing errors, and it goes undetected, even by those reading the paper?
In the real world, we build houses and apartment buildings based on eyeball measurements with no attempt to calculate an error. More recently, lasers are beginning to show up on construction sites to make lines and angles straighter and more precise, but the old tape measure and eyeball are still the basis of construction.
In science, there is a tendency to become anal and to take theory way too far. Linus Pauling summed this up nicely when he was asked why he did not do a double blind study before releasing a conclusion. He asked, ‘why is a double blind necessary when an outcome is so obvious’?
Recently, during the covid hysteria, Pfizer claimed their vaccine was 95% effective at preventing covid. In Canada, at the time, much less than 1/10th of 1% of Canadians were affected by covid. That made it clear that the human immune system was doing its job in resisting covid. It also meant that Pfizer was basing their 95% confidence level on an infection rate in Canada of less than 1/10th of 1% with no way of determining hat role their vaccine played.
They were granted immunity from prosecution should their claims not be correct and they had already been fined over 5 billion dollars from lying about and misrepresenting their products.
As time went by, it became abundantly clear that Pfizer was lying. At one point, in Canada, 70% of covid deaths and hospital admissions were those who have been doubly vaccinated.
It comes down to what Mark Twain claimed…there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Another good example is the bs coming out of drug companies about the effect of blood thinners over aspirin in preventing blood clots that may lead to stroke. A study commissioned by Bristol Meyers and Pfizer looked at a sample size of 6000. Half were given the blood thinner apixaban and the other three thousand were given aspirin in various dosages ranging from 81 mg to 4 times that amount. That reveals a bias right there because the blood thinner was given at a known dosage whereas the aspirin was administered as a lump sum.
It was found that 90 out of 3000 given the blood thinner got strokes whereas 130 given aspirin out of 3000 got strokes. 90 out of 3000 is about 3% whereas 130 out of 3000 is 4.3%. To an objective mind, both were equally able to thin blood enough to prevent stroke but the drug cheaters announced it as the blood thinner being 50% more effective than aspirin. Based on that chicanery, they terminated the testing, claiming the blood thinner as being superior to aspirin.
The point to note here is that no control test was used to determine how many would get strokes without apixaban or aspirin. Of course, that would have been unethical to deprive patients of any treatment. Still, the claims of apixaban being 50% superior to aspirin, or no treatment, is unethical.
Statistics are misused in science at times to get favourable outcomes.
Mr. Asshat, please stop epiloguing to relentlessly cover up cranks’ incapacity to distinguish between two very simple concepts.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, no PSTering in my threads, please.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Sweet dreams, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Twinkle twinkle little crank,
How I wonder why you are
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The claim is that Climate Change is real, and already happening. The latest evidence is a plane (Boeing of course) that flew through severe turbulence causing a death and multiple injuries. The news media are stating that climate change is the cause and will make this sort of thing more common. The story will seem very impressive to children and others who do not know anything.
The fact is that this airplane flew directly through a thunder cell. The data is very clear that it experienced severe up and down drafts in rapid succession. That is a thunder cell. This is actually a very old story. Thunders storms are not new. No pilot of any type in any aircraft, including fighter jets, ever intentionally flies through a thunder cell. There are numerous safeguards including on-board weather radar (even on a Boeing jet) to warn the pilots. The only question is why these pilots did not divert around the storm as is normal procedure. That is the story, not “Climate Change”!
The person who died was likely someone not wearing a seat belt during flight. Seasoned travelers know to keep the seat belt attached, albeit loosely, in case of sudden turbulence.
It could have been a flight attendant or someone walking to the washroom. However, pilots usually advise passengers of inclement weather and to fasten seat belts.
A far more dangerous situations arises from wind shear. Aircraft approaching for a landing can be suddenly hit by severe downdrafts and they lack the altitude to recover.
This graph SHOULD be for those who claim than even solar cycles are always weaker than the previous odd cycle.
But I know that they won’t have a clue what they are looking at, let alone how to interpret it.
So I guess it is just for Bindidon and others who actually have an understanding of statistics.
https://tinyurl.com/Solar-Cycles-Odd-vs-Even
AQ,
Statistics? Completely irrelevant, if you believe that historical weather observations can be used to predict the future!
Even the IPCC laughs at that notion.
Are really as ignorant and gullible as you seem?
And for completeness, here the comparison is switched (Even vs the next Odd):
https://tinyurl.com/Solar-Cycles-Even-vs-Odd
And again with the obvious outlier (descent into Dalton) excluded:
https://tinyurl.com/SC-Even-Odd-Outlier-Excluded
AQ,
Obviously, anything which doesn’t fit your desired outcome has to be wrong, and must be excluded, is that it?
Are you stupid, or just pretending?
Mike Flynn, please stop being such an obvious oaf.
It makes no difference to the “outcome”, whatever you believe that might be. As predicted in my original comment, you have shown no indication that you even understand the graphs, let alone what inferences might be drawn from them.
I gave two graphs, one with and one without the outlier, simply because I knew contrarians like yourself would complain about the non-linearity of the first graph. Take your pick … they both say the same thing.
At a loss as to how to respond, you will now revert to your stock deflecting and tr011ing responses.
Statistics? Completely irrelevant, if you believe that historical weather observations can be used to predict the future!
Presenting statistics about anything else in graphical form changes nothing.
You even say “Take your pick they both say the same thing.”, even though the graphs differ (being based on different data). Would you like to take a stab at what “both say the same thing” means? Hopefully, predicting the future is not involved – that would just be silly, wouldn’t it?
Even the IPCC laughs at that notion.
Are you really as ignorant and gullible as you seem?
Mike Flynn, please stop denying the existence of weather forecasts.
Trying to get me to do the brain work for you again, Mikey?
Statistics? Completely irrelevant, if you believe that historical weather observations can be used to predict the future!
Presenting statistics about anything else in graphical form changes nothing.
You even say “Take your pick they both say the same thing.”, even though the graphs differ (being based on different data). Would you like to take a stab at what “both say the same thing” means? Hopefully, predicting the future is not involved that would just be silly, wouldnt it?
Even the IPCC laughs at that notion.
Are you really as ignorant and gullible as you seem? You don’t need to answer.
[laughing at cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop being like you portray statistics.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bindidon wrote (abandoning the heating ability of CO2 as “nonsense”) –
“Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form. CO2 might become a problem who know”
Apparently, the GHE which Bindidon refuses to describe, is due mainly to H2O.
As it happens, both the hottest (Lut Desert, Death Valley), and the coldest (Antarctic Plateau) places on Earth are characterized by a severe lack of H2O in the atmosphere.
Binny’s GHE has the remarkable ability to produce both extreme heat and extreme cold, but only in places which are extremely hot or extremely cold.
I cannot fault Bindidon for refusing to describe the GHE, after all. It seems he is not a complete idiot, just trying hard to get there.
Mike Flynn, please stop lying, this is what Mr. Asshat does best.
Pathological liars like wee willy and other alarmists are incapable of distinguishing facts from lies. They are so immersed in lies that they think everything is a lie.
As one of their patrons, Richard Nixon, lamented, ‘a lie is not always a lie’.
Mr. Asshat, please stop lying, this is from what Mike Flynn gets the most comedic effect.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Apparently, the GHE which Bindidon refuses to describe, is due mainly to H2O.”
The whole global warming cargo cult believes this.
CO2 increases are suppose to increase water vapor, and that is apparently why we are all gonna to die.
One idea relates to tropics, but it was disproven. Other than that I don’t know what the mechanism is suppose to be.
Or if tropic atmosphere “hot spot” was a thing, we would know how much warming was due to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But we don’t.
And that fact, proven by large amount models {and that not even counting, that they were all proven wrong.
No climate scientists are predicting “we are all going to die”, only the rogue non-scientists like McPherson at the other extreme of the climate spectrum to you, people that very few pay attention to. Anyone who has to resort ONLY to social media to get their opinion across is not to be believed (McPherson, Beckwith, frolly, Dybyne, Heller, …). Nor is anyone here to be believed … we can only refer you to the real scientists.
Your need to misrepresent the claims of climate scientists shows an air of desperation.
AQ,
Thanks for the comic relief. You wrote –
“Nor is anyone here to be believed we can only refer you to the real scientists.”
We? You and God, is that it? Obviously Gavin Schmidt can be safely ignored, not being a scientist of any sort. A paper he co-authored “CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth’s Temperature” is complete pseudoscientific nonsense. Even Bindidon agrees.
What “real scientists” are you talking about?
I suppose you have joined the consensus of fanatical GHE cultists who refuse to describe the GHE! Why is that?
Carry on.
Heads up … “no one” includes me. Just thought you might like to be educated on basic semantics.
And as there is no “god”, that leaves no one but the real scientists.
As stated a number of times recently, I and others have “described the GHE” more than once in the past, yet you conveniently “forget”! Why is that?
AQ,
You keep to have described the GHE, but none of these descriptions seem to be found anywhere at all! Are they all the same? If so, where may it be found?
No, you are still refusing to describe the mythical GHE – because you can’t!
When you wrote “Heads up “no one” includes me. Just thought you might like to be educated on basic semantics.
And as there is no god, that leaves no one but the real scientists.”, were you being stupid on purpose? “No one” includes me? You are obviously away with the fairies, so I will repeat my initial comment, for you to avoid providing a cogent response again.
AQ,
Thanks for the comic relief. You wrote
“Nor is anyone here to be believed we can only refer you to the real scientists.”
We? You and God, is that it? Obviously Gavin Schmidt can be safely ignored, not being a scientist of any sort. A paper he co-authored “CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earths Temperature” is complete pseudoscientific nonsense. Even Bindidon agrees.
What “real scientists” are you talking about?
I suppose you have joined the consensus of fanatical GHE cultists who refuse to describe the GHE! Why is that?
Carry on.
[chortling]
“You keep to have described the GHE”
Oh dear. How should one attempt to interpret that garbage?
[snickering]
AQ. Thanks. Now fixed, I hope.
AQ,
You keep claiming to have described the GHE, but none of these descriptions seem to be found anywhere at all! Are they all the same? If so, where may it be found?
No, you are still refusing to describe the mythical GHE because you can’t!
When you wrote “Heads up “no one” includes me. Just thought you might like to be educated on basic semantics.
And as there is no god, that leaves no one but the real scientists.”, were you being stupid on purpose? “”No one” includes me”? You are obviously away with the fairies, so I will repeat my initial comment, for you to avoid providing a cogent response again.
AQ,
Thanks for the comic relief. You wrote –
“Nor is anyone here to be believed we can only refer you to the real scientists.”
We? You and God, is that it? Obviously Gavin Schmidt can be safely ignored, not being a scientist of any sort. A paper he co-authored – “CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earths Temperature” is complete pseudoscientific nonsense. Even Bindidon agrees.
What “real scientist” are you talking about?
I suppose you have joined the consensus of fanatical GHE cultists who refuse to describe the GHE! Why is that?
Carry on.
I see that put a stop to your chortling.
AQ,
“I see that put a stop to your chortling”
It’s hard to chortle while Im snorting with derision.
Which do you prefer, fool? Only joking, your preferences have no impact on my actions. Have you found a GHE description you can support?
What about “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Go for it.
Mike Flynn, please stop sleeping.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“No climate scientists are predicting we are all going to die,”
IPCC doesn’t say we are all going to die.
But many climate activist, who apparently can’t bother read IPCC [or anything] say this. And young children are being indoctrinated by teachers [who don’t read, or just want be to hysterical] to worry about end of world from climate change.
And a lot kooks think polar bears are going to go extinct from rising CO2 levels.
Please stop saying stuff, gb.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
gbaikie
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668186
What is true is that no one has a clue as to what will happen. Not you, not I, not Zharkova, and not McIntosh. The sun will do as it wishes, with the historical statistics that these predictions are based on providing only a suggestion as to what the sun MIGHT do.
There is no such thing as “global weather”, only global climate. Weather is what happens at a particular location and at a particular time. The problem with these discussions is that there are no words to describe the middle ground between weather and climate. So we have to resort to “weather patterns” and “cycles”.
.
.
And making my previous climate clear:
At the end of this month, the average of April/May 2023 drops off the back end of the SSN, and is replaced by the average of April/May 2024.
The average of April/May 2023 was 117.5, and there is no plus/minus in that (other than my rounding to one decimal place, and also the tolerance in the readings themselves which cannot be further corrected for).
So all that is required for the SSN (for November) to rise at the end of this month is for April/May 2024 to average more than 117.5. Again, there is no plus/minus in that.
As at May 21, the April/May average is 125.7 > 117.5, assuming that the last 10 days of the month are spotless. So the SSN for November WILL rise over that of October. And of course that average will go even higher – we will not get a spotless last ten days.
Similarly, the average for May/June 2023 was 149.0, so that is what the May/June 2024 average has to beat in order for the SSN to again rise in December 2023. No plus/minus … I am not making any predictions here, merely stating what is required for a rise.
Please indicate that you have read that description so I know I haven’t wasted my time.
ant is confused about weather and climate. Climate is weather but of the longer term variety averaged. If weather is local, so is climate. There is no such thing as global climate.
Mr. Asshat, please stop inferring that if a citrus is yellow, all fruits are yellow.
Willard, please stop trolling.
On the contrary, that comment indicates YOUR confusion.
You insist on arguing definitions, changing your definitions to suit, then believing you are arguing about the same thing.
Example:
Me: “Bark offers protection.”
You: “False. The dog barked, but it offered no protection against Kristi Noem.”
You KNOW what climate scientists mean when they refer to climate.
AQ,
You wrote-
“You KNOW what climate scientists mean when they refer to climate.”
“Climate scientists” is an oxymoron, unless you can demonstrate the contrary.
Who cares what climate scientists “mean”? Science is about facts, supported by experiment. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations – not much science there, a little arithmetic, perhaps.
Are you still refusing to describe the mythical GHE? Sounds like a cunning move to me – who can criticise what you didnt say?
A stroke of genius, is it?
Better an oxym0r0n than the oxy-bandits I have to deal with here.
AQ,
I agree, these fanatical GHE cultists who can’t even agree on a GHE description, deny reality, and think that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist of any sort, could be considered a waste of oxygen by some.
Why do you bother dealing with them if you think they are so stu Are you stupid as well?
Oh dear … “I know you are but what am I” … the lowest form of “humour”.
AQ,
I agree, these fanatical GHE cultists who cant even agree on a GHE description, deny reality, and think that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist of any sort, could be considered a waste of oxygen by some.
Why do you bother dealing with them if you think they are so stupid. Are you stupid as well?
Are you slipping in your role as grammar arbiter? You missed my intentional mistake. Oh well, nobody’s perfect.
Here we are again at that stage of the argument where you concede defeat by default.
AQ,
I agree, these fanatical GHE cultists who can’t even agree on a GHE description, deny reality, and think that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist of any sort, could be considered a waste of oxygen by some.
Why do you bother dealing with them if you think they are so stupid. Are you stupid as well?
” that stage of the argument where you concede defeat by default.”
Yep, that’s when he realizes he has no answers, so just repeats his unsupported claims.
“There is no such thing as global climate.”
I am guessing that Robertson believes that thick ice sheets are confined to only Greenland and Antarctica.
Are mile high ice sheet not in Greenland or Antarctica due to weather?
In sense they are due to weather, wet weather.
Canada is very dry.
Cold and very dry, and if it gets wetter, you get more ice sheets.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Please indicate that you have read that description so I know I havent wasted my time.”
Are you quite mad? What mental defect leads you to think anybody cares whether you waste your time or not?
Do you think your opinions have value to someone?
[what a pretentious dimwit]
Someone here seems to believe their opinion on opinions has value to someone.
What a pretent10us d1mw1t.
AQ,
Thanks for the flattery through imitation. I accept flattery from anyone, obviously.
You wrote –
“Someone here seems to believe their opinion on opinions has value to someone.”
Come on, AQ, show some backbone, dont be coy! Who are you talking about, or are you going to refuse to say, just like you refuse to describe the GHE?
Very mysterious, I’m sure.
Carry on,
As you repeatedly copy your own comments (including that one), it seems we can honestly say “you flatter yourself”.
AQ,
Thanks for the flattery through imitation. I accept flattery from anyone, obviously.
You wrote
“Someone here seems to believe their opinion on opinions has value to someone.”
Come on, AQ, show some backbone, dont be coy! Who are you talking about, or are you going to refuse to say, just like you refuse to describe the GHE?
Very mysterious, Im sure.
Carry on,
Any chance you can post a comment that is in some way related to the comment you are responding to? Or are you out of ideas again?
AQ,
Thanks for the flattery through imitation. I accept flattery from anyone, obviously.
You wrote
“Someone here seems to believe their opinion on opinions has value to someone.”
Come on, AQ, show some backbone, dont be coy! Who are you talking about, or are you going to refuse to say, just like you refuse to describe the GHE?
Very mysterious, I’m sure. I post as I wish, and there is nothing you can do about. Suck it up, petal.
Carry on.
All you had to say was “no”.
You really should try to hide your Australianisms when chatting with a fellow Australian, given that you feel the need to disguise that fact.
AQ,
Thanks for the flattery through imitation. I accept flattery from anyone, obviously.
You wrote
“Someone here seems to believe their opinion on opinions has value to someone.”
Come on, AQ, show some backbone, dont be coy! Who are you talking about, or are you going to refuse to say, just like you refuse to describe the GHE?
Very mysterious, Im sure. I post as I wish, and there is nothing you can do about. Suck it up, petal.
Carry on losing.
Your favorite imbecilic English comedy?
AQ,
Thanks for the flattery through imitation. I accept flattery from anyone, obviously.
You wrote
“Someone here seems to believe their opinion on opinions has value to someone.”
Come on, AQ, show some backbone, dont be coy! Who are you talking about, or are you going to refuse to say, just like you refuse to describe the GHE?
Very mysterious, I’m sure. I post as I wish, and there is nothing you can do about. Suck it up, petal.
Carry on losing.
You seem to have forgotten what you were trying to argue, Mikey.
Has someone sucked out your hippocampus with a straw?
AQ,
Thanks for the flattery through imitation. I accept flattery from anyone, obviously.
You wrote
“Someone here seems to believe their opinion on opinions has value to someone.”
Come on, AQ, show some backbone, dont be coy! Who are you talking about, or are you going to refuse to say, just like you refuse to describe the GHE?
Very mysterious, I’m sure. I post as I wish, and there is nothing you can do about. Suck it up, petal.
Carry on losing.
Awww … your hippocampus is called ‘petal’. How sweet. Are you missing her?
AQ,
Thanks for the flattery through imitation. I accept flattery from anyone, obviously.
You wrote –
“Someone here seems to believe their opinion on opinions has value to someone.”
Come on, AQ, show some backbone, don’t be coy! Who are you talking about, or are you going to refuse to say, just like you refuse to describe the GHE?
Very mysterious, I’m sure. I post as I wish, and there is nothing you can do about. Suck it up, petal.
Carry on losing.
The signal to noise ratio in the 800+ Swenson posts is rapidly approaching zero.
“There is no such thing as global weather, only global climate.”
Global climate is measured over period of 30 years and it’s related to average global surface air temperature.
A few people want to measure it over 17 years.
It is related to glacial and interglacial period and that we are in an Ice Age.
When New York Times, claimed we are heading towards an Ice Age, they were talking about global climate.
Of course it was silly thing and was headline decades ago, but there is no doubt that it was related to global climate.
If NYT writers knew anything about an Ice Age or glaciation periods or whatever. They would know global cooling is something that takes a long period of time.
For instance in the Holocene, the long term tread of last 5000 years has cooling.
And this is normal pattern with all past interglacial periods.
And in terms of what might call a science paper, there numerous claims the our present global warming, will delay the up coming glacial period. And most crazy was saying human activity will delay it by 75,000 years.
But let’s see, UK Met office:
— Global circulation patterns
At any time there are many weather systems weaving around the globe, however when averaged over many years a global pattern of air movement emerges.
Differential heating
The reason we have different weather patterns, jet streams, deserts and prevailing winds is all because of the global atmospheric circulation caused by the rotation of the Earth and the amount of heat different parts of the globe receive.–
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/atmosphere/global-circulation-patterns
Funny how COUNTLESS people on this site have claimed there will be a sudden plummet in the earth’s temperature, counter to what you just said. Why don’t you challenge them?
Talking of which … where is Salvatore now …
AQ,
You wrote –
“Funny how COUNTLESS people on this site have claimed there will be a sudden plummet in the earths temperature . , , “.
How high can you count? Not very high, obviously. Regardless of what people do or do not claim, the Earth is mostly glowing hot material, which has taken four and a half billion years to reach its present temperature.
Any claims of sudden changes to the laws of physics causing sudden changes to the Earth’s composition are unlikely to be true. Can you name anybody making such claims, or are you just making stuff up?
You may just be confused, ignorant and gullible.
By how much have changes in the temperature of the earth’s interior affected the temperature of the earth’s surface in, say, the last thousand years?
No deflecting now!
Oooooooh! A try at a gotcha! Not very adept, though, are you?
The geothermal profile of earth varies with location and time. Surface temperatures vary roughly between +90 C, and -90 C, although I will accept other extreme figures which are supported by observation.
You mention the surface, but I suspect that you don’t really mean the surface – in the sense of the temperature at the interface between the solid crust and the atmosphere.
In any case, there are many published papers you may care to read, which will indicate that your question is most poorly framed, indicating that you really have no understanding of heat flow through the crust (and subsequently, the atmosphere). A fairly recent paper “Spatiotemporal Variations in Surface Heat Loss Imply a Heterogeneous Mantle Cooling History”, warns that surface heat loss is far from spatially uniform.
So even though a point at the centre of the Earth may be a fixed temperature, changes in that temperature are not necessarily reflected proportionally at the surface (however defined).
Your question “By how much have changes in the temperature of the earths interior affected the temperature of the earths surface in, say, the last thousand years” has no fixed answer. Even so, I guess that overall, the temperature of the crust has dropped around 0.002 K in the last thousand years. I will defer to a better estimate based on crustal measurements taken beyond the Sun’s influence, if you have one.
As to temperature within the interior, the interior seems to be in constant chaotic convective motion, possibly even resulting in magma plumes and crustal hotspots, indicating temperature inhomogeneity.
But you are really not interested in science, are you?
You are just trolling, aren’t you, hoping that people will accept “The GHE is a stack blankets” as a useful description of the mythical GHE!
Or do you have a better description that you would like to share?
[laughing at dimwitted gotcha attempt from dimwit]
0.002K? Wow. So 0.0005K in 250 years.
We’d better amend the records – greenhouse gases have only warmed the earth by 1.2995K since 1750.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Wed better amend the records greenhouse gases have only warmed the earth by 1.2995K since 1750.”
These greenhouse gases that you refuse to specify are suppose to hear a planet? And only since 1750?
What rare magic is this? You are just being stupid for no reason at all, aren’t you? You obviously don’t accept that thermometers respond to heat, and that eight billion people producing and using energy, produce far more heat than less than a billion people did in 1750.
You do seem a wee bit ignorant and gullible. I understand why you refuse to support “The GHE is a stack of blankets”, and why you also refuse to provide any better description.
You could always try being stupidly sarcastic, I suppose. That might make you look intelligent, do you think?
AQ, please stop trolling.
Pretty sure I haven’t claimed that greenhouse gases can hear a planet.
“You could always try being stupidly sarcastic, I suppose. That might make you look intelligent, do you think?”
Are you referring to the intelligence of someone who can’t sense the irony in that comment?
“Pretty sure I havent claimed that greenhouse gases can hear a planet.”
Just as well – mythical greenhouse gases are said by GHE fanatics to have many properties, but having ears and the power of hearing don’t appear to be likely.
Or maybe you are being slyly sarcastic about my intentional mistake. Did you pick up the others?
Keep dancing – you can’t or won’t say what these mythical greenhouse gases are supposed to do!
Might they be connected in some way to the mythical GHE? Do you agree with the statement “The GHE is a stack of blankets”?
Let everyone know.
Intentional … HAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAA
Now are you referring to the “intelligence” of someone who makes “intentional mistakes” without purpose? Because of course everyone aspires to looking DAF.
Oh Mikey, you crack me up!!
“Pretty sure I haven’t claimed that greenhouse gases can hear a planet.”
Just as well mythical greenhouse gases are said by GHE fanatics to have many properties, but having ears and the power of hearing don’t appear to be likely.
Or maybe you are being slyly sarcastic about my intentional mistake. Did you pick up the others?
Keep dancing you can’t or won’t say what these mythical greenhouse gases are supposed to do!
Might they be connected in some way to the mythical GHE? Do you agree with the statement “The GHE is a stack of blankets”?
Let everyone know. Or be an idiot, and refuse to say anything relevant at all.
“Let everyone know. Or be an idiot, and refuse to say anything relevant at all.”
Exactly my complaint to you Mikey. Have you not been reading my comments?
“Pretty sure I havent claimed that greenhouse gases can hear a planet.”
Just as well mythical greenhouse gases are said by GHE fanatics to have many properties, but having ears and the power of hearing dont appear to be likely.
Or maybe you are being slyly sarcastic about my intentional mistake. Did you pick up the others?
Keep dancing you cant or wont say what these mythical greenhouse gases are supposed to do!
Might they be connected in some way to the mythical GHE? Do you agree with the statement “The GHE is a stack of blankets”?
Let everyone know. Or be an idiot, and refuse to say anything relevant at all.
Sorry matey …. still laughing at your comparison of 0.0005 to 1.3.
Like having $130 and losing a 5 cent piece. HILARIOUS.
AQ, please stop trolling.
–Antonin Qwerty says:
May 21, 2024 at 8:21 PM
Funny how COUNTLESS people on this site have claimed there will be a sudden plummet in the earths temperature, counter to what you just said. Why dont you challenge them?
Talking of which where is Salvatore now —
First there isn’t countless people- there are countless posts, though.
Second, I have made a fair number posts, saying this.
But also said it might effect global weather.
And endless said, we are recovering from the Little Ice Age. And LIA was quite a long time period, about 5 centuries, or took about 3 centuries to cool. And like today, it had global weather effects.
And typically it’s the volcanic activity and solar cycles which are thought to have “some” relationship to it, in terms relatively short time periods.
But in terms of global climate, LIA had lowering sea levels and our cold ocean which average about 3.5 C, cooled by about 1/10 of degree or more. It also adding snowpack/glaciers, which haven’t melted back to levels they were before LIA.
But, yes, where is Salvatore?
“And making my previous climate clear:
At the end of this month, the average of April/May 2023 drops off the back end of the SSN, and is replaced by the average of April/May 2024.”
The blue line is currently at Oct 2023, and will go to Nov 2023, once May is totaled {at end of the Month}
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
“Please indicate that you have read that description so I know I havent wasted my time.”
So, you are average it, not to draw a blue line in past, but to get more recent number.
Bindidon does something like that, I like his graphs.
“So, you are average it, not to draw a blue line in past, but to get more recent number.”
Could you rewrite than in a way that is understandable. I have no idea what you you are trying to say. Is it a question or a statement? What is “it”? You “are”??
Every monthly SSN value is the average of 11 and two-half months. Every subsequent month, two half-months fall off the back end, and two half-months are added to the front end. Not sure if that has any relation to what you are trying to say though.
“Every monthly SSN value is the average of 11 and two-half months”
Well, that’s certainly informative.
Does it have some value, or not?
It’s your buddies who support this nonsense about the solar cycle and an imminent “little ice age”.
Why don’t you field your inane questions to those people who don’t understand the statistics they are promoting.
If you really are curious about understanding this very simple concept of weighted averages, and not just tr0ll1ng, there’s this thing called google which you should find helpful. Of course I’ve understood this basic idea since before the internet arrived, so I’ve never had to look it up. Let me know what you find.
“Every monthly SSN value is the average of 11 and two-half months. Every subsequent month, two half-months fall off the back end, and two half-months are added to the front end. Not sure if that has any relation to what you are trying to say though.”
So, Oct 2023 is 124.8 because, Sept: 134.2, and 4 earlier months: 114.8, 160, 160.5, and 137.4 and the halved: 97.6 / 2
And Nov: 107.1 and 4 later: 113.5, 123, 124.7, and 104.9 and halved:
136.5 / 2
48.8 + 68.25 = 117.05 [two halves]
99.9 {Oct} + 134.2 + 114.8 + 160 + 160.5 + 137.4 = 806.8
107.1 + 113.5 + 123 + 124.7 + 104.9 = 573.2
117.05 + 806.8 + 573.2 = 1497.85 / 12 = 124.820833333
That works.
AQ,
I told you that your answer was informative. Don’t you believe me?
I was referring to the SSN data, when I asked whether you thought it had any value or not,
I guess you are implying that the data has no particular value – fair enough. I agree.
Not sure why you make it so complicated:
[0.5(97.6 + 136.5) + 137.4 + 160.5 + 160.0 + 114.8 + 134.2 + 99.9 + 107.1 113.5 + 123.0 + 124.7 + 104.9] / 12 = 124.8
It also means that only half of this month will be contributing to the November SSN. The other half will contribute to the 149 needed to make the December SSN the same as November, with the other half of that coming from June.
So:
If this month happens to stay at its current 170 average (it probably won’t), then we already have 85 to contribute to December.
So we need another 64 to reach 149, so June will need to average 128 to break even.
Flynn
A determination of “value” first requires a statement of purpose.
I see no value in a turd, but I suspect you might find some.
AQ,
I told you that your answer was informative. Dont you believe me?
I was referring to the SSN data, when I asked whether you thought it had any value or not,
I guess you are implying that the data has no particular value fair enough. I agree.
Are all fanatical GHE cultists obsessed with turds, or just those also fixated on canines of various sorts?
You said “I guess you are implying that the data has no particular value”.
I said you first need to tell me what purpose you are considering for the data. If you can’t do that then I do not agree, so please do not misrepresent me.
Me “turd” … once.
You “GHE” … thousands of times.
Where does the real obsession lie.
AQ,
You now imply that the data has some particular value, but you can’t or won’t say why.
I say it has no particular value – unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I win.
Are you telling me you can’t think of ANYONE who would benefit from solar data, Mikey? Oh dear.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Me “turd” once.
You “GHE” thousands of times.
Where does the real obsession lie.”
If we are talking about turds, you tell me. If you don’t want to talk about the mythical GHE, I won’t argue with you.
Do you think that “The GHE is a stack of blankets” is the only GHE description of the GHE, or can you provide some others? Are they similarly idiotic?
You tell me.
“Are you telling me you cant think of ANYONE who would benefit from solar data, Mikey? Oh dear.”
I wrote –
I say it has no particular value unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I win.
You have not demonstrated otherwise, have you? You lose – again.
Keep trying.
I say unless you can prove otherwise, you have not demonstrated that it has no real value. You lose again.
“Are you telling me you can’t think of ANYONE who would benefit from solar data, Mikey? Oh dear.”
I wrote
I say it has no particular value unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I win.
You have not demonstrated otherwise, have you? You lose again.
Keep trying.
I say unless you can prove otherwise, you have not demonstrated that it has no real value. You lose again.
Who’s going to bed first tonight, Mikey?
“Are you telling me you cant think of ANYONE who would benefit from solar data, Mikey? Oh dear.”
I wrote –
I say it has no particular value unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I win.
You have not demonstrated otherwise, have you? You lose again.
Keep trying.
I say unless you can prove otherwise, you have not demonstrated that it has no real value. You lose again.
Still awake Mikey? Prepared for the long haul?
“Not sure why you make it so complicated:
[0.5(97.6 + 136.5) + 137.4 + 160.5 + 160.0 + 114.8 + 134.2 + 99.9 + 107.1 113.5 + 123.0 + 124.7 + 104.9] / 12 = 124.8”
There probably an easier way to do it. But I just let them do it- which is the easiest.
–Swenson says:
May 21, 2024 at 11:51 PM
Every monthly SSN value is the average of 11 and two-half months
Well, thats certainly informative.
Does it have some value, or not?–
It’s their system. They also have a method to count spots. But it’s like baseball, you have the official rules. And you could watch the replays and wonder [or argue] whether, they called the called out on first, “right”.
Anyhow, baseball has value- can have value, if you don’t screw it up.
But you could have different rules for baseball- it’s still baseball.
If some baseball player is taking drugs to enhance his game, does record count? As compare to say drinking coffee or drinking booze.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
More on that speed of gravity
https://youtu.be/lmbaqmX016M
That one was better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWyCjRIYjlc
Willtard go be stoopid to somebody else’s thread
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop forgetting that sometimes your PSTering reopens closed subthreads.
“Mike Flynn, please stop forgetting that sometimes your PSTering reopens closed subthreads.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop doing it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It was good till the host began raving about Dante and love. Nothing wrong with love but it is a scientific intangible that the host related to Eros, essentially, the god of sex. Love and sex have nothing in common. I like Sheldrake and the way he thinks and the host dragged him off into a ridiculous discussion of Dante and love.
What people seem to be missing is that gravity is a field that loses intensity with the square of the distance from the source. As such, it doesn’t have a speed since it would not require renewal. Once the field is established, like a magnetic field, it becomes static. Yet it can still act at any point in the field albeit with a reduced intensity that depends on the distance from the source.
A magnet is sometimes depicted with lines of force emanating from the north pole and moving to the south pole. However, there is no proof that such a field is in motion and not just a stationary field. Lines of force are imaginary units theorized by humans although one can see something similar when a magnetic is placed under a sheet of paper with iron filings on top.
That does suggest that lines of force do have some kind of physical reality. However, it might mean that the field has such an effect on the iron filings that it causes them to repel each other.
We do know that the magnetic field is similar to a gravitational field in that the field strength varies with the square of the distance from either. From my own experience and study, I gather that a magnetic field and a gravitational field are static, and that nothing moves in either.
Mind you, magnetic fields can be made to vary if an alternating current is run through a conductor.
A planet does not emit at its average surface temperature (Tmean).
Therefore, a planets average surface temperature (Tmean) cannot be associated with any kind of planet surface Infrared Emission Spectrum.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It has taken months for the El Niño to end, and it will take months for a La Niña to form.
https://postimg.cc/SYzGmLJY
Exciting or boring — you get to choose.
https://i.postimg.cc/ZnwsFVmH/Screen-Shot-2024-05-22-at-6-31-03-AM.png
This one
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
” Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and parapsychology researcher. He proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture that lacks mainstream acceptance and has been widely criticized as pseudoscience. ”
*
This is exactly the kind of man that all contrarians blindly, gullible trust when he talks about the ‘speed of gravity’, for sure :–)
Bindi, why do you like to tr0ll so much?
Wouldn’t it be better for you to try to learn some science?
Hey Puffman, you’re using a “0” instead of an “o” – why is that?
Wait until Mr. Asshat discovers Terence Howard. He’s all the rage right now in the rage-o-sphere.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop abusing your PSTering privileges.
“Mike Flynn, please stop abusing your PSTering privileges.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop abusing PSTering convention
“Mike Flynn, please stop abusing PSTering convention”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop repeating the same comment by inserting a random white space in your copypasta.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bindiding is an idijot who runs around internet collecting ad hominens while he himself has no case to refute absolutely anything.
If the gravity traveled only the speed of light neither solar systems or the galaxies could possibly hold together because due to rotational and traveling movement through the space the bodies would be pulled in the wrong directions and everything would fly apart in short odder
“If the gravity traveled only the speed of light neither solar systems or the galaxies could possibly hold together because due to rotational and traveling movement through the space the bodies would be pulled in the wrong directions and everything would fly apart in short odder”
Nah. You fail to understand the basic concept.
Gravity has long ago warped the space throughout a solar system or galaxy, somewhat like a weight placed in the center of a rubber sheet.
And this warping pulls travelling bodies always toward the center, like a marble rolling on the rubber sheet.
The ‘gravity travelling at the speed of light’ becomes relevant only when there is a change in the position of the source of gravity.
Somewhat like if the weight is moved out from the center of the rubber sheet… the new warp of the sheet travels outward at the speed of light from the weight.
Naty thinks the solar system is stationary in the space
Eboy, please stop conflating the universe with its components.
And the dachshund Eben is no more than an aggressive, ignorant boaster who spends his time in collecting pseudoscience out of absolutely non-committing YouTube blah blah, instead of trying to understand papers reflecting real science.
The only papers you ever look at is the ones you wipe your azz with when checking for stains
Eboy, please go play in your own sandbox.
Once again it becomes clear how astonishingly similar the fecal language of the dachshund Eben is to that of, for example, German right-wing extremist neo-Nazis.
Bindidon, Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop your ankle biting in Binny’s thread, Eboy can return back to his sandbox all by his own.
“Eboy can return back to his sandbox”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop abusing repetitive PSTering.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard
Who can post ‘trоll’ either has a privileged access to the blog helping him/her to bypass its lazy scanner, or uses, like I do here, the cyrillic small letter ‘o’ and converts it into a UTF8 character (hexa 43E) before posting.
In the same way, you can write comments containing the word absorрtion by using the cyrillic small letter ‘er’ and converting it into hexa 440.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668514
Oh, weird, primates are vulnerable to catastrophic heat? Huh. I wonder if that’s in any way relevant to humans.
New insight suggests that when the wetbrain is in snooze mode, certain neural connections are partially weakened, rested, and reset, in preparation for us to learn new things the following day.
I am rapidly approaching the stage in life where I feel as if I have forgotten more than I currently know. Moving forward, my hope is that I retain the good knowledge and filter out the incorrect, useless, counterproductive things. But looking at my elder peers it is obvious that is not always the case.
I find that, in general, the important thing is to have some idea of where to look for more information and be able to re-teach/re-learn things on my own as opposed to needing guidance from a teacher. I also find that I pick it up much quicker the second time, and possibly with a deeper understanding.
The wetware brain has a limited capacity, even if it is maintained at peak capacity and performance levels. After all, there are only approximately as many neurons in an average human brain as there are stars in the Milky Way.
> I wonder if thats in any way relevant to humans.
Some may argue it’s relevant to me!
https://imgur.com/a/mSLU8uE
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill
Willard, please stop trolling.
Well Ark, since you’re into anecdotes, here’s my 113F story:
It was mid July and I was cutting down a dead tree in the backyard. It was very hot, with bright July sun. I only had shorts on, but was sweating profusely.
I had been working hard for about 45 minutes when I noticed I was having trouble breathing. I staggered to the hose and washed off, drenching myself. I made it to the shade of the patio, dripping wet, and the thermometer (in the shade) read 113F. I sat down to rest and catch my breath. My wife made me a margarita.
I spent the rest of the day “recovering” with additional margaritas, for medicinal purposes.
Moral of the story — Don’t do as monkeys do. Drink plenty of liquids….
Clint,
You got some brains there, treating possible heat stress with alcohol.
Though if it was a rocks margarita with a salted rim…
Doesn’t have to be 113F (45C). I took a 10 mile run one day when it was about 30C (85F). It was one of those hot, high humidity days when everything seems to be quiet and there were major hills on the route.
I got to about the 3/4 mark when I began losing coordination. My right foot lost so much coordination that it started hitting the back of my left ankle. I had to stop and walk.
Fortunately, there was a firehall along the way and I saw a fireman out watering the lawn around the firehall. I asked him if I could have a drink, and he told me to help myself. Gratefully I filled up on water.
I had already taken the precaution of carrying a couple of containers with me containing fruit juice but I guess I had burned that off earlier. After filling up on water, I had two miles left and decided to take it easy and walk it. After a few minutes I felt good enough to begin jogging and I reached an area around a lake that had a trail covered with trees. I began feeling so good that I opened up on a run and covered most of the last two miles at about 7 minutes a mile.
Dehydration can really do you in on a hot day. Straight water is not smart, however. A problem with dehydration is the loss of salts like sodium and potassium. Drinks like Gatorade replace those salts and I can testify to the effectiveness of electrolyte replacements combating dehydration. Of course, I learned that years after my experience.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Where is this catastrophic heat to which you refer?
Mr. Asshat, please stop playing dumb.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop playing dumb.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Arkady, please stop trolling.
In the Graph the cause and effect move in the same direction.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
YOU ARE HERE…
ark…whatever are you braying about?
We often overlook the beauty of simplicity. Some of the most profound insights are found in the elegant and uncomplicated.
A, let me know if you ever have a profound insight.
Otherwise, please stop trolling.
Mr. Asshat, Mike Flynn, please stop braying.
“Mr. Asshat, Mike Flynn, please stop braying”
Willard, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Waters across the Atlantics tropical belt – extending from the coast of Africa through the Caribbean are hotter now than in any other late May on record, with over 90% of the areas sea surface engulfed in record or near-record warmth. The extent of marine heat has never been greater heading into a hurricane season, outpacing by wide margins the previous late May record-holder in 2005, a year remembered for one of the most active and destructive hurricane seasons in modern history.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/05/what-you-need-to-know-about-record-breaking-heat-in-the-atlantic/
Prove it.
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop PSTering me in my own threads.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey Mike, you’re still doing it.
“Hey Mike, youre still doing it.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
*Pokes*
Hey Mike, you need to get home.
“*Pokes*
Hey Mike, you need to get home.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Goodbye, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bdgwx,
You responded to my writing(“𝐈𝐭𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐞, 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐨𝐭, 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐤, 𝐞𝐭𝐜.”) with:
“𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘳. 𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴. 𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘪𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘜𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘐𝘚𝘛 𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧.”
Station siting bias is not a source of random error. For a component to be classified as such, it has to be scattered equally around the true value. Surface siting bias biases the measurements in one direction.
Also, take a look at this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349450193_Urban_heat_islands_in_Hong_Kong_Bonding_with_atmospheric_stability
walter: You responded to my writing
Let me break down this down for you.
Context #1: Single site. A set of measurements from this context will all exhibit the same siting bias. That siting bias is systematic because it is the same for all measurements in the set. Picking a measurement at random from this set will always yield the same error.
Context #2: Multiple sites. A set of measurements from this context will all have different siting biases. Those siting biases are random because they are not the same for all measurements in the set. Picking a measurement at random from this set will yield a different error each time.
What you did in your post here was take my response for context #2 and applied it to context #1 even though I gave you a different response for context #1 already. See my post at May 21, 2024 at 4:34 AM.
walter: Station siting bias is not a source of random error.
I didn’t say it was. In fact, I said the opposite. I said it was systematic. See my post at May 21, 2024 at 4:34 AM. Refer to the two different contexts label #1 and #2 above.
“Context #1: Single site. A set of measurements from this context will all exhibit the same siting bias. That siting bias is systematic because it is the same for all measurements in the set. Picking a measurement at random from this set will always yield the same error.”
No, it won’t. Once again, do you think that siting bias will be the same on warm, sunny days compared to a cold, snowy day in the dead of winter?
“Context #2: Multiple sites. A set of measurements from this context will all have different siting biases. Those siting biases are random because they are not the same for all measurements in the set. Picking a measurement at random from this set will yield a different error each time.”
No, because it biases all measurements at all sites to go in the same direction: up. They don’t go negative, and even if a few are biased in the negative direction, they would have to go negative by the exact opposite distance from zero to be considered random.”
“What you did in your post here was take my response for context #2 and applied it to context #1 even though I gave you a different response for context #1 already. See my post at May 21, 2024 at 4:34 AM.”
No, you are just confused.
> No, you are just confused.
🐒
Binny has nothing to do with this conversation, Willard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
walter: No, it wont. Once again, do you think that siting bias will be the same on warm, sunny days compared to a cold, snowy day in the dead of winter?
Hold on. First…I’m talking about biases caused by siting selection. This includes choice of instrument, choice of shelter, choice of coordinates, etc. Basically, choices that are made at the time of siting. Second…stations are designed to mitigate any biases caused by weather since weather is what they are meant to measure. Third…weather is inherently random so any errors in measurement as a result of weather are themselves random since it won’t be the same for each measurement. So this isn’t even an example of a systematic error anyway.
walter: No, because it biases all measurements at all sites to go in the same direction: up.
That is patently false and quite frankly absurd. To illustrate this consider two nearby stations with one in Glen Cove (3482m) and another at the top of Pikes Peak (4302m). Clearly siting biases are different between these two stations. Furthermore the one at the top is clearly biased down. Now consider two stations located a mere feet (even inches) from each other with one using a Stevenson screen and the other using a cylindrical radiation shield (CRS). Clearly siting biases are different between two stations. Furthermore the CRS is biased down. So to claim that all stations are biased up is clearly wrong. And to claim that they all have the same bias is absurd.
bdgwx,
You refuse to describe the GHE, so why are you concerned about completely pointless thermometer readings?
Are you worried about thermometer readings – phobic perhaps?
You seem to be a strange chap. Are you as concerned about other weather observations – wind speed and direction, dewpoint, pressure, cloud cover, etc., or is only misleading supposed “air temperature” that occupies your mind?
Is there a point to your trolling, or are you just another ignorant and gullible GHE cultist?
This is not a trick question.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to deflect.
bdgwx,
What’s absurd is your attempt to misrepresent my example.
I made it very clear that I was referring to bias caused by poor placement of the thermometer, especially when it’s near artificial heat sources. I even mentioned Anthony Watts to emphasize my point. The challenge with this type of bias is that the surrounding infrastructure can change over time.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop washing your hands over Walter R. Hogle’s squirrel.
“Mike Flynn, please stop washing your hands over Walter R. Hogles squirrel.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It’s not a squirrel. Even if the other sources of bias he brought managed to cancel or reduce through averaging, the particular one I have been talking about would not, and would, actually, accumulate with each average.
It’s not a squirrel. Even if the other sources of bias he brought managed to cancel or reduce through averaging, the particular one I have been talking about would not, and, instead, would just accumulate with each average.
Walter, You are wanting to jump straight into the minutia of details without an understanding of fundamental concepts first. I’m trying to help you understand these concepts with trivial examples. If you are unwilling or unable to understand simple examples and fundamental truths then you are going to struggle even more with the vastly more complicated real world. And I still don’t get the sense that you even understand what systematic error is.
Bdgwx, please stop giving Walter R. Hogle the benefit of the doubt.
He clearly does not understand what’s systematic error, and he drank Pat’s kool-aid.
Bdgwx, no. You just hate reality.
Walter R. Hogle, please drop the weak jabs in a formal fight.
“Walter R. Hogle, please drop the weak jabs in a formal fight.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
walter, I want to make sure I understand your position and that I’m not putting words in your mouth. I gave you examples of siting biases that are not only different from site to site, but in both cases result in one site being biased down. You respond with the belief that I hate reality because of this? Is it correct for me to interpret your position as one in which you think siting biases can never cause an error to the low side?
walter,
Given what you now know answer the following questions.
Q1: What do we call error that is the same for each measurement?
Q2: What do we call error that is different for each measurement?
Q3: Given a set of measurements from the same instrument at the same location will a sample of those measurements all be influenced by the same siting error?
Q4: Given a set of measurements from different instruments at different locations will a sample of those measurements all be influenced by the same siting error?
For your questions, please specify whether you are asking about the SOURCE or the VALUE of systematic error.
” . . . answer the following questions”
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
walter, These are not trick questions. Q1 and Q2 come straight from the definitions in the ISO, JCGM, NIST, etc. documents. And for Q3 and Q4 source/value are two sides of the same coin. The coin here being station siting selections which includes station elevation, instrument package, shelter type, data logger, etc. Is Q3 the answer you gave in Q1 or Q2? Is Q4 the answer you gave in Q1 or Q2?
“These are not trick questions.”
Why are you demanding answers then? You think you know the answers, in which case you are simply hoping to make Walter look stupid.
You are an idiot who refuses to even say what the GHE is supposed to do.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to prevent Walter R. Hogle from being thoroughly spank once and for all.
Don’t be too hard on bdgwx. He’s recovering from realizing his cult has misled him. He realized the simple question debunked his beliefs.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668045
Puffman, please stop conflating a simple reading comprehension exam with your usual Kafka traps.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Station siting bias is not a source of random error”.
***
Especially when the hot exhaust from an air conditioner is blowing directly at the box housing the thermometer. That was one of many examples found by Anthony Watts in his study.
Thermometer readings now used for global warming data were never intended for that. Their original use was for weather reports and a few degrees warming would never have been an issue. Today it is a big issue today as bean-counters use it to claim an average global warming which as literally no meaning.
Exactly, Gordon. It’s confusing to me why some individuals can’t understand this. It’s unrealistic to expect data to accurately track changes down to the tenth decimal. Even measuring to a whole degree or two is impractical.
> Its unrealistic to expect data to accurately track changes down to the tenth decimal.
🐒🐒
“🐒🐒”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trying to bring Binny into the conversation.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop dehumanizing.
GR: Today it is a big issue today as bean-counters use it to claim an average global warming which as literally no meaning.
I wonder how Dr. Spencer feels about you describing the product he provides here as having “literally no meaning”.
And I wonder if Walter R. Hogle holds the same as our crankiest crank.
Oh right, he does!
Willard, please stop trolling. You are just being stupid.
Not the proper PSTering convention, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
binny…”Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and parapsychology researcher. He proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture that lacks mainstream acceptance and has been widely criticized as pseudoscience”.
***
Sheldrake had some interesting albeit unusual theories. He was the type of scientist who did not fear negative feedback or being scorned. His contribution to biology and processes of mind are not only interesting but pioneering in nature.
We have all, no doubt, experienced a sensation that someone was looking at us, and turned around to see someone staring at us. It’s a sixth sense so to speak and that’s what interested Sheldrake. He was trying to investigate such ESP events scientifically.
Allow him to explain what is meant by morphic in his own words…
https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance/introduction
It is a natural scientific process unrelated to gravity.
From what I recall from reading Sheldrake, he was talking about some kind of field radiated by humans that can be received by others. How else can we explain being aware of someone staring at us from behind and how else can we explain ESP events which most of us have experienced. How do animals sense impending earthquakes, or how do birds fly great distances purely by instinct?
I can think of one humourous example of ESP. I was at a football game with a buddy and he had binoculars. Of course, we put them to good use perving on the cheerleaders as well. There was one blonde in particular I liked and I was focused in on her as she stood watching the game, looking away from me.
Suddenly, she turned he head and stared directly at me.
Coincidence??? But why would she turn around just at the moment I was staring at her through binoculars and why would she look straight in my direction? After all, her interest was in the game, not someone behind her several hundred feet away.
Mr. Asshat, please stop confusing metaphysical experience from being a creepy weirdo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy’s brain damage escalates daily. He has been reduced to a blithering ijit.
Mr. Asshat, please stop gaslighting.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop gaslighting.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop doing whatever you think you are doing.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Architecting lunar infrastructure
by Jeff Foust
Monday, May 20, 2024
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4796/1
“You may have heard in recent weeks a two-word phrase whose individual words were very familiar but which, until now, had been rarely combined: lunar railroad. Earlier this month, NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC), the agency program that funds work on early-stage technologies, awarded a Phase 2 grant for a project called Flexible Levitation on a Track (FLOAT) to create a maglev railroad of sorts on the Moon and other planetary bodies. We want to build the first lunar railway system, which will provide reliable, autonomous, and efficient payload transport on the Moon, explained Ethan Schaler of JPL, who is leading work on FLOAT.
he announcement of the FLOAT grant came about a month and a half after Northrop Grumman announced its own lunar railroad project. The company said it won a DARPA grant to study a lunar railroad network could transport humans, supplies and resources for commercial ventures across the lunar surface. Unlike the NIAC announcement, Northrop did not go into technical details about its railroad concept, other than to describe how the study will examine issues ranging from interfaces to costs.
The Northrop lunar railroad award is part of a project called the 10-Year Lunar Architecture Capability Study, or LunA-10, at DARPA. When the agency announced plans for LunA-10 last August, it surprised many people: why was DARPA looking at lunar architecture when NASA had already developed its Moon to Mars Architecture and outlined plans to refine and update it annually? ”
DARPA is part US military space. And US military in general.
They might spend a small amount on studies, and/or spend a lot on something important enough in terms US security issues.
And China might make the Moon a US security issue, but US military
have long [before China launched into into space] considered Moon in terms security issues.
–He said Interlune focused on helium-3 because of its high price: $20 million per kilogram. It is the only resource that is priced high enough to warrant going to the Moon and bringing it back. We needed something like that to anchor the business case. —
Hmm, 20 million per kg is 20,000 per gram. Any lunar dirt is worth on Earth 40 per gram or $40,000 per kg. And you don’t to process it, though you should catalogue it.
H2 is worth about +$2000 per kg, at the lunar surface. The helium you have refined into He-3, could be worth more at lunar surface.
Or you have cost of refining on lunar surface, though you might ship unrefined Helium and process it on Earth.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Today, were only going to look at his most recent paper, though. But before we begin that, lets review a few basics about the propagation of uncertainty how uncertainty in measurements needs to be examined to see how it affects calculations based on those measurements. It will be boring and tedious, since well have more equations than pictures, but we need to do this to see the elementary errors that [Walter’s Pet Frank] makes. If all the following section looks familiar, just jump to the next section where we point out the problems in Patrick Franks paper.
Spoiler alert: [Walter’s Pet Frank] can’t do basic first-year statistics.
https://skepticalscience.com/frank_propagation_uncertainty.html
Irrelevant appeal to skeptical science.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop making Bob Loblaw, who knows what he’s talking about, sad.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop pulling my leg.
“Mike Flynn, please stop pulling my leg.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Still here, Mike?
“Still here, Mike?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Drink plenty of water when you get home, Mike.
From Willard’s pointless and irrelevant link –
“The paper by Patrick Frank is not worth the electrons used to store or transmit it. For Frank to be correct, not only would the entire discipline of climate science need to be wrong.”
The nonsense that Willard appeals to is not worth the electrons used to store or transmit it. There is no discipline called “climate science” except in the imaginations of its believers.
It doesnt really matter, does it? As the IPCC states, it is not possible to predict the future.
By the way, everybody at skepticalscience.com refuses to describe the mythical GHE.
Not very reassuring, is it? Must be religion – claiming there is a God, who of course can’t be described, can perform miracles, and will reward His followers in another life.
Not very scientific at all.
Mike Flynn, please stop peddling your crap while pretending you’re responding by playing dumb over a random quote.
From Willard’s pointless and irrelevant link
“The paper by Patrick Frank is not worth the electrons used to store or transmit it. For Frank to be correct, not only would the entire discipline of climate science need to be wrong.”
The nonsense that Willard appeals to is not worth the electrons used to store or transmit it. There is no discipline called “climate science” except in the imaginations of its believers.
It doesn’t really matter, does it? As the IPCC states, it is not possible to predict the future.
By the way, everybody at skepticalscience.com refuses to describe the mythical GHE.
Not very reassuring, is it? Must be religion – claiming there is a God, who of course can’t be described, can perform miracles, and will reward His followers in another life.
Not very scientific at all.
Willard can only attempt to troll in response.
Mike Flynn, please stop replicating your silliness.
From Willards pointless and irrelevant link
“The paper by Patrick Frank is not worth the electrons used to store or transmit it. For Frank to be correct, not only would the entire discipline of climate science need to be wrong.”
The nonsense that Willard appeals to is not worth the electrons used to store or transmit it. There is no discipline called “climate science” except in the imaginations of its believers.
It doesnt really matter, does it? As the IPCC states, it is not possible to predict the future.
By the way, everybody at skepticalscience.com refuses to describe the mythical GHE.
Not very reassuring, is it? Must be religion claiming there is a God, who of course cant be described, can perform miracles, and will reward His followers in another life.
Not very scientific at all.
Willard can only attempt to troll in response.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop doing it again, Mike.
Once again, would wee willy refrain from polluting Roy’s blog with trash from skeptical science.
Some gems from SkS…
1)”The Second Law does not state that the only flow of energy is from hot to cold – but instead that the net sum of the energy flows will be from hot to cold”.
***
Clausius did not once mention a net sum of energy, he stated only that heat can never, by its own means, be transferred cold to hot. He also specified that heat was being transferred, not energy per se. Of course, heat is energy but alarmists have a penchant for substituting energy for heat when it suits their lies.
Clausius also mentioned that heat can flow cold to hot but that compensation is required (think air conditioner). In other words, like water running downhill by its own means, or a bolder falling off a cliff by its own means neither process can be reversed by its own means. That’s what the 2nd law means wrt heat.
2)”Radiation is the transfer of energy as electromagnetic rays, emitted by any heated surface”.
Here again, they cannot bring themselves to refer to heat as energy. They call the EM electromagnetic rays but they refuse to call it energy. Same with heat, they refuse to call it energy and end up with seriously stoopid definitions.
SkS makes it sound that electromagntic energy is rays and that some other kind of energy is being transferred. EM transfers involved electromagnetic energy and no heat is transferred. If the target is colder, heat can be produced it it by converting EM back to heat.
3)”The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not state that the only flow of energy is from hot to cold – but instead that the net sum of the energy flows will be from hot to cold. To reiterate, the qualifier term, ‘net’, is the important one here”.
***
This is how alarmists get around the 2nd law, by redefining the law to suit their pseudo-science. If thy had taken the time to follow the arguments of Clausius which lead him to the 2nd law, they would see that net energy was never discussed by Clausius. The other definition by Thompson does not mention a net energy flow either.
Clausius based his science on the heat engine by tracking the flow of heat. He would hold temperature constant and vary pressure and volume, then hold volume constant while varying temperature and pressure, then hold pressure constant while varying temperature and volume.
Such a process has no net in it. Rather, he discussed reversible processes where the above method could be reversed to give an entropy of 0. He also describe irreversible processes where entropy is positive. Clausius invented the concept of entropy to mathematically state the obvious, that heat can never be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.
Fortunately Clausius is dead.
If he were alive to read Gordon’s bullshit Clausius would be ROFL.
As always, ignoramus Robertson deliberately ignores all what he does not understand or dislikes, and intentionally misrepresents it as incorrect with regard to what he likes (e.g. his beloved electrons and Niels Bohr’s completely outdated 1913 results).
Robertson also deliberately ignores any replies from other posters to his nonsensical ‘élucubrations’ (French for ‘lots of waffle’).
He always restarts posting the same stuff from scratch: this is a mix of dishonesty, incompetence and probably dementia.
*
Clausius’ final treatise in 1887 was his major work:
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
*
And therein, he definitely wrote:
” Was ferner die in gewoehnlicher Weise stattfindende Waermestrahlung anbetrifft, so ist es freilich bekannt, dass nicht nur der warme Koerper dem kalten, sondern auch umgekehrt der kalte Koerper dem warmen Waerme zustrahlt, aber das Gesammtresultat dieses gleichzeitig stattfindenden doppelten Waermeaustausches besteht, wie man als erfahrungsmaessig feststehend ansehen kann, immer darin, dass der kaeltere Koerper auf Kosten des waermeren einen Zuwachs an Waerme erfaehrt. ”
Translation:
” What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one. ”
{ In 1887, radiation and heat were similar things. }
*
Robertson can invent all what he wants. And anyone who credulously sucks his nonsense 100% deserves it.
“And anyone who credulously sucks his nonsense 100% deserves it.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop PSTering people in my threads.
Once again, Gordo, the self proclaimed engineer, repeats his usual ignorance regarding radiation heat transfer.
Standard engineering text books consider that the emissions from both cool and warm bodies which are intercepted by each other result in energy being transferred. The basic case is often presented as modeling the transfer between two parallel plates at different temperatures. For equal surface emissivities, there’s no difference in the absorp_tion by either body, except that the intensity of that from the cooler body is less than that from the warmer body.
The result is that energy is transferred from the warmer body to the cooler one. There’s no violation of the 2nd Law. Gordo never learns, he just pontificates away, happily ignoring any evidence which contradicts his world view.
Swanson, I just now found this. And, I’m glad I did.
This is your 7th demonstration? I must have missed some. But, I know I’ve corrected you at least twice so what you’re demonstrating is your inability to learn.
The bogus “plates” nonsense violates 2LoT. To understand, only consider the two plates in contact. If they are then slightly separated, in ideal conditions, the flows and temperatures don’t change. You don’t understand the relevant science. And you can’t learn.
Your specific demonstration shows only how a Thermos bottle works. It has NOTHING to do with the GHE nonsense, as the atmosphere is not returning the same photons as it receives. Try insulating with CO2 and see what happens….
Puffman, please stop commenting in my threads.
The ThreadMaster (delusions of grandeur) strikes again –
“Puffman, please stop commenting in my threads.”
Beware the ThreadMaster!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Grammie clone is “glad” that he is able to once again demonstrate his ignorance of physics. He trots out a veiled reference to his repeated comments regarding “two plates together, then two plates separated”, claiming that after separation, “the flows and temperatures dont change”. Grammie clone thus continues to ignore time and the transient response within the system.
Think of it this way. Use two plates, each 1 meter square with some thickness and a surface coating with emissivity near 1.0. Clamp them together so that they act as one plate and place them in the vacuum of space so that they can emit thermal IR radiation on each side. Apply an energy source of 2x watts to the side called the Blue plate. The temperature will vary until the system achieves steady state with each side emitting 1x watts.
Separate the two plates with a small gap between them such that the emissions of each plate across the gap will be absorbed by the other plate. At the instant of separation, both plates are at the same temperature and will emit 1x watts from each side. The Blue plate is still receiving 2x watts and can continue to emit 1x watts per side, but the Green plate now receives only the 1x watts from the Blue plate. Since the Green plate can no longer radiate 2x watts, it must begin to cool. At the same time, the Blue plate receives the added emission from the Green plate in addition to the 2x watts as before, thus it’s temperature begins to increase.
Some time passes and the energy flows thru the system reach steady state where the temperatures no longer change. At that point, the Blue plate will be warmer than before separation and the Green plate will be cooler. That’s the Green Plate Effect. There’s no extra energy created and no violation of the 2nd Law and.
John Cook is a monkey.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop misreading who wrote that piece.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop rolling.
You cant do basic first-year statistics.
Bite me, Richard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop teeth gnashing, Mike Flynn.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Snow and frost in the Rocky Mountains.
https://i.ibb.co/Cw8rKT2/gfs-T2m-nwus-3.png
This was me in the Rockies last year. Note the date: https://ibb.co/mbtfg1f
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Earlier, the very strange bobdroege wrote –
“Putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, which is between the Sun and a bunch of thermometers six feet above the surface, makes those thermometers read moar hotter moar better, on average over time, especially at night.”
This is apparently supposed to be an explanation of something – of what, bobdroege refuses to say. As a statement of fact, it makes no sense at all, particularly as “at night” indicates an absence of sunlight.
Maybe Bobby could describe what he is trying to explain, before he starts trying to explain it.
As to bobby stringing random words together, and producing nonsense, at least Bindidon gets the physics correct when he writes –
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Others can come to their own conclusions. My opinion is that bobdroege suffers from a mental affliction which prevents him from accepting reality. His opinion may differ.
Swenson,
Do you understand what I wrote, it is a description of the greenhouse effect.
Bumbling bobby,
That’s not a description, you idiot.
“Putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, which is between the Sun and a bunch of thermometers six feet above the surface, makes those thermometers read moar hotter moar better, on average over time, especially at night.” You don’t even mention the GHE!
Where may this GHE be reliably observed, measured and documented? Try saying what it is, not some silly nonsense about CO2 and thermometers which is completely ridiculous!
For example, Entropic Man is obviously smarter than you – he wrote “the GHE is a stack of blankets.” I agree it’s a silly description, but it is a description.
You are a fanatical GHE cultist who has decided to redefine explanation to mean description.
Even your explanation is stupid, unsupported by either history or experiment. Best to go back to saying nothing, and then denying you ever said it.
You’re an idiot. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Swenson,
Of course that’s a description, why do I have to mention the GHE in order to describe it.
“Where may this GHE be reliably observed, measured and documented? Try saying what it is, not some silly nonsense about CO2 and thermometers which is completely ridiculous!”
You didn’t ask where it could be observed, but any planet will do, specifically ones heated by the Sun, with an atmosphere containing polyatomic molecules.
Calling it silly nonsense does not debunk it.
You have totally failed to debunk the GHE, not that any bogan could debunk it.
“Even your explanation is stupid, unsupported by either history or experiment. Best to go back to saying nothing, and then denying you ever said it.”
Yeah right, can you read graphs, particularly the Keeling curve and the graph at the top of the page.
That’s experimental evidence for the GHE effect, bogan.
Here you go
The greenhouse effect is the increase in surface temperature that is measured by a network of thermometers 6 feet above the surface when the amount of CO2 and other polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere are increased by the burning of fossil fuels.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
ark…”We often overlook the beauty of simplicity. Some of the most profound insights are found in the elegant and uncomplicated”.
***
Finally, something we can agree on.
I am re-reading Tesla’s autobiography and he claims something similar. All of his great discoveries, like 3 phase electrical currents, transformers and motors, came to him gradually with simple insights.
He was told by a professor that alternating current could never be achieved without a commutator, which requires brushes to remove current from generator windings. Problem with brushes is the tremendous sparking at higher currents. Tesla eventually overcame the problem by having magnetic field rotate rather than relying on rotating armatures.
Tesla received his professors words as a challenge and worked the problem out gradually in his mind. He claimed an ability to visualize even complex issues.
Fortran really is still among the best for heavy duty math.
Nowadays lots of “modern stuff” seems to break some compatibility every 3 years or even less. Imagine building a factory/skyscraper on a foundation that’s only guaranteed to last three years so you have to keep migrating everything to a new foundation, re-testing everything to make sure it works etc. All while trying to make a profit.
The May 2024 edition of the TIOBE Index includes a couple of programming languages that are almost 70 years old.
Ark, which program would be the best to answer this simple question?
Hey Puffman, which crank would be best to answer this simple question?
Alternatively, you can tell me if the Earth can receive more than it emits?
Magic 8 ball fortune teller
This “Willard” child stalks this blog constantly. He often responds to my comments within minutes. He throws crap against the wall, hoping to distract from science. He’s got NOTHING.
I’ve been wondering why Dr. Spencer would allow such perverts to comment here. But, it has dawned on me it’s about letting people see how perverted the cult really is. Not one of the cult attempts to admonish the “Willard” child. People like Bindi, Norman, bob, bdgwx, Ent, and the rest, need such childishness. They see “Willard” child as an aid to shutting down reality.
“Willard” child IS the cult! He speaks for the cult. His childish comments continually reveal that the cult has NOTHING.
“Two identical objects, with emissivity 1.0, have different temperatures. The flux emitted by each is measured, and the two fluxes have an arithmetical average of 11842 W/m.
What is the average temperature of the two objects?”
You are giving us ONE equation, and expecting us to solve for TWO unknowns??
Stoopid question.
Yes, Clint. It’s good that DREMT and Swenson are here to babysit him. I think he’s the way he is because he thinks being a moderator at a blog nobody comments on makes him a hotshot.
Poor child Nate believes I gave an “equation” in the problem setup!
He must not even know what an “equation” is.
That’s why I like these simple problems. The cult has no basic understanding of any of the science. Child Nate is just throwing crap against the wall.
Puffman, please stop grooming Walter R. Hogle.
As usual, no explanation, no acknowledgement that he posed another pointless, unsolvable problem.
Then insults.
Just here to tr0ll, because he
‘wants to be part of something, but has nothing to offer.
Its childish behavior. Some people never grow up.’
Do you even know what an “equation” is, child Nate?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668838
Yes,
“The flux emitted by each is measured, and the two fluxes have an arithmetical average of 11842 W/m.”
Lets write your words with symbols:
(F1+F2)/2 = 11842 W/m^2
That is an equation, doofus.
Child Nate, the average was given in the problem setup. I never mentioned any “equation”. The average value was GIVEN.
Yet you claimed I was giving an equation: “You are giving us ONE equation”You’re just grasping at straws and throwing out red herrings, as usual.
No need for you to keep demonstrating your incompetence. Answer the question for your cult members (that are avoiding it), or bow out.
Puffman, please stop trying to pretend that “What is the average temperature of the two objects” does not imply that we find the temperature of the two objects, just like Nate said.
Clint,
The cultists are confused because you didn’t use degrees of hotness.
I’ll try something even they should be able to work out –
The average temperature of two objects is 400 C. What is the temperature of each object?
Ho, ho ho!
The flaw of averages writ large!
Nate,
Here could be a counterpoint. Our two buffoons provide, on average, zero useful information. That would be enough to evaluate the contributions of Puffman and Mike Flynn.
Clint,
The cultists are confused because you didnt use degrees of hotness.
Ill try something even they should be able to work out
The average temperature of two objects is 400 C. What is the temperature of each object?
Ho, ho ho!
The flaw of averages writ large!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that there’s an infinity of values Puffman’s variables can take.
“Mike Flynn, please stop denying that theres an infinity of values Puffmans variables can take.”
What variables are they? Refusing to say? Because you’re an idiot?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop faking maieutics.
And now for a real problem…
Given:
Radiation that passes through the atmosphere surrounding the Earth is αbsorbed to an extent that depends on its wavelength due to the presence of gases such as water vapor, oxygen, carbon dioxide and methane. However, there is a large range of wavelengths between 8 and 13 microns for which there is relatively little αbsorpτion in the atmosphere and thus the transmittance of atmosphere is high. This wavelength band is called the atmospheric window. Infrared detectors on satellites measure the relative amount of infrared radiation emitted from the ground in this wavelength band in order provide an indication of the ground temperature.
Find:
1/ What fraction of the radiation from the sun is in the atmospheric window.
2/ Prepare a plot of the fraction of the thermal radiation emitted by the ground between 8 and 13 microns to the total radiation emitted by the ground for ground temperatures between -10C to 30C.
3/ Based on your answers to 1/ and 2/, indicate whether radiation measurements in the atmospheric window can provide a clear indication of surface temperature to satellite detectors.
Hint:
1/ Choose any programming language you like.
Ark is unable to answer the simple question so he seeks to distract with “chase-you-tail” nonsense.
That’s just another cult tactic….
Puffman hides under an nth sock puppet because Roy banned all his other one. So much so that we can’t even say the name of his most annoying one.
Imagine trying to epilogue on Roy’s policy and having been banned multiple times… No – imagine being a kid in a trench coat and trying to team up with a crank!
Silly willy tries to cover for Ark, because Ark is unable to answer the simple question.
That’s just another cult tactic….
Puffman, please stop lulzing.
Arkady,
Your “givens” are completely stupid.
The “atmospheric window” is irrelevant.
Remote surface sensing of temperature still occurs in the absence of sunlight, at night, the “atmospheric window” notwithstanding. The surface temperature falls at night, and the planet itself is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.
You are a pretentious dimwit, suffering from a mental defect which leads you to think that others view you as clever, and value your opinion.
You may be right in the case of fanatical GHE believers who are even more ignorant and gullible than yourself, but that is faint praise indeed – in my opinion. Other opinions may differ.
Carry on with your silliness. Good for a laugh, anyway.
Mike Flynn, please stop portraying your abuse as “having a good laugh.”
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote “Mike Flynn, please stop portraying your abuse as “having a good laugh.””
Your silliness is good for a laugh, at least. Do you feel abused? Upset? Offended?
Poor petal – life is tough. Suck it up. Your emotions and lack of self esteem are your affair.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop believing that your abuses could hurt anyone.
” Ive been wondering why Dr. Spencer would allow such perverts to comment here. ”
This is probably the best thing ever, coming from a guy perverted enough to deny the greenhouse effect AND the lunar spin on a science blog!
People like Clint R are definitely too cowardly to post their nonsense anywhere else: they know full well they would be banned within hours.
They abuse Roy Spencer’s tolerance EVERY DAY.
Bindi, the reason you’ve turned into a full-time tr0ll is because you have NOTHING.
Where’s your viable description/definition of the bogus GHE?
Where’s your viable model of “orbiting without spin”?
Keep tr0lling. That’s the extent of your capabilities.
Puffman, the reason why you keep baiting and riddling and lulzing is that you have NOTHING ELSE.
When was your last comment under your first sock puppet – was it this one?
Binny,
Deny the existence of something that doesn’t exist, like the mythical GHE?
I deny the existence of the mythical beast, the unicorn. I can describe it to you, if you like. You can’t describe the GHE, can you?
Do you really still want to call me a denier, or do you truly believe in unicorns? You certainly appear ignorant and gullible enough to believe in something that you can’t even describe!
Who’s the fantasist here, do you think?
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you accept the greenhouse effect, and only dispute the meaning of “warming.”
Woebegone Wee Willy,
There is no greenhouse effect, and warming is warming, just as cooling is cooling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you yourself described many times the greenhouse effect already, and to misinterpret warming as heating.
Nate wrote:
“You are giving us ONE equation, and expecting us to solve for TWO unknowns??
Stoopid question.”
Well put…
Ark, hiding behind a child doesn’t say much for your scientific acumen, does it?
Please stop being the Master Baiter of a website from where you got banned multiple times, Puffman.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint,
Just because you described a mathematical relationship with words does not mean you weren’t describing an equation.
In order to solve you need more information.
The area of the two objects might make it solvable.
Even bob has joined the failed cult effort.
Let’s see now — The 3 starters, Ark, Ent, and bdgwx. Then Nate, Bindi, Willard, and now bob.
None can address the simple question, but they can throw crap at the wall.
Hey Puffman, I’m thinking of two numbers. Each is between 10 and 50. Their average is 30.
Which numbers are they?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
MIT steps to the forefront again. This at least speaks well of their quality of education…
A possible defense: the professor said, “I leave this as an exercise.”
The Peraire-Bueno brothers [allegedly] stole $25 million in Ethereum cryptocurrency through a technologically sophisticated, cutting-edge scheme they plotted for months and executed in seconds.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 370.8 km/sec
density: 3.08 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 23 May 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 120
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 196 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.44×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.6% Low
“Sunspots AR3679 and 85 have ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic fields that harbor energy for M-class solar flares. ”
6 numbered spots. 3674 is leaving to farside. 3689 has grown a bit.
No spots coming from farside.
Solar wind
speed: 386.5 km/sec
density: 3.91 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 24 May 24
Sunspot number: 130
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 176 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.12×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.6% Low
7 numbered spots, 3690 just came from farside.
Also, 3687, faded out for couple days, and came back with 2 small spots.
Huh:
–ROCKS AND SOIL ELECTRIFIED BY THE SUPERSTORM: Across the USA on May 10th and 11th, sky watchers marveled at bright displays of aurora borealis during the biggest geomagnetic storm in decades. Little did they know, something was also happening underfoot.
Strong electrical currents were surging through rocks and soil. The biggest voltages along the US eastern seaboard and in the Midwest were as much as 10,000 times normal. A map from NOAA and the US Geological Survey shows some of the ‘hot spots’ during the early hours of May 11th: —
Rock and soil near me were electrified by fair amount, apparently.
Solar wind
speed: 374.6 km/sec
density: 2.44 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 25 May 24
Sunspot number: 100
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 176 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.12×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.2% Low
6 numbered spots.
A large not yet numbered spot coming from farside. And a spot leaving to farside
Solar wind
speed: 366.8 km/sec
density: 1.54 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 25 May 24
Sunspot number: 106
“A sunspot emerging over the sun’s northeastern limb appears to be the return of old sunspot AR3663, which unleashed multiple X-class solar flares in early May.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 176 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.38×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.2% Low
6 numbered spots.
Oh, they were late, giving the picture of sun.
7 sunspot. 3684 will be leaving to farside in day, and will take 3 days or more, for next spot to leave to farside. No spot are coming from farside, yet.
And as I said, it seems May will be around 140
It seems to me, that around 140, still keep the NOAA experimental forecast, alive. But then it seems to me June has to be around 160 [or more] for it not to be disproved.
Or if June is 100 or less, it seems it’s dis-proven.
And 104.8 sunspots for June, crosses the the redline. Which would be first time that happens, it was close to doing in Oct 2023 and March 2024. Anyhow, 104 to 160 is big range, and far more likely to to be somewhere in the middle.
So, most likely NOAA experimental forecast will not be dis-proven when we get June number.
I will point out, that even if June is much higher than 160, it doesn’t prove anything regarding NOAA experiment, NOAA orginal prediction, nor Valentina Zharkova, but rather, it keeps NOAA experimental, alive.
Solar wind
speed: 355.0 km/sec
density: 2.91 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 May 24
Sunspot number: 148
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.18×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.3% Low
10 numbered spots
Near-Earth asteroids: Hunting and tracking upcoming flybys
By Robert Lea
last updated February 2, 2024
https://www.space.com/near-earth-asteroids-approaching-encounters-tracking
“Here we explore whether there are any upcoming asteroid encounters and how NASA and other space agencies actively monitor near-Earth asteroids that have the potential to hit our planet.”
…
–Is an asteroid going to hit Earth in 2029?
For almost two decades, the asteroid Apophis sat atop NASA’s Sentry risk table as the asteroid most likely to impact Earth in the next 100 years. But now that the orbit of the asteroid, which was discovered in 2004, has been better constrained, astronomers know it won’t hit Earth for at least 100 years.
That means that when Apophis skims Earth on April 13, 2029, it will not hit our planet. Passing by at around 19,000 miles (31,000 km), the 1,100-foot-wide (340 m) asteroid will come closer than some satellites and should be so bright that over 2 billion people in the Eastern Hemisphere will be able to witness it with the naked eye. —
–Will Bennu hit Earth?
With Apophis falling in the Sentry risk table rankings, the next-riskiest asteroid is Bennu. Yet NASA estimates that there is no chance that Bennu will hit Earth for at least a century.
When Bennu makes a close approach to our planet on Sept. 24, 2182, there is a 0.037% or 1 in 2,700 chance that the 1,600-foot-wide (488 m) asteroid will strike our planet.–
Of course smaller space rocks are hitting earth all the time.
NASA concerned is about rocks 120 meter in diameter or larger- as goal, and as we improve our ability to detect them, smaller ones like
rocks larger than 60 meters in diameter, will be the focus.
And we going to get a telescope which will do this, soon.
Rock smaller than 60 meter in diameter are coming close or hitting earth on the time scale less than decade.
When NASA started, they were concerned about rock 1000 meter or larger. And there about 1000 of those with about +95% of them plotted.
The telescope I am talking about is Vera C. Rubin Observatory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C._Rubin_Observatory
There are others coming online, but it seems like, it could work quite well.
“First light for the engineering camera is expected in August 2024, while system first light is expected in January 2025 and full survey operations are aimed to begin in August 2025, due to COVID-related schedule delays.
Nate,
“You know VERY well that the dark side of the Moon, because it has a low heat capacity and has 29 times as long as the Earth to cool each night, cools to MUCH lower temperatures, and emits very little radiation.
While the lit side has low heat capacity and 29 times as long to heat up, and heats up to a very high temperature (~380 K), and emits much MUCH more than the average temperature would, because of the T^4 factor in the emission.
Thus it is a horrible approximation assign its average temperature to its whole surface to estimate how much it radiates from the Moon.”
–
I agree,
–
Thus a planet does not emit at its average surface temperature (Tmean).
Therefore, a planet’s average surface temperature (Tmean) cannot be associated with any kind of planet surface Infrared Emission Spectrum.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
On identifying the specular reflection of sunlight in earth-monitoring satellite data.
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/972492
Not much help, I’m afraid.
The biggest weakness of your theory is that you cannot produce measurements of the specular radiation flux to confirm your calculations.
Ent, since you’re talking about fluxes, maybe you could answer the simple question:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668045
Puffman, I’m still waiting –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668808
“Puffman, Im still waiting ”
Good for you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop giving EM a good response to Puffman’s ankle biting, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
You know, Ent, there is not yet any description of why radiation gets reflected.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth at 288 K emits 240 W/m^2. Earth S-B temperature 255 K
Moon at 220 K emits 303 W/m^2. Moon S-B temperature 270 K.
Earth +33C warmer. Rotates faster, covered with ocean, has atmosphere.
Moon -50C colder. Not covered with ocean, has not atmosphere.
What makes Earth warmer than S-B temperature?
What makes Moon colder than S-B temperature?
“Thus it is a horrible approximation assign its average temperature to its whole surface to estimate how much it radiates from the Moon.
I agree,
Thus a planet does not emit at its average surface temperature (Tmean).
Therefore, a planets average surface temperature (Tmean) cannot be associated with any kind of planet surface Infrared Emission Spectrum.”
Christos,
I noticed you left out the rest of my quote:
“OTOH, for the Earth, because its ocean has a high heat capacity, and due to its fast rotation, its dark side cools down relatively little, and its lit side heats up relatively little, compared to the average temperature.
Thus it is a reasonably good approximation to assign its average temperature to the whole surface to estimate how much it radiates.
These are just the mathematical facts.”
I assume you left it out because you cannot rebut this. I asked you if you can SHOW us using the actual Earth surface temperatures, that its average SB emissions are very different from that emission approximation using its average surface temperature (Tmean).
Please demonstrate that.
Hi, Nate.
I’ll try to come with something, because it is really interesting.
BTW, Nate, what “OTOH” means? I don’t understand…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
On the other hand.
On the other hand.
Nate, what made you so long to answer? It is 12:50 AM, May 25 in Athens right now.
–
” I asked you if you can SHOW us using the actual Earth surface temperatures, that its average SB emissions are very different from that emission approximation using its average surface temperature (Tmean).
Please demonstrate that.”
–
You mean, σT^4 = σ*288K^4 W/m^2 in the case of Earth is a more close to its average SB emissions, numerically, than σ*220K^4 W/m^2 in the case of Moon.
But σ*288K^4 W/m^2 is still very much higher than Earth’s average SB emissions.
Because S-B Emission law is not an Absorp-tion law.
Ok, I’ll be back when it is morning in Athens.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“But σ*288K^4 W/m^2 is still very much higher than Earths average SB emissions.
Because S-B Emission law is not an Absorp-tion law.”
That is assertion, where is the evidence?
It takes months to accumulate heat till late summer.
And it takes months to get really cold till February.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“months”
I agree.
But we’re still back to comparing Earth with and without an atmosphere.
Without an atmosphere, if at the same surface T, it emits according to its surface T, just as the Moon does.
And for Earth, sigma*Tmean^4 is a good approximation.
With an atmosphere, it emits 130 W/m^2 less.
Can you explain that difference, without a Greenhouse Effect?
Nate,
“Without an atmosphere, if at the same surface T, it emits according to its surface T, just as the Moon does.
And for Earth, sigma*Tmean^4 is a good approximation.
With an atmosphere, it emits 130 W/m^2 less.
Can you explain that difference, without a Greenhouse Effect?”
–
“just as the Moon does.” Do you mean by that, that for an airless Earth the use of the 288K is a good approximation, since at 288K it emits
~ 370 W/m^2 ? Do you mean if averaging 1362 /4 = 340 W/m^2 those two are close enough numbers?
And with atmosphere it emits ~ 240w/m^2 ?
************
The answer we shall have from the planet radiative energy balance:
Energy in = Energy out
What we have discovered is the ROTATING PLANET SPHERICAL SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION INTERACTING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW
The non-linearity of the S-B radiation law, when coupled with a strong latitudinal variation of the INTERACTED solar flux across the surface of a sphere, and with the planet rotational spin, and with the average surface specific heat, creates a mathematical condition for a correct calculation of the true global surface temperature from a spatially integrated infrared emission.
Jemit = 4πr^2σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Where:
Jemit (W) – is the INFRARED emission flux from the entire planet (the TOTAL)
r – is the planet radius
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Solar Irradiated Planet INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant ( the Rotational Warming Factor constant ).
N – rotation /per day, is planet’s rotational spin with reference to the sun in earthen days. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp – cal/gr*oC- is the planet average surface specific heat
Planet Energy Budget
When planet surface is in radiative equilibrium, planet energy balance should be met: Energy In = Energy Out
Jnot.reflected = Jemit
πr^2*Φ(1-a)S (W) – is on the entire planet surface the not reflected portion (the TOTAL not reflected) of the incident on planet surface solar flux
Φ – is the planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor (the planet surface spherical shape and the planet surface roughness coefficient).
a – is the planet average surface Albedo (Bond)
S – W/m^2 – the solar flux at the planet’s average distance from the sun.
πr^2*Φ(1-a)S = 4πr^2*σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) (3)
****************
Notice: The Tmean Equation is a Universal Equation for planets and moons without-atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere, Earth included.
Thus, Jnot.reflected = Jemit
In Earth’s case
πr^2*Φ(1-a)So (W) – is on the entire planet surface the not reflected portion (the TOTAL not reflected) of the incident on planet surface solar flux.
when “averaging” it is Φ(1-a)So = 0,47*(1 – 0,306)*1362 W/m^2 =
= 112 W/m^2
The 112 W/m^2 is very different from 370 W/m^2.
That is why the 288K (for Earth without-atmosphere) is not a reasonably good approximation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“just as the Moon does. Do you mean by that, that for an airless Earth the use of the 288K is a good approximation, since at 288K it emits
~ 370 W/m^2 ?
Yes.
Do you mean if averaging 1362 /4 = 340 W/m^2 those two are close enough numbers?”
No I don’t mean that.
“And with atmosphere it emits ~ 240w/m^2 ?”
yes, exactly.
For the Moon, the SB law can be applied to its actual T distribution, and the resulting emissions will match its abs0rbed input solar.
For the Earth, the SB law applied to its actual T distribution will produce an output that is 130 W/m^2 larger than its abs0rbed input solar.
This difference is provided by the atmosphere, which reduces its output. In the literature the ~ 130 W/m^2 is referred to as the magnitude of the Greenhouse Effect.
“The greenhouse effect at the tropopause is the difference between the flux emitted by the surface and the net flux at the tropopause (200 hPa).”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml#bib9
“when averaging it is Φ(1-a)So = 0,47*(1 0,306)*1362 W/m^2 =
= 112 W/m^2
The 112 W/m^2 is very different from 370 W/m^2.”
And very different from the actual absorbed solar input of 240 W/m^2.
So that cannot be correct.
Nate,
“This difference is provided by the atmosphere, which reduces its output. In the literature the ~ 130 W/m^2 is referred to as the magnitude of the Greenhouse Effect.”
–
Let’s calculate the total greenhouse effect then:
4*π*r^2 * 130 W/m^2 =
= 510.072.000 km^2 *1.000.000 m^2/km^2 *130 W/m^2 =
= 66.310 *1.000.000.000.000 W =
= 66,31 *1.000.000.000.000 kW
–
–
Let’s calculate the by the surface total absorbed solar energy:
π*r^2 * 1362 W/m^2 (1 – 0,306) =
= (510.072.000 km^2 /4)*1362 W/m^2 *0,694 =
= 127.518.000 km^2 * 1.000.000 m^2/km^2 *945 W/m^2=
= 120.500 *1.000.000 *1.000.000 W
= 120,5 *1.000.000.000.000 kW
Nate, the result is impossible. Calculations obtain the Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect to be 1/2 of the absorbed solar energy! It is like having the atmosphere greenhouse effect to be responsible for the Earth’s surface the 1/2 of the solar input recycling!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“4*π*r^2 * 130 W/m^2 =
= 510.072.000 km^2 *1.000.000 m^2/km^2 *130 W/m^2 =
= 66.310 *1.000.000.000.000 W =
= 66,31 *1.000.000.000.000 kW”
Or we can leave out the area of the Earth, and just consider per m^2, which is 130 W/m^2
“Lets calculate the by the surface total absorbed solar energy:
π*r^2 * 1362 W/m^2 (1 0,306) =
= (510.072.000 km^2 /4)*1362 W/m^2 *0,694 =
= 127.518.000 km^2 * 1.000.000 m^2/km^2 *945 W/m^2=
= 120.500 *1.000.000 *1.000.000 W
= 120,5 *1.000.000.000.000 kW”
Again, leave out all that just find per m^2
Which gives 1362/4*(1-0.30) = 238 W/m^2
And, how does it follow that
“the result is impossible. Calculations obtain the Earths atmosphere greenhouse effect to be 1/2 of the absorbed solar energy!”?
Why? Your assertion of impossibility is not evidence that it is!
Meanwhile your claim that the emitted flux is 112 W/m^2 cannot be correct given the 238 W/m^2 of abs0rbed solar.
That leads to an impossible energy imbalance!
Sorry your theory does not agree with observations. Feynman says your theory must be wrong.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
ISLAMABAD (AP) Doctors treated hundreds of victims of heatstroke at hospitals across Pakistan on Thursday after an intense heatwave sent temperatures above normal levels due to climate change, officials said.
Temperatures soared as high as 49 degrees Celsius (120 degrees Fahrenheit) the previous day in Mohenjo Daro. The city, known for its archaeological sites, is in southern Sindh province, which was badly hit by climate-induced monsoon rains and devastating floods in 2022. The heatwave is forecast to continue for at least a week.
Authorities have urged people to stay indoors, hydrate and avoid unnecessary travel. But laborers say they dont have a choice because they need to work to feed their families.
Pakistan is the fifth most vulnerable country to the impact of climate change. We have witnessed above normal rains, floods, Rubina Khursheed Alam, the prime ministers coordinator on climate, said at a news conference in the capital, Islamabad.
https://apnews.com/article/pakistan-heatwave-sweltering-temperatures-472ed4ea59060142be9e84ad012e7be5
Nay not worry – Puffman haz the solution!
Yeah its never been 49 C in Pakistan. It never had monsoons either.
Pakistan has always been famous for its benign pleasant climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_floods_in_Pakistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_weather_records_in_Pakistan
Willard you need to learn how to think
Kennui, please stop confusing floods with extreme weather, or worse events with trendss:
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-made-devastating-early-heat-in-india-and-pakistan-30-times-more-likely/
To think properly, cranks need to use proper quantifiers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote ” . . . the probability of an event . . . “.
A guess, in other words. Probably made by some deluded person, who believes they can predict the future by intense scrutiny of the past!
Don’t worry, even governments, militaries, insurance companies, financial institutions and many others think they can accurately look into the future.
The future is unknowable, and the GHE is a myth.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that it’s fairly easy to predict that you’re gonna deny something you already admitted, like the fact that CO2 absorbs about 1000 times more infrared radiation than O2/N2, something Puffman denies, incidentally.
Willard
When it comes to blaming every extreme weather event on Climate Change (Global warming) I need to have a better understanding of what they mean by 30 times more likely.
Also my big complaint about attribution studies is they just wait for some Global weather extreme, run it in some computer model and then attribute some value that could be meaningless. 30 times what?
Also the attribution studies are not being used to make predictions (a hallmark of science). Rather than wait for an extreme event and attribute some meaningless little defined concept like 30 greater probability factor (???), use the same models and predict where the next significant heat waves will occur, where will the next flooding take place, where will the next droughts take place.
To have validity they should be able to use the models to predict large scale weather events like droughts or heat waves, where, when and duration. If the models are unable to provide such accurate forecasts, why are they valid in hindsight??
I do not currently believe attribution studies are at all scientific and more just supplying politicians with what they want to hear.
I do what Ken did, if an extreme weather event is attributed to Climate Change then I look at past weather and conclude this is not good evidence based science.
Whacky Wee Willard,
Bananas absorb more IR than CO2. The Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago, the surface cools at night, and you still can’t describe the GHE – all of which goes to show that you have not had a massive IQ improvement in the last little while.
Even fellow fanatical GHE cultists like Bindidon are gradually accepting reality – in relation to CO2, at least, and I commend him for it.
He wrote – “Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.
CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
Maybe you need to describe the GHE before you go looking for explanations. Obviously (or not) some observation has led you to seek an explanation for something you believe cannot be explained by known physical laws.
Do you not realise that thermometers are designed to show the degree of hotness of the instrument perhaps? Are you frightened or upset about something?
If you have observed something which you cannot explain, and cannot find a logical explanation after making a sincere effort, just document your lack of progress, and I will provide an answer.
You don’t need to thank me. It will be my pleasure to help alleviate your ignorance.
Norman, please stop pretending that your understanding matters that much when you get it mainly from Cliff Mass, a famous contrarian.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote – “Norman, please stop pretending . . . “.
Oooooooh! How masterful! How authoritative!
How utterly stupid!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop being dumber and dumber.
“Mike Flynn, please stop being dumber and dumber.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop getting in the way of more interesting Climateball.
Willard
I note your opinion of me.
However you still have not explained what this means (from your post)
“Because of climate change, the probability of an event such as that in 2022 has increased by a factor of about 30.”
What does a factor of about 30 mean? Is it to mean that if an event like a heat wave, would take place once every hundred years now it will take place 30 times in the same hundred years? If so I would like to see some evidence for this before I jump on that bandwagon.
Also you did not explain that if the models are so good at assigning attribution to events they should be equally good at predicting future events.
Weather models do have some valid predictability a few days in advance of some weather event. So where will this summers droughts be? Where will the heat waves be. The models should have some locations. Maybe publish predictions and the Public can see if they find the models credible enough to be used in attribution studies to set global policies.
Peer review is one check on information. The other is validity. If the models make some really good predictions on upcoming severe longer term patterns I would up the credibility score. At this time I have no reason to believe this type of study is at all scientific more or less it is like a video game until some form of predictablity is established.
Norman, please stop playing dumb, for either you haven’t read any of the attribution studies you keep dissing (there’s even a link to one on the page you may have skimmed), or you’re just baiting “what does a factor of about 30 mean” (as if it was your first time you editorialized on that point).
I think newspapers that print such trash should be prosecuted for lying. There is not a shred of truth that severe weather is related to global warming or climate change. A warming of 1C over 170 years could not possibly affect weather systems to that extent.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop providing me an incentive to participate in PSTering matches.
“Mike Flynn, please stop providing me an incentive to participate in PSTering matches.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop delaying the inevitable.
“Mike Flynn, please stop delaying the inevitable.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
You already said that, Mike.
And here is the inevitable, Mike –
Good night.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Coals Importance For Solar Panel Manufacturing
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/23/coals-importance-for-solar-panel-manufacturing/
“So why are coal and solar so closely interlinked? Why is it that solar panel manufacturing is impossible without coal? I always thought that coal is only important for electricity, contributing to 36% of global power demand, or over 8h of 24h every single day of the year. I always thought that coal is only required to produce all steel. Let us have a look at solar panel manufacturing, which is really about silicon production.”
Now, you might wonder how we make solar panels in Space, if Space lacks coal.
Anyhow, the article covers making solar panels, but doesn’t mention how the surface of Earth is a poor place to harvest solar power for electrical power purposes.
You did read the article?
You need a source of electricity and a source of carbon.
The electricity can be renewable. There is a strong precedent of using hydroelectric power to drive aluminium smelting.
The carbon can be charcoal instead of coal.
You do not need coal to produce solar panels.
In space producing them might even be easier. The energy comes from solar panels or directly focused sunlight. Any carbonated conceited asteroid will supply abundant carbon and silicon.
Cursed spell checker.
“Carbonaceous chondrite”
EM,
That spell checker can be a bitch at times!
No sexism intended.
Mike Flynn, please stop being like a spell-checker.
“Mike Flynn, please stop being like a spell-checker.”
Ooooooh! How subtle! Too gutless to use the word bitch, is that it?
Cowardly scuttling cockroach – flee from the light!
[ sniggering at idiot ]
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb over the theme of this month’s thread.
Mike Flynn, please stop being like a spell-checker.
Ooooooh! How subtle! Too gutless to use the word bitch, is that it?
Cowardly scuttling cockroach flee from the light!
[ sniggering at idiot ]
Mike Flynn, please stop foreshadowing your Alzheimer.
Mike Flynn, please stop being like a spell-checker.
Ooooooh! How subtle! Too gutless to use the word bitch, is that it?
Cowardly scuttling cockroach flee from the light! Are you really terrified that an elderly, frail, demented resident of a care home, might step on you?
[ sniggering at idiot ]
Mike Flynn, please stop reminding me of the movie Memento.
“Mike Flynn, please stop reminding me of the movie Memento.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
gbaikie
I’m sad of translating info about PV (photovoltaic aka solar), wind etc from German into English.
Here is a link to info about PV costs, written by Volker Quaschning, a German guy who supports AGW but is really knowledgeable:
https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/kev/index.php
His English corner is very incomplete; better is to use Google’s translator, starting with:
https://tinyurl.com/2fjheznk
— Entropic man says:
May 23, 2024 at 5:00 PM
You did read the article?
You need a source of electricity and a source of carbon.–
Are you saying that you can’t make solar panels on the Moon?
Don’t see why not.
Plenty of oxygen, silicon, iron and aluminium. Not much carbon, which you don’t need for power, though it makes it easier to make steel.
Rare earths for doping and copper for wiring might be a problem.
Rereading your link, the writer had made a false equivalence. He makes the assumption that the only way to make reliable electricity is by burning coal, so without coal you can’t make solar panels.
— He makes the assumption that the only way to make reliable electricity is by burning coal, so without coal you cant make solar panels.–
Yes, he does, but only way to make solar panels cheaper was also part of that,
If wanted spend thousands times more money, or maybe go to the Moon, you could make solar panels without coal.
“If wanted spend thousands times more money, or maybe go to the Moon, you could make solar panels without coal. ”
Now that’s just silly. The existing grid is more than adequate.
“Now thats just silly. The existing grid is more than adequate.”
The electrical grid is different topic, and one can see it as related to the Moon. And in terms of what people pay for electrical power, the grid is important in terms of much lower cost could be and a better way for everyone to get electrical power, any place on Earth.
Including of course, ocean settlements.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The share of electricity in Great Britain generated from burning coal and gas fell to a record-low 2.4% earlier this month, Carbon Brief analysis shows.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-fossil-fuels-fall-to-record-low-2-4-of-british-electricity/
The UK uses less coal nowadays than any date after 1800.
Yes, and part of that coal and gas free electricity comes from burning over 6,500,000 tonnes of wood at the Drax power plant, emitting over 12,000,000 tonnes of CO2.
It doesn’t matter, does it? All the electricity is eventually turned into waste heat, as shown by slightly raised temperatures (less than 2K) in the UK.
I don’t hear too many UK citizens complaining about the odd bout of balmy weather.
I don’t share your enthusiasm for burning live trees. Burning fossilised trees and plants seems better to me.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you just said that CO2 absorbs about 1000 times more infrared radiation than O2/N2, therefore admitting the greenhouse effect.
Bananas absorb more IR than CO2.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you go bananas over CO2.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you’re completely out of line here.
“Mike Flynn, please stop denying that youre completely out of line here”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop “forgetting” that you’re in my thread.
“Mike Flynn, please stop “forgettin” that youre in my thread.”
Really? You have appointed yourself Master of Threads, have you? You’re an idiot.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb.
“Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re playing dumb again, Mike.
One last for the road?
“Youre playing dumb again, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Perfect, Mike.
A taxi is waiting for you outside.
“Perfect, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Cheers, Mike.
I read here:
” CO2 absorbs about 1000 times more infrared radiation than O2/N2… ”
*
Interesting!
Let us compare the absorp~tion/emission intensities for CO2 vs. O2/N2, in a wavelength area located around Earth’s major IR emission (10 micron), and of course considering their respective atmospheric abundance:
CO2
https://tinyurl.com/Abs-em-CO2
O2/N2
https://tinyurl.com/Abs-em-O2-N2
*
We compare here absorp~tion/emission of 1.5E-3 for CO2 with 7E-10 for O2.
N2 is completely invisible because it is at ~ 6E-13:
https://tinyurl.com/Abs-em-N2
*
Thus the factor to be compared for CO2 vs. O2/N2, in the near of Earth’s maximal IR wavelength and emission power, isn’t 1000 aka 10^3, but 10^7 for O2 and 10^10 for N2.
*
The comparison becomes even worse for O2/N2 if we consider that not simply the intensities but rather the product ‘intensity * number of lines’ actually should be accounted for.
*
I get by the way always a big laugh when Chief Pseudoscience Superintendent Robertson tries to convince us that O2’s emission in the 60 GHz range (used for atmospheric soundings) also matters:
https://tinyurl.com/Abs-em-O2-60-GHz
Yeah. This is so ridiculous.
Binny, please stop me from posting Mike Flynn’s crap:
I wonder who that Rosco could have been.
” However, CO2 is only about 4 parts per 10000. ”
versus
” … and of course considering their respective atmospheric abundance: ”
Yeah yeah yeah.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form. CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
Just lying to try to antagonise some elderly, frail old man suffering from dementia, were you?
Sounds like the dregs of society in action to me!
Just having a good laugh at your antics.
Carry on.
Flynnson
You are such a tr0lling dumbass.
Someone – namely YOU:
” CO2 absorbs about 1000 times more IR than O2/N2. However, CO2 is only about 4 parts per 10000. ”
was talking about CO2 here, and not about H2O whose effects are way way higher, as we all know.
Binny,
You wrote
“Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form. CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
Just lying to try to antagonise some elderly, frail old man suffering from dementia, were you?
Sounds like the dregs of society in action to me!
Just having a good laugh at your antics. Are you really denying that the Earth has cooled, and the surface cools each night, contrary to what sane people accept?
That would make you both a denier and a contrarian! What do you care anyway, you just spout nonsense for no reason at all!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that your lie is irrelevant.
Binny,
You wrote –
“I’m not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form. CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
Just lying to try to antagonise some elderly, frail old man suffering from dementia, were you?
Sounds like the dregs of society in action to me!
Just having a good laugh at your antics. Are you really denying that the Earth has cooled, and the surface cools each night, contrary to what sane people accept?
That would make you both a denier and a contrarian! What do you care anyway, if you just spout nonsense for no reason at all!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, please stop copypasting.
Binny,
You wrote
“I’m not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form. CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
Just lying to try to antagonise some elderly, frail old man suffering from dementia, were you?
Sounds like the dregs of society in action to me!
Just having a good laugh at your antics. Are you really denying that the Earth has cooled, and the surface cools each night, contrary to what sane people accept?
That would make you both a denier and a contrarian! What do you care anyway, if you just spout nonsense for no reason at all!
Carry on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop talking to yourself.
Can you still walk?
Binny,
You wrote
“I’m not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form. CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
Just lying to try to antagonise some elderly, frail old man suffering from dementia, were you?
Sounds like the dregs of society in action to me!
I’m just having a good laugh at your antics. Are you really denying that the Earth has cooled, and the surface cools each night, contrary to what sane people accept?
That would make you both a denier and a contrarian! What do you care anyway, if you just spout nonsense for no reason at all!
Carry on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop sleeping in the ditch.
” H2O whose effects are way way higher, as we all know.”
Indeed, c02 effects in the troposphere are insignificant compared to h20, the primary coolant of the surface and the primary driver of convection in the troposphere, and the primary coolant of the troposphere to space.
However when we get to the mesophere, co2 becomes the primary coolant of the atmosphere to space.
Phil, please stop saying crank stuff.
Willard,
Which of those statements do you disagree with?
Phil, please stop trying to pretend you do not know which of your claims clash with the established viewpoint.
Here Willard, I’ll make it easy for you
I made the following assertions please identify which you disagree with and why:
c02 effects in the troposphere are insignificant compared to h20
H20 is the primary coolant of the surface
H20 is the primary driver of convection in the troposphere
H20 is the primary coolant of the troposphere to space
Co2 is the primary coolant of the mesosphere to space
“H20 is the primary coolant of the troposphere to space
Co2 is the primary coolant of the mesosphere to space”
Why did you skip the stratosphere?
Also CO2, unlike water, is a non-condensible GHG.
Hello Nate,
“Why did you skip the stratosphere?”
The stratosphere temp is dominated by ozone/oxygen interaction with uv. But certainly co2 adds to its cooling.
“Also CO2, unlike water, is a non-condensible GHG.”
I suspect co2 sublimates at the mesopause
And that if concentrations were high enough we’d see c02 clouds such as appear on mars
Phil, please stop acting like what you say has no implication, or what what you refuse to say for that matter.
What’s the matter Willard?
Can’t find anything to dispute in those assertions?
If you’re not interested in having a dialouge, well then, carry on..
Phil, please stop raising stakes because you feel overconfident.
“H20 is the primary coolant of the troposphere to space
Co2 is the primary coolant of the mesosphere to space”
Coolant?
Your attic is insulated with fiber glass. Whatever heat escapes is emitted by the top layer of fiberglass.
Is fiberglass a coolant for your house?
Hello Nate,
“Coolant?”
yes coolant.
the majority of IR leaving Earth comes from h20. which is a very good radiator.
as it cools and collides with less effective radiators it gains heat from them and radiates it to space,
cooling the parcel of air around it a greater rate.
Your attic is insulated with fiber glass. Whatever heat escapes is emitted by the top layer of fiberglass.
Is fiberglass a coolant for your house?
Or does it keep your heated house warmer than it would otherwise be?
wee willy…”like the fact that CO2 absorbs about 1000 times more infrared radiation than O2/N2…”
***
So, what? There is 2500 times less CO2 in the atmosphere than N2/O2. in other words, there simply is not enough CO2 to absorb a significant amount of IR from the surface.
Mr. Asshat, please stop being such a glutton.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop obfuscating your own mistake.
“Mike Flynn, please stop obfuscating your own mistake.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
“Mike Flynn, please stop denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”
What are you babbling about, fool?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb.
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn, please stop denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”
What are you babbling about, fool?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop braying.
“Mike Flynn, please stop denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
What are you babbling about, fool?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nate…from Christos…”Nate,
You know VERY well that the dark side of the Moon, because it has a low heat capacity and has 29 times as long as the Earth to cool each night, cools to MUCH lower temperatures, and emits very little radiation”.
***
Does Nate understand that the dark side is fully illuminated for 14 days and dark for 14 days? Thus, it has 14 days to cool after being directly exposed to sunlight for 14 days. The dark side is an incorrect reference to the perspective of an observer on Earth. We never see the so-called dark side but the Sun sees it every 14 days and heats it for 14 days.
However, it does not cool as quickly as expected since radiation is a poor form of heat dissipation.
ark…”1/ What fraction of the radiation from the sun is in the atmospheric window”.
***
There is no atmospheric window, it is a bean-counter, alarmist fictitious model
The truth is that WV spectrum overlies CO2 and there is no way to calculate how much CO2 or WV absorbs individually. It’s all bean-counter logic which makes no sense.
Will Happer’s a bean counter?
“Will Happer’s a bean counter?” If you say so, Arkady.
The planet has cooled, and the surface does so every night.
Is Happer also a denier of reality? Contrary to the observations of his own eyes?
Maybe he hasn’t thought this through.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
A corollary to the above paragraph from Will Happer’s paper is as follows:
I see that you have a newfound ad hominem, “bean-counter.” It describes you even more closely than engineering tech, and explains your twisted understanding of science.
A,
Unfortunately, the text you quoted is completely irrelevant, if you are using it to try to justify the existence of a mythical GHE (which you refuse to describe, in any case).
Matter emits IR, every speck of it, when above 0 K, and does so at wavelengths proportional to temperature.
As an example, presented with two identical gas cylinders of the same gross weight, you cannot tell whether they contain CO2 or O2, what the pressures of the contents are, or anything else by measuring the wavelengths of the IR emitted by the cylinders – which will be identical, if they are the same temperature.
You appear to be gullible and ignorant, but feel free to demonstrate others if you believe my opinion is incorrect.
Carry on.
Swenson,
“Matter emits IR, every speck of it, when above 0 K, and does so at wavelengths proportional to temperature.”
That’s only true for solids, gases behave differently.
CO2 gas emits the same wavelengths no matter what temperature its at.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
ark…re Fortran…how about WATFIV?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WATFIV
I earned Fortran once (actually WATFIV) but the problem with it may be its lack of modularity. The Fortran I learned was completely linear, like Basic, with subroutines. Linearity does not work well for modern, complex programs. The modern programs use object-oriented programming, written in code modules and classes. Fortran had no classes.
That’s how C was written originally, linearly with subroutines, till Bjarne Stroustrup modularized it with classes as C++. Although math is not a focus in C++, modern computers have registers built in the processor to do complex math calculations. Therefore it comes down to writing algorithms to do the math and there must be oodles of pre-written code out there to do just that, and for free.
Although I like Fortran for nostalgic purposes, I fear it has seen its day, just like Unix, the basis of Linux. For some reason, Micro$oft has a fetish for Unix and appear to be moving Windows closer to Unix. I’ll bet the CEO and the programmers walk around the office wearing suspenders to hold up their pants and and a belt for security. Their trouser bottoms will be 4 inches above their shoes, which are the old style ‘bankers’ with banana toes.
https://bananarepublic.gapcanada.ca/browse/product.do?pid=807702003
> Fortran had no classes.
Mr. Asshat, please stop projecting:
https://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Object-oriented+programming
Willard,
Subtitled “Pseudo Object Oriented Style in Fortran 90”.
Just like “Climate science” is really pseudo science. That would make you pseudo intelligent, but most certainly ignorant and gullible.
Have you improved on your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”? Do you prefer Entropic Man’s “The GHE is a stack of blankets”? The description might be completely nonsensical, but at least it is admirably brief.
You might not be terribly intelligent, but at least you’re stupid.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing silly semantic games about something Mr. Asshat completely fails to grasp.
Willard,
Subtitled “Pseudo Object Oriented Style in Fortran 90”..
Just like “Climate science is really pseudo science. That would make you pseudo intelligent, but most certainly ignorant and gullible.
Have you improved on your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”? Do you prefer Entropic Mans “The GHE is a stack of blankets”? The description might be completely nonsensical, but at least it is admirably brief.
You might not be terribly intelligent, but at least youre stupid..
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that Mr. Asshat knows nothing of primitive recursion.
“Mike Flynn, please stop denying that Mr. Asshat knows nothing of primitive recursion.”
I see you have obtained a new supply of stupid pills.
Well done!
from the article…”In Fortran, modules may contain data, but there is no notion of separate instances of a module”.
That is, Fortran is not a modular programming language. In a module, the data in them is often hidden from the rest of the program. That prevents corruption.
Stroustrup built classes into C++. He defined a class as a user-defined ‘type’. A type in C or other languages is a built in definition of a data type. For example, an ‘int’ type is an integer value. When you write a C program you must tell the compiler what kind your data is. Is it a straight integer like 1,2,3, etc. or is it a real number (REAL) lime 3.14, or a character (CHAR) like a,b,c, etc.?
A compiler interprets a software program to tell the processor what to do with it. Sometimes we need more complex data that is in the form of a table. That way, the processor can tell from the position in the table what to do with it. It actually looks up in the table to find a value indicated in the program. Such a tabular form is called a structure (STRUCT) in its purest form.
A STRUCT type is built into both C and C++ but C++ has the ability to allow programmers to define their own type and Fortran does not have that ability. At least, not unless it has been dramatically re-written since I learned it.
Mr. Asshat, please stop denying that polymorphism has anything to do with linearity.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop denying that polymorphism has anything to do with linearity.”
That makes no sense at all. Are you getting your advice from that bumbler Gavin Schmidt?
Sucker!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that Mr. Asshat has no idea what he’s talking about once again.
“Mike Flynn, please stop denying that Mr. Asshat has no idea what hes talking about once again.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Fortran can never die. Too many scientific and engineering iterative models are written in Fortran, and their correctness has been tested with great difficulty and expense over the years based on both long tedious hand calculations and practical experiments.
To re-write those in a more modern language would be going back to square one. Even if it was done today, it would be a couple of decades before it could be trusted without verifying using the old code.
Much of that code is so old that it refers to the input file as a deck.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
swannie…”Standard engineering text books consider that the emissions from both cool and warm bodies which are intercepted by each other result in energy being transferred. The basic case is often presented as modeling the transfer between two parallel plates at different temperatures”.
***
I have seen that and they are wrong. You can tell they are spreading fairy tales (paradigms) by the simple reason they cannot offer concrete examples to back up those claims.
I have yet to see one such example where they offer actual temperatures on parallel plate and give the heat values transferred between plates. Nor do the explain how heat can be transferred both ways. How would they measure it? Would both plate rise in temperature as required?
Quantum theory tells a far different story but it was developed well after the basic heat ray theory offered in engineering texts. The examples to which you refer are anachronisms dating back to mid 19th century when all scientists believed that heat moved through space as heat rays. Bohr’ basic quantum theory proved them wrong.
Engineering text books and profs tend to hang onto incorrect theories. I have told you about my EE classes in which they teach that electrical current flows positive to negative. That is an anachronism dating back to the 1920s when some ijit defined current flow based on a mysterious positive test charge. There is no such thing, even though they theorized that back in the 1920s.
In EE textbook they teach also that electrons flow negative to positive. However, they base their teaching on a century-old anachronism that current is carried by positive test charges which no one can prove exist. The only positive charges in a copper wire are in the nucleus of copper atoms and they cannot move, otherwise the copper will fall apart.
Current flow through copper must obey the basic energy tenet that energy always flows from a higher potential to a lower potential. A battery has the higher potential at the negative terminal and electrons must flow out of that terminal and eventually back to the positive terminal. There is nothing flowing out of the positive terminal externally.
Quantum theory tells us that electrons emit and absorb radiation. If they absorb EM, they jump to a higher orbital energy level, acquiring a higher KE and hence moving faster with a higher angular velocity (frequency). When they fall back, they emit an EM quantum with a frequency dependent on the number of orbital levels they fall. E = hf.
If electrons jump to a higher level en masse, the entire mass rises in temperature. If the electrons encounter EM radiated by a colder object the EM has a lower angular frequency and the excited electron cannot absorb it.
In order for your textbooks to have veracity, the two plates would have to be at equal temperature or very close to it. At equilibrium, EM can move both ways to a limited extent but neither can raise the temperature of the other.
Apparently, some ignorant donkey wrote –
“The basic case is often presented as modeling the transfer between two parallel plates at different temperatures.”
Hopefully, none of these cases ignore the inverse square law, and ignorantly assume that all the energy emitted by one plate will be absorbed by another of equal area at some distance.
That’s completely impossible of course, but believed by fanatical GHE cultists – Willis Eschenbach and “Eli Rabbett” being two notable purveyors of nonsense.
Totally ignoring the laws of physics and mathematics allows the GHE, perpetual motion, the mad notion that climate controls weather, and similar delusional thinking.
Rather a pity that these fantasists are faced with the fact that the planet has cooled, and the surface does so every night! Deniers and contrarians – and quite mad.
Swenson,
“Hopefully, none of these cases ignore the inverse square law, and ignorantly assume that all the energy emitted by one plate will be absorbed by another of equal area at some distance.”
The inverse square law is for point sources, which are not part of the plates problems.
The Rabbet expressly said such when he put up his green plate problem.
> You can tell they are spreading fairy tales (paradigms) by the simple reason they cannot offer concrete examples to back up those claims.
Mr. Asshat, please stop denying the obvious:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190565
Oooooooh! A guarantee! Some nutter probably guarantees a GHE exists, too. He’s just mislaid the description.
Insulation at any temperature depends on temperature difference. Waffling about milli-Kelvins or mega-Kelvins changes nothing. The same laws of physics apply.
The insulating properties of “a thermos” are quite well understood. No heating due to the “thermos” at all. Just a reduction in the rate of heat transmission – in either direction.
No wonder you describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”l
I guarantee that you are an idiot.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop being mad because Queensland rejected Glencore’s plan to pump more than 300K tonnes of CO2 into the Great Artesian Basin:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-24/great-artesian-basin-carbon-storage-plan-rejected/103889302
Speaking of which, how many times more does CO2 absorb infrared radiation than O2 or N2, again?
“Speaking of which, how many times more does CO2 absorb infrared radiation than O2 or N2, again?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop making your silly semantic games too obvious by saying things like “No heating due to the “thermos” at all.”
You are spouting gibberish.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop misinterpreting warming as heating.
“Mike Flynn, please stop misinterpreting warming as heating.”
OK, then. AGW is anthropogenic global cooling. No GHE necessary for that. That would make you an idiot, I guess.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop misrepresenting warming as cooling.
“Mike Flynn, please stop misrepresenting warming as cooling.”
OK then, warming is warming.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop dragging your feet and admit that warming does not imply heating, thereby refuting your silly semantic game.
“Mike Flynn, please stop dragging your feet and admit that warming does not imply heating”
Are you a complete fool, or just trying very hard? Here’s your GHE description “not cooling, slower cooling”. Enough said.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop attributing to me your own description of the greenhouse effect, one with which you followed your usual tap dancing about the meaning of the word “warming.”
There is no GHE. You are an idiot if you believe there is.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Modular programming, in the form of subsystems (particularly for I/O) and software libraries, dates to early software systems, where it was used for code reuse. Modular programming per se, with a goal of modularity, developed in the late 1960s and 1970s, as a larger-scale analog of the concept of structured programming (1960s). The term “modular programming” dates at least to the National Symposium on Modular Programming, organized at the Information and Systems Institute in July 1968 by Larry Constantine; other key concepts were information hiding (1972) and separation of concerns (SoC, 1974).
[…]
In the 1980s and 1990s, modular programming was overshadowed by and often conflated with object-oriented programming, particularly due to the popularity of C++ and Java.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_programming
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting.
“Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop lying.
“Mike Flynn, please stop lying.”
You’re losing it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop the altercasting.
“Mike Flynn, please stop the altercasting.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good morning, Mike.
“Good morning, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop taking too much coffee, Mike.
“Please stop taking too much coffee, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop jittering.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
prepare for La Nia
https://youtu.be/o7sB6X8jrow
Save this forecast for future reference
https://youtu.be/9mRsCU2CNzg
Save this forecast for future reference
2024’s Atlantic hurricane season 2024 looks nice indeed.
1. Successively zooming into NOAA’s info
https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2024-atlantic-hurricane-season
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/Slide1.JPG
*
2. The ocean heat could fuel an unusually active hurricane season
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/05/what-you-need-to-know-about-record-breaking-heat-in-the-atlantic/
” A significant reduction in global sulfate emissions since 2020 from new shipping regulations and an increase in stratospheric water vapor from an explosive South Pacific volcanic eruption in 2022 are also likely contributors. However, the jurys still out on these players, and so far both appear to have only fractional effects on the recent temperature spike. ”
” That leaves scientists closely monitoring the progress of El Niño in the eastern Pacific, which is already beginning a transition to La Niña. In theory, the transition out of a strong El Niño should begin to cool the Atlantic to levels more in line with the current trajectory of global warming. So far, this hasn’t happened. ”
*
Who wants to misrepresent, discredit and denigrate such information as ‘alarmism’ is definitely brain-damaged.
When was the last time you saw a below-average forecast for the hurricane season from them?I cant remember.
Last year. They predicted 14.5 named storms. The average is 16.3.
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/SeasonalVerification.html
I repeat for the WUWT Simpletons
” Who wants to misrepresent, discredit and denigrate such information as alarmism is definitely brain-damaged. “
Ocean heat doesnt seem to have had any impact on hurricane frequency and intensity in the past:
https://climatlas.com/tropical/
Like most WUWT posters showing a common Pavlovian reflex, Simpleton Hogle still didn’t undertsand that my comment above had NOTHING to do with AGW let alone with CO2’s supposed influence.
I simply was showing info posted by two web sites concerning the heat currently present in the Atlantic region.
I was NOT AT ALL trying to focus on things like:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/pix/user_images/tk/VSS08-Figure-WMO_new_ab.png
*
Understood, Simpleton?
Bin-liner,
You wrote this above:
2. The ocean heat could fuel an unusually active hurricane season
Walter R. Hogle, please stop using the concept of “heat” in a way that would make Sky Dragon cranks go crazy.
No I didn’t, Simpleton.
It was Michael Lowry on May 22, 2024.
Here are the tropical cycle seasonal prediction verifications.
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/SeasonalVerification.html
Notice that NOAA significantly underestimates tropical cyclone activity both in terms of named storms and ACE in their May predictions.
Bindidon says:
May 24, 2024 at 1:53 AM
2024s Atlantic hurricane season 2024 looks nice indeed.
============================
On how many levels is this statement stoopid ???
Eboy, please stay in your lane.
Willard, please stop trolling.
This GHE nonsense is made up of many varying components — everything from sea levels supposedly rising to monkeys dying. But, none of it is based on science. It’s all based on beliefs.
The GHE cult does not understand radiative physics or thermodynamics. That’s why they end up with nonsense like “ice cubes boiling water”, “radiative flux can be treated as energy”, and “infrared is heat”.
They don’t have a clue about “flux”. Even the fake engineer, who claims to be a Skeptic, has indicated that since flux contains units of energy, it MUST be energy. Speed has units of distance, as miles per hour, but that does not mean speed is distance. Confusing flux with energy just proves most of the people here have no understanding of radiative physics.
This confusion about flux has led to the bogus “EEI” (Earth’s Energy Imbalance) nonsense. The cult believes that the “EEI” is calculated from subtracting “Outgoing Longwave Radiation” from “Absorbed Solar Radiation”. They constantly flaunt this incorrect equation: EEI = ASR – OLR. Worse, they come up with a value of about 1 W/m², with meaningless error margin.
No one knows either of the two values, ASR or OLR. Both values are guesses. And since the two fluxes are from different sources, they can NOT be simply added/subtracted! So the bogus 1 W/m² should be stated as 1 +/- 25 W/m², to even be close to science. (To be scientific, they MUST use energy, not flux, for an “energy imbalance”.)
The three biggest supporters of the EEI nonsense are bdgwx, Ent, and Ark. I posed the simple question to them, predicting they would avoid it. They proved me right, again. Here’s the question:
The simple question illustrates the futility of trying to treat flux as energy. If you calculate the blackbody temperature for the flux given, you get 676K. But two different temperatures, such as 300K and 800K would average to 550K, but the average flux would be 11842 W/m². Trying to calculate the average temperature would be WAY off.
Interestingly, Christos gave out a big hint, which the cult didn’t understand — “I think it may be anything.”
My prediction is the cult will completely ignore this. Reality does not match their false beliefs, so it must be ignored.
[PUFFMAN] What’s the average temperature of two objects?
[CHRISTOS] I think it may be anything.
[PUFFMAN] Ohh! What a deep, perceptive insight.
[NATE] You are giving us ONE equation, and expecting us to solve for TWO unknowns?? Stoopid question.
[PUFFMAN] Oh, my sweet little child.
I always know I’ve hit the target when cult spokesman silly willy throws up his childish flak.
I repeatedly claim that the cult has NOTHING. Spokesman silly willy continually proves me right.
Puffman, please stop the silly “you do not respond, I win” and “since you respond I win” self-sealing crap.
If your question is not stoopid, and answerable, then how bout you answer it, Clint, and tell us what it proves?
Of course you won’t, because the question is stoopid and pointless.
Now you will tell me I don’t understand, and hurl some insults.
Answer and relevance here, Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1669080
Get an adult to help you with it.
Puffman, please stop trying to conceal your mistake about fluxes.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Global
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2024/05/24/uah-mean-and-median-global-for-apr-2024/
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2024/05/24/uah-mean-and-median-global-for-apr-2024/
NOAA predicts above-normal 2024 Atlantic hurricane season
“NOAA is forecasting a range of 17 to 25 total named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher). Of those, 8 to 13 are forecast to become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including 4 to 7 major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5; with winds of 111 mph or higher). Forecasters have a 70% confidence in these ranges.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/23/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2024-atlantic-hurricane-season/
Coal doesn’t burn on Mars.
Coal burns on Earth.
Coal burns naturally, and it’s burning naturally for millions of years {well, actually billions of years}.
Coal would not burn on Mars, naturally for million or billions of years.
In the beginning, NASA was looking for life on Mars. First intelligent life, then any kind of life, and is now mainly focused on finding ancient life.
It seems to me, at best, Mars has about 60% chance of having had any kind life. Though on Earth one has life, a mile under solid rock- but I tend to think life didn’t start, a mile under solid rock- more of the issue that life adapts to almost anything, kind of thing.
So, there is possibility that humans with the inherent need to be immensed in life, if they go to Mars, could bring life which adapts to Mars. [Or there is already life on Mars, and Mars life adapts to life brought to Mars. Or roughly some kind of unholy marriages, occurs.]
But main point, is there coal on Mars.
The deepest legal coal mine:
–1. Shakhterskaya in Donbas, Ukraine
Europes deepest coal mine is called Shakhterskaya and its located in Donbas in Ukraine. The region is famous for its heavy industry, which includes both metallurgy and coal mining. Donbas as a whole is known for its dangerous mines because of their impressive depths.
Shakhterskaya mine is the deepest legal mine and is said to be 1,546 metres deep.–
And second deepest:
–2. Suncun Coal Mine, China
Chinas Suncun Coal Mine is said to have a depth of 1,501 metres and is the second deepest coal mine in the world. The mine is located in Xintai City, Shandong Province. However, because mining gets more expensive as it gets deeper, the profitable range of this mine is between 1,100 and 1,200 metres.–
https://kjsmining.com.au/top-5-deepest-coal-mines-in-the-world/
The deepest oil well is about 9.5 km deep.
The deepest coal mines is related to topic of China’s Peak Coal- a lot of it, is below 1200 meters.
“A coal-seam fire is a burning of an outcrop or underground coal seam. Most coal-seam fires exhibit smouldering combustion, particularly underground coal-seam fires, because of limited atmospheric oxygen availability. Coal-seam fire instances on Earth date back several million years.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-seam_fire
And:
“Across the world, thousands of underground coal fires are burning at any given moment. The problem is most acute in industrializing, coal-rich nations such as China. Global coal fire emissions are estimated to cause 40 tons of mercury to enter the atmosphere annually, and to represent three percent of the world’s annual CO2 emissions.”
I used to think they should be mined. But now, I wonder, perhaps they are too deep to mine.
This New Robot Makes Miners Obsolete, Here’s Why
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqQLh8zr8sc
What it is that makes a CO2 molecule to absorb a quantum of EM energy?
–
And what it is that makes a CO2 molecule to emit a quantum of EM energy?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos… a CO2 molecule…
O=====C=====O
The dashed lines represent 2 electrons per bond that connects the O atom to the C atom. There are 4 electrons total shared between oxygen and carbon. Those bonds are orbitals similar to th electron orbits in the atoms.
Those electrons behave like any other electron, they absorb and emit EM as they change energy orbital levels. The remaining electrons in either atom are capable of absorbing/emitting EM as well but what makes the bonding electrons so special is their ability to vibrate.
The electron bonds can change length like this…
O==C========O
O=======C==O
assymtrical
O==C==O
O=====C=====O
symmetrical
That is a longitudinal vibration that can be either symmetrical or non-symmetrical.
That kind of vibration can be caused by the electrons in the bonds absorbing EM or emitting it. Or by other means.
There is another mode of vibration that I cannot draw easily. The bonds can vibrate slightly about the longitudinal axis.
The vibrations enhances the ability to absorb and emit IR, likely because the transitions are more limited than the transitions in normal electrons. If an electron is in the ground state and receives EM from the UV spectrum it can jump to a maximal outer orbital. If it falls back to ground state it emits a UV photon. However,if it drops from level 7 to level 6 or 5, it emits an IR photon.
I don’t think oxygen or carbon emit IR naturally due to their higher orbital energy levels. However, bonding orbitals are likely of lower energy and more conducive to emitting and absorbing IR.
gordon, electrons do NOT change orbitals for infrared.
You STILL know nothing about the relevant science. You can’t understand conventional electron flow. You can’t fake being an electrical engineer because you don’t know the basics any better that Norman.
You don’t even know what time it is.
Thank you, Gordon, for your response.
–
There are not photons in the EM energy, I think, till the EM energy gets interacting with matter.
Electron is considered as matter with a charge? Or electron is simply a charge considered as a matter?
Do photons exist within the electrons only?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos..an electron has mass and a negative charge. When electrons move through a conductor, the charge can somehow separate from the electrons and move at the speed of light in the conductor. The electrons themselves move at a rate of cm/sec.
As electrons move in a conductor, they create a magnetic field and an electric field around the conductor. If the electrons are part of an alternating current, and the frequency of alterations is high enough, the EM field created can be transmitted through space.
You have to realize that I am talking about a highly theoretical concept. No one has ever seen an electron, a proton, or a photon.
A photon is defined as a quantum of EM energy and it is generated by electrons moving from a higher energy orbital to a lower energy orbital. The relationship is E = hf, where E is the number of energy levels the electron moves over and f is the frequency of the photon created. The difference between a photon and EM energy per se is that a photon has only one frequency/wavelength and EM generally has multiple frequencies/wavelengths of energy.
EM from a star has millions of different frequency/wavelengths traveling as a wavefront.
Both a photon and an EM wave carry an electric and a magnetic field. They are the same energy.
Unlike what Clint believes, the electrons is the only particle in an atom or molecule that can generate or absorb EM as a photon. When Bohr discovered this process, he made no reference to photons. The word photon was invented some 15 years after Bohr’s discovery and I don’t like it because it tries to define light as particles and the quantum referenced is not a particle like an electron or a proton. The photon has no mass, and the electron and proton have mass.
I prefer the word quantum because the photon is actually a varying field of EM with a definite frequency. A particle with mass cannot have a frequency and I think defining the electron as both a wave and a particle is stoopid.
Clint,
You lose one with Gordon.
“gordon, electrons do NOT change orbitals for infrared.”
Try the Paschen series.
Thank you, Gordon.
I am reading what you said. I think you are right about everything.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dachshund
On how many levels does your brain lack neural substance to help you avoid such redundant posts?
Every time you post your subcutaneously aggressive, impolite attacks, you remind me more and more of the end of Stanley Kubrick’s phenomenal film ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, in which the last survivor of HAL 9000 went into his hardware room and shut down HAL’s intelligence, level by level.
The fact that Eben’s posts annoy you, an uber-alarmist, so much, is good enough for me.
Well done, Eben!!!
Mr. Asshat, please stop drooling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon admires tr0lls. Hates scientists.
All we need to know.
Another real life experience problem…
Given:
The earth radiates to space, which has an effective temperature of about 4 K. However, the earth is surrounded by an atmosphere consisting of gases that αbsorb radiation in specific wavelength bands. For this reason, the equivalent blackbody temperature of the sky is greater than 4 K but generally lower than the ambient temperature by 5 to 30C, depending on the extent of cloud cover and amount of moisture in the air. The largest difference between the ambient and equivalent blackbody sky temperature occurs during nights in which there is no cloud cover and low humidity.
An important multimode heat transfer problem is related to determining the nighttime temperature at which there is a danger that citrus fruit will freeze.
Find:
Consider the following situation. During a clear calm night, an orange with diameter D = 6.5 cm experiences radiation heat transfer with the sky and the ground as well as convection to the ambient air. The ground temperature is approximately Tground = 10C, regardless of the ambient temperature, and is constant during the night. The equivalent blackbody temperature of the sky, Tsky, is Tsky = 15C lower than the ambient temperature, Tamb. The emissivity of the ground is 0.8 and the sky can be considered to be black. The emissivity of the orange is 0.5.
Estimate the ambient temperature, Tamb, at which the orange will freeze; assume that the orange achieves a steady-state condition. Oranges consist of mostly water and therefore they freeze at about 0C.
Hint:
Don’t say Climate Change!
Your hint link doesn’t work.
ark…how can a vacuum have a temperature? Obviously there must be something in it, like clouds of hydrogen. That’s where they get the 4K temperature, but it is not a measure of heat, but of a radiation, which has incorrectly been claimed as heat.
Actually, the Kelvin scale of absolute temperatures is more fiction than science. 0K is based on a mathematical projection, not a thermometer measurement. In other words, 0K is fiction.
The ambient temperature of the sky does not come anywhere near to 4K. At minimum, it measures something like -50C which is about 223K.
The temperature of an orange has very little to do with radiation. It is a measure of the atomic kinetic energy in the orange. That KE will be derived largely from air molecules and if their temperature is 0C, the orange will eventually reach 0C. There is no need to estimate the temperature at which it will freeze at STP.
A,
You wrote –
“However, the earth is surrounded by an atmosphere consisting of gases that αbsorb radiation in specific wavelength bands”. Perfectly true. All matter absorbs radiation. Subsequently, having absorbed radiation, all matter then emits radiation, generally at a longer wavelength than it absorbed, due to the fact that the matter is now cooling, have lost more radiation than it received.
Certainly true in an atmosphere heated only by radiation from the hotter Earth.
If you believe in the GHE, why do you refuse to describe it? How hard can it be? It really seems to others that your GHE is a God – cannot be described by human minds, is outside known physical laws, performs miracles, and strikes down unbelievers with lightning bolts, plagues of boils, or general death and destruction!
As to your poorly framed question, why do you want to know? Just trying to appear wise and knowledgeable, or are you trying to make others look stupid?
In what alternate universe will ground temperature remain constant during the night? You don’t accept reality, do you?
If you are worried about the effect of radiation frost in citrus orchards, there is plenty of information available. For example, from the LSU AgCentre. “Citrus fruits easily freeze at 26 to 28 degrees when these temperatures last for several hours.”, and how to prevent it.
Heres a simple question for you (as a simple fanatical GHE cultist) –
How would you explain the role of the GHE in radiative frost damage in citrus orchards?
How hard can it be – unless you’re a fanatical GHE cultist who is both ignorant and gullible?
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop saying stuff.
“Mike Flynn, please stop saying stuff.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ark, if the GHE nonsense were true, Florida orange growers would not have to worry about freezes. In fact, oranges could be grown in Minnesota.
Your beliefs are so easily debunked, yet you keep believing.
That’s the power of a cult….
Hush, Puffman.
Keep proving me right, child.
I can take it.
Puffman, please stop giving me ideas on how to respond to Graham D. Warner during the next Climateball Monthly Theme.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Jan and Ulfs Nature Trick: The Hottest Summer in 2000 Years
https://climateaudit.org/2024/05/24/jan-and-ulfs-nature-trick-the-hottest-summer-in-2000-years/
“In his notorious Climategate email, Phil Jones described ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ as the splicing of proxy and instrumental temperatures that he had carried out for the World Meteorological Organization. Mann had indeed spliced proxy and instrumental temperatures for the calculation of the smoothed reconstruction illustrated in the article, but had cut the smoothed version back to 1980 (the end of the proxy data.) Mann vehemently denied that the splicing of proxy and instrumental data was ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ and instead claimed that Mike’s Nature trick was nothing more than showing an estimate (reconstruction) and actual (observed temperature) on the same figure, clearly marked. But this is such a benign and commonplace statistical practice that it cannot be reasonably described even by the statistically and mathematically challenged Jones as a ‘trick’ in the mathematical sense. A mathematical ‘trick’ implies ingenuity or novelty, but showing estimate vs actual is trivial and commonplace.”
“In that spirit, I think that it is fair to describe ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ (and the similar trick employed by Esper et al 2024) as a confidence trick. In the mathematical sense, of course.”
Don’t get your science from blogs.
Good to see climateaudit is still going. I was under the impression they had closed down.
The thing that bothers me about Mann’s reconstruction is how straight the shaft is on the hockey stick. They have clearly eliminated the Medieval Warm Period circa 1000 AD and the Little Ice Age between about 1300 and 1850.
The maximum temperature deviation on Mann’s hockey stick is far less than 0.5C yet the LIA is estimated to have been 1C to 2C below normal. Obviously the Trick involved far more chicanery than simply splicing proxy data with real temperature data.
In the Climategate emails one of the MBH team can be noted as lamenting the Little Ice Age and how much better it would be if they could eliminate it. Obviously, they did.
Besides, all that, Mann had just received his Ph.D shortly before the study was completed. He was essentially a rank amateur in academia. The fact the IPCC listened to him is evidence of their desperation.
> Obviously, they did.
Mr. Asshat, please drop the porkies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
“Mr. Asshat, please drop the porkies:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop making me oblige –
https://tinyurl.com/mr-asshat-is-a-bit-crooked
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop making Mr. Asshat look really bad –
https://tinyurl.com/mr-asshat-is-really-crooked
“Mike Flynn, please stop making Mr. Asshat look really bad ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop playing with Mr. Asshat’s reputation, Mike Flynn:
https://tinyurl.com/mr-asshat-gets-crookier
“Please stop playing with Mr. Asshats reputation, Mike Flynn:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yuk Yuk, please stop trading yuk yuking for evidence that Mr. Asshat says stuff once again.
Willard, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A scam, or a confidence trick, is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their trust. Confidence tricks exploit victims using a combination of the victim’s credulity, navet, compassion, vanity, confidence, irresponsibility, and greed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scam
Did the Auditor just said the F-word?
Tsk tsk.
you should know all about scams, being an alarmist toady.
Willard, indeed.
The GHE is such a scam, or confidence trick.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, Mr. Asshat, please stop shrieking, the fact that tree ring reconstructions annoy you, two cranks, so much, is good enough for Team Science.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Heads up, Mike.
You’re in my thread.
“You’re in my thread.”
Oh no, the ThreadMaster appears! You idiot, I comment as I wish, and there is precisely nothing you can do about it. Start your own blog and talk to yourself if you wish.
Tell yourself that cooling is warming or heating or something equally stupid. That might fit with your GHE description – “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Maybe you could find someone who values your opinions, rather than laughing at them. Go on, play some of your “silly semantic games”. Or just keep playing with yourself, if you enjoy that more. Yes, that was a masturbatory reference, if you were wondering.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You already said all this, Mike.
Take your time.
Another drink?
“Youre in my thread.”
Oh no, the ThreadMaster appears! You idiot, I comment as I wish, and there is precisely nothing you can do about it. Start your own blog and talk to yourself if you wish.
Tell yourself that cooling is warming or heating or something equally stupid. That might fit with your GHE description “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Maybe you could find someone who values your opinions, rather than laughing at them. Go on, play some of your “silly semantic games”. Or just keep playing with yourself, if you enjoy that more. Yes, that was a masturbatory reference, if you were wondering.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re getting warmed up, Mike.
Another drink?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Fine, Mike.
Take your time.
“Fine, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
One last for the road, Mike?
“One last for the road, Mike?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Safe travel, Mike.
“Safe travel, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Still here, Mike?
No, tonight you are sleeping outside of the bar.
Willard is a monkey.
Walter R. Hogle, please mind your manners, and go respond to bdgwx properly.
He is not paying attention.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop mind probing, and do not think that this did not go unnoticed:
[WALTER R. HOGLE] When was the last time you saw a below-average forecast for the hurricane season from them?
[BDGWX] Last year.
“Walter R. Hogle, please stop mind probing, and . . . ”
Willard, do you believe you have been captured by aliens, and subjected to mind probes in the past? Have aliens tried to steal your brainwaves, requiring you to wear a tinfoil hat at all times?
Maybe you need to use your vast knowledge of cooling and warming (yuk, yuk!) to reinforce your tinfoil hat, to stop your mind being probed! What are the probers after, do you think? Trying to find out why some humans are so ignorant and gullible that they believe in a GHE, which they can’t describe because of some alien mind block?
[and the laughs keep coming]
Mike Flynn, please stop revealing your true identity:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/yukyuk.htm
“Walter R. Hogle, please stop mind probing, and . . . ”
Willard, do you believe you have been captured by aliens, and subjected to mind probes in the past? Have aliens tried to steal your brainwaves, requiring you to wear a tinfoil hat at all times?
Maybe you need to use your vast knowledge of cooling and warming (yuk, yuk, yuk!) to reinforce your tinfoil hat, to stop your mind being probed! What are the probers after, do you think? Trying to find out why some humans are so ignorant and gullible that they believe in a GHE, which they cant describe because of some alien mind block?
[and the laughs keep coming]
Yuk Yuk, please stop yuk yuking.
“Yuk Yuk, please stop yuk yuking.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I wasn’t talking about that conversation.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop insinuating that the exchange where you revealed that you have no idea what’s systematic error was somehow better.
wee willy…”stop shrieking, the fact that tree ring reconstructions annoy you…”
***
I have seldom commented on my opinion regarding tree rings. Expert Craig Lohle revealed the weakness in the theory when he pointed out that drought can affect tree rings as well as temperature.
In the MBH study, they used only pine bristle cone as the basis of their 20th century proxy. The National Academy of science told them that is inadmissible therefore NAS rejected the crux of their study where the hockey stick shaft became a blade. NAS also concluded their study prior to the 16th century was in doubt. The IPCC eventually omitted that part of the hockey stick and referenced it from 1850 onward. They also re-instituted the MWP and LIA.
Mr. Asshat, please stop overplaying your hand –
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/
realclimate??? …get serious.
Mr. Asshat, please drop the ad hominem –
https://www.desmog.com/craig-loehle/
You are burbling irrelevant nonsense against ain.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop braying and go pacify the handbag fight between Puffman and Mr. Asshat.
“Mike Flynn, please stop braying and go pacify the handbag fight between Puffman and Mr. Asshat”
Ooooooooh! More homosexual references to your fantasy figures, is it?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop fantasizing.
“Mike Flynn, please stop braying and go pacify the handbag fight between Puffman and Mr. Asshat.”
Ooooooooh! More homosexual references to your fantasy figures, is it?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop exhibiting repetition compulsion.
“Mike Flynn, please stop braying and go pacify the handbag fight between Puffman and Mr. Asshat.
Ooooooooh! More homosexual references to your fantasy figures, is it?
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re doing your Tourette thing again, Mike.
“Mike Flynn, please stop braying and go pacify the handbag fight between Puffman and Mr. Asshat.”
Ooooooooh! More homosexual references to your fantasy figures, is it?
Maybe you could try references to masturbation? Using the silly phrase “JAQing off”? You’ve done it before, why not try it again?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop hitting you against the wall.
“Mike Flynn, please stop braying and go pacify the handbag fight between Puffman and Mr. Asshat.
Ooooooooh! More homosexual references to your fantasy figures, is it?
Maybe you could try references to masturbation? Using the silly phrase “JAQing off”? Youve done it before, why not try it again?
Was Willard Quine as silly as you?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Time for your nap, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Klint Klown clogs the blog with yet another presumptuous post…
“Even the fake engineer, who claims to be a Skeptic, has indicated that since flux contains units of energy, it MUST be energy. Speed has units of distance, as miles per hour, but that does not mean speed is distance”.
***
What else can a flux field represent but energy? Flux is used most often to represent magnetic and electromagnetic energy. That’s because no one can see it yet it can be measured as a static field or a changing EM field. Actually, I need to amend that, something can be measured that is changing due to the presence of magnetic or electromagnetic energy.
The presence of EM can be detected by an antenna. An antenna is a metal rod or a coil with which EM can cause electrons in the coil to move in step with the EM frequency. By measuring the electric current, we can determine the strength of the EM field at the antenna.
However, EM spreads as a spherical field. It begins as a high frequency alternating current in an antenna and the alternating current create an electrical and magnetic field which spreads out spherically from the antenna. At any distance from the antenna that field has a spherical area and it can be divided down into square metres or square centimetres in that sphere. The flux is described as the number of imaginary lines of flux per unit area.
In that particular case, flux is a measure of EM density in a unit area.
Speed as both units of distance and units of time. It is the average distance moved per ueit time.
Keep rambling incoherently, gordon.
That’s why we know you’re NOT an engineer.
Have you seen your therapist lately?
I have yet to see you reply intelligently. The more you reply with ad homs and insults the more you appear to be a horse’s butt.
gordon, you must have intelligence to recognize intelligence.
Mr. Asshat and Puffman, hush.
Willard, please stop trolling.
clint…”gordon, electrons do NOT change orbitals for infrared”.
***
Look up the Paschen series for hydrogen at this link…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
The Paschen series describe emissions in the infrared band…
Try to understand what they are saying about orbitals and the relationship between emitted frequency/wavelength and the number of orbitals an electrons drops over.
The Rydeberg formula states it mathematically but only for hydrogen.
Bonding electrons exist in orbitals that can change energy levels.
Gordon,
IR photons are incapable of supplying enough energy to move electrons to a higher level.
That’s why it doesnt matter how much total IR energy you have, nor how cunningly you concentrate it, you cannot excite a single hydrogen atom to a higher state.
The basis of Einstein’s Nobel Prize winning work. The destruction of much of what fanatical GHE believers base their pseudoscientific beliefs on. And fully supported by experiment, no matter how absurd nature appears as a result.
No GHE – it’s just complete fantasy.
swenson…”IR photons are incapable of supplying enough energy to move electrons to a higher level”.
***
It’s not the energy that excites an electron, it’s the frequency of the IR. If an electron is orbiting with a specific orbital speed it has a corresponding angular frequency. In order for EM to affect the electron, the frequency of the EM must match the electrons frequency exactly.
https://www.livescience.com/50260-infrared-radiation.html
“Infrared spectroscopy measures IR emissions from materials at specific wavelengths. The IR spectrum of a substance will show characteristic dips and peaks as photons (particles of light) are absorbed or emitted by electrons in molecules as the electrons transition between orbits, or energy levels”.
It’s a resonance things. Suppose you have 7 orbital energy levels available for the electron to be in. If it is in ground state, what you say is likely true, but if it is already in a higher orbital, say level 5, IR will move it out to level 7.
Same with emission. Look at the wiki article for the Balmer series. That series can be created only by UV. Now look at the Paschen series, it can produce and absorb IR between levels 4 and 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
That applies only to the hydrogen atom but it is the same for other atoms albeit with different frequencies/wavelength.
Alternately, how would you explain the absorp-tion and emission of EM. What is there in a molecule other than an electron that can do both?
Swenson,
Gordon is beating your brains out.
Bumbling bobby,
Read the link. IR emission. All matter emits IR.
You are idiot.
gordon, finding links you don’t understand is typical of cultists.
You don’t understand the basics so you search for anything to support your false bellefs.
In a climate discussion, infrared is associated with molecules not electron transitions. You don’t even understand the thermodynamic definition of “heat”, so this is all way over your head.
Clint,
Gordon has both brains tied behind his back and he’s still beating you.
I’m glad to see you side with gordon, bob. It was long overdue. Neither of you has any knowledge of the basics.
gordon’s link to “live science” is full of errors. Like you and gordon, they have no clue what they’re talking about.
Gordon is right, Clint and you are wrong, electronic transitions can be in the infrared.
So sorry you sold your textbooks for crack.
Burbling Bobby,
“Gordon is right, Clint and you are wrong, electronic transitions can be in the infrared.
So sorry you sold your textbooks for crack.”
Bobby’s Fantasy Physics for Fools is a comic masterpiece. Every time you quote it, I can’t help laughing!
Carry on.
Mr. Asshat, Mike Flynn, Puffman –
hush.
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy…you are truly a patthhetic waste of space…
https://www.desmog.com/craig-loehle/
This is the same outfit who tried to smear Roy and John Christy of UAH. If that’s how lowly you think of Roy, why are you taking advantage of him by using his site to spread your lies?
We know. You are a scumbag who stalks people and receives glee out of publishing their real names when they wish to remain anonymous. Anyone ho would use the scumbag site of desmogblog as a reference is a peculiar lowlife form of scumbag.
Mr. Asshat, please stop being unserious and unless you’re willing to post your personal address, I suggest you abide by your own principle regarding Gavin, Mike, and your other pet whipping boys.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I can understand you, as a scumbag, defending a scumbag site like desmogblog. I don’t see why you have to bring your filth here.
Mr. Asshat, please stop pretending that you’re commenting under your real name.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, as part of a discussion, one commenter wrote –
“Because S-B Emission law is not an Absorp-tion law.”, and the other responded –
“That is assertion, where is the evidence?”
Here’s a statement of the Stefan-Boltzmann law –
“The StefanBoltzmann law, also known as Stefan’s law, describes the intensity of the thermal radiation emitted by matter in terms of that matter’s temperature. . . ”
Emission, not absorption. The S-B law cannot be used to calculate the temperature of an object absorbing radiation. That is just silly.
Mike Flynn, please stop confusing statements with evidence.
Whack Wee Willy,
You are confusing your fantasies with reality. That’s why you refuse to describe the GHE as anything except “not cooling, slower cooling”, and then try and convince sane people that cooling really means warming!
Keep on trying to play your “silly semantic games”. You provide graphic evidence of what it means to be a consistent and desperate loser. Keep going – you’ve gone too far to stop now.
There is no GHE, you idiot, otherwise the surface woukdn’t even cool at night!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop misremembering that a blackbody is both an ideal absorber and an ideal emitter.
Earlier, as part of a discussion, one commenter wrote
“Because S-B Emission law is not an Absorp-tion law”, and the other responded
“That is assertion, where is the evidence?”
Heres a statement of the Stefan-Boltzmann law
“The StefanBoltzmann law, also known as Stefans law, describes the intensity of the thermal radiation emitted by matter in terms of that matters temperature. . . ”
Emission, not absorption. The S-B law cannot be used to calculate the temperature of an object absorbing radiation. That is just silly.
Mike Flynn, please stop acting like a deaf Black Knight.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The evidence goes back to Tyndall’s experiment where he heated a platinum filament electrically till the filament glowed light and noted the different colours created as the current was increased. Someone else converted the reported colours to EM colour temperatures.
I’d like to see them do the same at IR frequencies where there is no light to observe.
clint…”In a climate discussion, infrared is associated with molecules not electron transitions. You dont even understand the thermodynamic definition of heat, so this is all way over your head”.
***
Your misunderstanding of molecules and atoms is the key to your confusion. I have explained this to you several times and any good chemistry textbook will teach you the same. A molecule is nothing more than two or more atoms bonded by electrons. Therefore a molecule is made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons.
Perhaps you could explain what else there is lurking in a molecule that can emit and absorb EM. The protons and neutrons are bound in the nucleus and are not affected by EM. That leaves only electrons.
Electrons are ideally suited to emitting and absorbing EM. They carry an electric field and when they move they produce a magnetic field. An electron orbits at a tremendous angular speed that can be stated as a frequency. When the electron emits EM the EM has a tremendously high frequency. The electron has an electric and magnetic field and so does the emitted photon.
Could it be any more obvious?
Gordon,
The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency.
You wrote “In order for EM to affect the electron, the frequency of the EM must match the electrons frequency exactly.”
Well no, it doesn’t. For example, an object at 1 K can be heated by exposure to an object at 2 K, emitting photons with extremely low energy. At that temperature, hydrogen is frozen – but still absorbs and emits photons.
People are usually thinking about resonance exhibited by atoms and molecules, and the spectroscopic and spectrometric aspects of these. The light source needs to be of sufficiently high energy to stimulate the various resonant and excited states. Using x-rays, for example, “Within 3-10 seconds of testing time, Niton analysers provide the exact karat weight and percentages of all elements within an item easily identifying non-standard, under-karate, and even advanced counterfeit gold with fire assay-comparable accuracy.” – thermofisher.
The process is “When a primary x-ray excitation source from an x-ray tube or a radioactive source strikes a sample, the x-ray can either be absorbed by the atom or scattered through the material. The process in which an x-ray is absorbed by the atom by transferring all of its energy to an innermost electron is called the photoelectric effect.” – amptek.
With normal photon energies found at the surface, none of this is possible. Just heating and cooling of gases, liquids, and solids. Even high energy light from the Sun, visible and greater, is rapidly absorbed and converted to lower energy photons – eventually as “waste” heat.
AGW, if you like. No GHE.
gordon, you know NOTHING about the subject, and you can’t learn.
You just clog the blog, without your brain in gear. You can’t even understand my simple sentence: “In a climate discussion, infrared is associated with molecules not electron transitions.”
For emphasis, since your brain doesn’t work — not electron transitions.
Now, clog the blog some more with your incoherent rambling, or get professional help….
Gordon,
“Could it be any more obvious?”
Well no, anything dealing with Quantum Mechanics is anything but obvious.
Electrons do not orbit the nucleus, and especially those involved in bonding, they do not orbit multiple nuclei.
Also, the energy levels that electrons can transition between are determined by the atomic structure, so it is an electron in a molecule or atom that is doing the transitions, an the nuclei have input into what photon frequency are allowed for that molecule or atom.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“. . . an the nuclei have input into what photon frequency are allowed for that molecule or atom.”
This would come from Bobby’s Fantasy Physics for Fools, would it?
Carry on
That’s why all different chemical compounds or molecules have different properties with respect to what wavelengths of light they interact with.
Go to your local library and check out a book on spectroscopy.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote
“. . . an the nuclei have input into what photon frequency are allowed for that molecule or atom.”
This would come from Bobbys Fantasy Physics for Fools, would it?
Carry on
Gordon Robertson
You have to give up on your horrible misleading and wrong understanding of molecules and how they work.
Clint R is totally correct on this subject (I disagree with him on many things but he does have correct understanding of molecular vibrations).
Gordon I have explained it to you many times and linked you to many sources correcting your terribly flawed understanding of Chemistry!
Molecules can develop permanent dipoles (contribution of both positive charge of nucleus and negative charge of electrons). Plus and Minus charged ends. When these vibrate above ground state they will create electro-magnetic disturbance that will be an emitted IR photon and then the vibrational state will return to a ground state that does not emit.
There is an entire branch of Chemistry devoted to this concept. It works in reality as it is used to identify unknown compounds in the IR band.
The reason Nitrogen does not emit (except under some multiple molecule configurations) is because it has no dipoles. The vibrating molecule of N2 does not have electric ends that vibrate to generate an electromagnetic disturbance.
Norman,
You wrote,
“The reason Nitrogen does not emit . . .”.
Wrong. Like all matter, nitrogen above absolute zero emits IR. You are denying reality.
You must be reading Bobby’s Fantasy Physics for Fools.
Well done. Full marks for Reality Denial.
Carry on.
Swenson,
“Wrong. Like all matter, nitrogen above absolute zero emits IR. You are denying reality.”
Like Norman says, Nitrogen is not very good at absorbing Infrared,
Most matter absorbs Infrared Radiation, but some do it better than others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy
Brainless bobby,
You wrote –
“Most matter absorbs Infrared Radiation”. You lose again.
All matter absorbs IR.
Burbling about spectroscopy won’t help. Maybe sticking to saying nothing is better than demonstrating your ignorance.
Trying to pretend you are intelligent by writing “Most matter absorbs Infrared Radiation, but some do it better than others.” is unlikely to help.
That’s about as pointless as saying that some GHE cultists are gullible and ignorant, but some are more gullible and ignorant than others! All, repeat all, GHE cultists are ignorant and gullible!
All matter absorbs infrared Radiation. You are an idiot. Show that either statement is wrong, if you like.
Carry on.
Swenson,
Do you have any experimental evidence that N2 absorbs IR?
Braindead bobby,
You foolishly tried for a gotcha –
“Swenson,
Do you have any experimental evidence that N2 absorbs IR?”
Of course. Don’t you? Are you stupid and ignorant?
Mike Flynn, please stop giving us the perfect response to your future sammich requests.
Swenson,
I have the opposite evidence.
https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php#:~:text=You%20have%20already%20learned%20that%20Earth%27s%20atmosphere%20is,not%20absorb%20or%20emit%20solar%20or%20infrared%20radiation.
Of course if N2 was a greenhouse gas, the effect would be more severe, don’t you think?
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Look, our little stalker is back.
Once more, it’s amazing to see that an ignorant boaster like Robertson
– who definitely never wrote any piece of program longer than say 50 lines during his entire life,
– nevertheless urges to teach the world about programming languages, even here, on a blog owned by John Christy and Roy Spencer, two scientists who engineered huge, FORTRAN-written software since decades.
*
Robertson doesn’t even understand the difference between modules and classes.
Long before modern, object and class-based programming languages came into play, it was essential to break down large software packages into individual parts described by interfaces because of (1) the division of labor into developer groups, (2) the encapsulation of frequently used parts and (3) cross-project use.
Of course: there was, at the beginning, the Norwegian Simula 67 (Dahl, Myrhaugh, Nygaard), imho the most genial programming language ever designed, which however didn’t gain sufficient popularity to become implemented on various archtectures and thus useful as worldwide platform for portable software.
*
The very best is his
” Although I like Fortran for nostalgic purposes, I fear it has seen its day, just like Unix, the basis of Linux. ”
Robertson hasn’t any idea of how many of the greatest servers worldwide are UNIX resp. LINUX-based. Only institutions that have been tied to Microsoft, sometimes for decades, use Windows-based server software.
*
Regardless what it is about, Robertson’s pseudo-knowledge is based on information he pastes here out of (mostly contrarian) blogs and Wikipedia, and of course not on real experience.
Anyone who credulously sucks his egomaniacal trash therefore 100% deserves it.
“Anyone who credulously sucks his egomaniacal trash therefore 100% deserves it.”
This from a guy who point-blank refuses to describe the GHE, because he is worried that he will look like an idiot.
Here’s his latest effort to avoid being laughed at –
“Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form. CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
He might just as well say the GHE is due to the presence of a him having a congenital mental defect, for all the difference it makes.
What a dimwit Bindidon is! Ad homs – nothing else.
binny…”Robertson hasnt any idea of how many of the greatest servers worldwide are UNIX resp. LINUX-based”.
***
Once again, Binny expounds on matters he does not understand.
What he said above doesn’t change the fact that Unix is an archaic language designed for teletypes. I’ll bet there are mainframes still running Cobol and other ancient languages. Look under the hood of Linux and you’ll see what I mean. There are still apps from the 70s that belong in the 70s. They make sense if you are running a teletype but non-intuitive if you try using them for word processing.
Example…emacs.
I started learning Linux at one point and when I saw archaic word processors like emacs I thought, good grief, are they serious? Besides that, I could not understand a language that suppresses file extensions or uses a convoluted file system based on an utterly paranoid file security.
Re classes and modules…I made no attempt to distinguish between the two, however, I read many programming books on classes and become more confused the more I read. That’s because most programming authors don’t understand classes.
Finally, I read Stroustrup on classes and the light went on immediately. He defined a class as a user-defined type. I knew all about types, which are built into languages and I knew none of them were user-defined. Stroustrup managed to explain in one sentence what programming books failed to do in paragraphs and even chapters.
C++ brought to programming that important feature, allowing programmers to define their own types thus making it easier to program in modules. Also, it allowed programmers to isolate data in modules so that others parts of the program could not overwrite it accidentally.
Classes and modules are dependent on each other. A module is often a way of dividing a program into smaller units based on class definitions. By such a means, a large program can be divided into smaller units that different programmers or teams of programmers can work on independently. You can’t do that with Fortran unless you farm out subroutines to different programmers. However, subroutines lack the abilities modules bring to programs.
> emacs
Mr. Asshat, please stop using bad examples, and stop denying that Un*x is modularity incarnated.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop using bad examples, . . . ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop allowing me to add that even Sed has modules.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop letting me add that Sed has no real class, Mike.
Which means that modules and classes may not go hand in hand.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Norman wrote:
“ When it comes to blaming every extreme weather event on Climate Change (Global warming) I need to have a better understanding of what they mean by 30 times more likely.”
1/ Watch this video animation of the distribution of land temperature anomalies 1963 to 2023 (1951-1980 climatology).
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a005200/a005211/2023_GISTEMP_Dist_C.mp4
2/ You can see how the distribution shifts to the right over time while at the same time increasing its standard deviation.
3/ Pay close attention to the broadening of the tails which represent the increasing probability of occurrence of extreme events p.
4/ Odds = p/(1-p)
Yes Ark, that indicates we’ve been in a natural warming trend since the 1970s, just as UAH has shown.
NASA got something right!
Puffman, please stop ignoring that the secular trend is negative.
Yes Willard, the article you posted provided a good teaching moment since Norman’s question is a common one.
The statistical workflow is very intuitive.
A,
“The statistical workflow is very intuitive.” and completely useless. The past does not predict the future.
Even sillier, is the idea that climate controls weather, in some magical fashion. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, and controls precisely nothing.
I suppose you are another fanatical GHE cultist who refuses to describe the GHE? Feel free to prove me wrong by describing the mythical GHE.
Only joking, nobody can describe the mythical GHE. Sounds like a triumph of faith, doesn’t it? Certainly nothing to do with science.
Mike Flynn, please stop posting useless comments.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop doubling down the doubling down.
“Mike Flynn, please stop doubling down the doubling down.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Any fool can pretend to predict the future, and many do.
Thermometers respond to heat – man-made or otherwise.
You wouldnt be one of those fools who believe they can predict the future by cunningly dissecting the past, would you? Of course you would, because you are a fanatical GHE cultist! Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Arkady Ivanovich
I have seen the linked graph often and I do understand what it suggests. My question is about the meaning of the term “30 times more likely”. What does this actually mean for the area of concern?
Does it suggest that if an event had a 1 in 100 year occurrence that being 30 times more likely it would now take place around every 3.3 years or maybe 3 times a decade?
If so is there evidence of this?
Also my complaint about attribution studies it does hindsight application. That is about useless. If the models and climate understanding are to the point they can determine the likelihood of some severe weather extreme being caused by Global Warming then the same models should be able to predict future extremes like Heat Waves, Droughts and extreme floods. This would be a useful application as people living in the areas could take measures to minimize the negative effects.
Like with current weather models they can save countless lives by understanding the atmospheric conditions are of such nature that tornadoes are very likely to form and then they give regions where the formation is most likely. It allows people living in those areas to prepare for severe weather.
> If the models and climate understanding are to the point they can determine the likelihood of some severe weather extreme being caused by Global Warming then the same models should be able to predict future extremes like Heat Waves, Droughts and extreme floods.
Norman, please stop acting like you never saw a Backgammon match in your life.
Norman,
1/
“I have seen the linked graph often and I do understand what it suggests. My question is about the meaning of the term “30 times more likely”. What does this actually mean for the area of concern?”
Look instead at this schematic of the distribution of land temperature anomalies to help illustrate my point: https://ibb.co/hMmBYcM
The area under the distribution that represents extreme events increases as the whole distribution shifts to the right, just as you saw in the NASA video.
So, if for example the old probability was 0.001 (0.1%), the 30x probability is 0.03 (3%).
In your parlance, if and event occurred once in 100 years in the past climate, in the new climate regime there would be 30 occurrences in 100 years.
If the climate regime were not shifting to warmer temperatures, we would expect the probability of extreme events to decrease at the rate of 1/n where n is the number of years in the dataset.
2/
“Also my complaint about attribution studies it does hindsight application. That is about useless.”
I paraphrase Knutson & Tuleya:
Weather models and Climate models are vastly different. While both types of models use similar fundamental principles of atmospheric science, they are tailored to address different questions and operate on different temporal and spatial scales.
The difference is like picking your clothes for the weather and building your home for the climate. Both decisions are crucial for comfort and survival, but made differently.
Arkady Ivanovich
Thanks for the information. However, if the Heatwave in Pakistan was 30 times more likely because of Climate Change we should have seen 3 of them this last decade. Has that happened to confirm the study?
Also the attribution studies are not about a shifting Climate (like earlier spring or later frosts). They are about severe weather so should be able to find out where and when some extreme event will occur in the future (larger base than a tornado) like a large region heat wave or drought. These cover large areas and if the models are as good as claimed they should now be able to determine what areas of the globe will have the heatwaves and droughts related to a warming Earth.
“we should have seen 3 of them this last decade.”
Why? Climate is by definition a long term average, no?
The reason that the NASA distribution plot fluctuates back and forth is due to natural variability on top of a secular warming trend. In the long run the distribution shifts to the right.
“attribution studies are not about a shifting Climate”
World Weather Attribution
“if the models are as good as claimed they should now be able to determine what areas of the globe will have the heatwaves and droughts related to a warming Earth”
Depending on what part of the world you reside in, but usually the canary in the coal mine is the insurance companies first raising the price of insuring infrastructure, and then finally just departing all together.
Put your money where your mouth is, i.e. you talk the talk, now walk the walk.
> Climate is by definition a long term average, no?
It’s actually worse that that. If an event that is likelier now should have happened as often in the past, then these past events must also have been likelier before that. And so on and so forth until the beginnings of time.
If a string of moves makes defeat 30 times likelier now, that ought not mean that defeat was 30 times likelier at the beginning of the game!
The future is unknowable – it hasnt happened yet. The IPCC states that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Deniers and contrarians believe that they can predict the future by dissecting the past.
Fools or frauds, each and every one.
They refuse to describe the GHE, being averse to the sneering laughter which will inevitably ensue.
Mike Flynn, please stop forgetting that it’s easy to predict that you’re gonna appeal to predictions in a near future, in fact it has already been done.
The future is unknowable it hasnt happened yet. The IPCC states that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Deniers and contrarians believe that they can predict the future by dissecting the past.
Fools or frauds, each and every one.
They refuse to describe the GHE, being averse to the sneering laughter which will inevitably ensue. Care to try? Any advance on your previous laughable description – “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Mike Flynn, please stop conceding the point so fast!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The blue line has been flat for the last year:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
The blue of cycle 24 {Max} was never very flat, but was sort of flat
for about 3 year, if include the higher second peak as part sort of flat.
To get something more flat, you have go back to cycle 20, about 3.5 years of much more flat than cycle 24 {and around 150 sunspot smoothed average], whereas cycle 24 was about 100. And in 25 it’s year of near 125 sunspot.
The strength of cycle 25 max is related to duration [years] and smoothed monthly. Or 24 was much weaker than 20. And in the last year
25 max was higher. But if somehow 25 continue it’s very flat trend for just another year, it will have shorter duration of flat.
The redline [prediction of 25] is about 2.5 + years of over 100.
Or terms of over 110, Oct 2024 110.3 to April 2026 or about 1.5 years
peaking at July 2025 at 115.3.
So NOAA prediction, but NOAA has experimental later prediction.
Which is the current year of flat but goes up to about 150 for another year. Or it’s about 2.5 year somewhat close to flat averages around 140 if you include the year which passed of about 125.
Or weaker than cycle 20 {a weak cycle in the 20th century solar grand maximum] but significantly stronger the cycle 24.
https://testbed.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression-updated-prediction-experimental
norman…”Molecules can develop permanent dipoles (contribution of both positive charge of nucleus and negative charge of electrons). Plus and Minus charged ends. When these vibrate above ground state they will create electro-magnetic disturbance that will be an emitted IR photon and then the vibrational state will return to a ground state that does not emit”.
***
Norman, you are an absolute twit. The fact that you think the protons in the nucleus are related to the bond that bind atoms into molecules reveals a base ignorance of chemistry.
Bonds, hence the electron orbitals which form them, are related only to outer-shell electrons in the valence band of atoms. Dipoles are electron bonds!!! The bonds become dipoles when the electronegativity of one atom is greater than another atom hence causes the electrons in the bonds to favour the side with the greater electronegativity.
CO2…
O=====C=====O
-….+.+….-
There’s your dipole, one on each side of the carbon atom. The O-side is more electronegative therefore the electrons gather more to that side and cause the electron bond to be more -ve on the O-side.
All of this is accomplished by outer-shell electrons in the valence band. The nucleus is nowhere near this action, in a relative sense.
When those bonds on either side of the C-atom change length, either symmetrically or non-symetrically, EM is emitted or absorbed. That means the electrons forming the bonds, being in their own orbitals, absorb and emit EM.
That does not explain why CO2 absorbs IR. That has more to do with the energy levels available to the electrons in the bonding orbitals. The frequency/wavelength emitted/absorbed, is dependent on the potential difference between the orbitals.
Does oxygen form tetrahedral bonds? If so, what happens to the other 4 electrons? Asking for a friend.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Those who were paying attention in high school Chemistry class would know that the covalent bonds of the 2 oxygen atoms in CO2 are oriented perpendicular to each other. Later in college, you would have learned that this configuration increases the degrees of freedom of the molecule. That increases its specific heat and the number of possible peaks in its emission spectrum.
Tim S,
And of course, CO2 cannot emit photons at higher energies than those which its electrons interacted with.
Were you trying to say something relevant, or just confirming that you were trying to make someone look stupid with your previous comment?
For example, what emission peaks distinguish CO2 from any other gas at 10 K? 300 K?
Do you actually understand what you are talking about?
Gordon Robertson
I did not state that the positive charged nucleus was involved in bonding. I stated it is the positive charge that creates the dipole that allows an electromagnetic field that changes with a molecular vibration that allows IR to be emitted and absorbed at the frequency of the molecular vibration. The correct frequency IR will increase the amplitude of the vibration and an emission of IR will reduce the vibrational amplitude.
Gordon, it is unlikely you will be able to comprehend molecular vibrations and how they are the major contributor of most IR photons emitted or absorbed.
It really does not matter how wrong your beliefs are. You are not working in the field of Chemistry or teaching your false beliefs. You are free to believe what you want. It is sad you choose to post your ignorance on this blog for others to witness. It is sad you can’t read and find flaws in your very limited view of atoms, molecules and EMR.
It does not appear any links I provide can possibly steer you mind to the correct science.
This might help
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole
Note the part about CO2 and its dipole, or lack thereof.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Klint Klown…” In a climate discussion, infrared is associated with molecules not electron transitions.
For emphasis, since your brain doesnt work not electron transitions”.
***
Klint Klown is good at spewing venom but when he is asked simple scientific questions, he cannot reply. His new buddy, Norman, suffers from the same problem.
I have asked several times what else there is in a molecule that can absorb and emit radiation? A molecule is made up of electrons, protons, and usually neutrons. The protons and neutrons are bound in the nucleus and surrounded by one or more orbiting electrons. At least, that is the model offered in chemistry.
When two atoms are bonded to produce a molecule, the molecule is nothing more than two or more nucleii, with associated inner-shell electrons, plus the electrons in the outer orbit that bond the nucleii together to form a molecule. All of these electrons are capable of transitions and they are the only apparent particles that can absorb and emit EM.
For the thirteenth time, will Klint Klown please explain what magical phenomenon in a molecule can emit and absorb EM besides the electron?
EM is comprised of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and it has a frequency. The electron has an electric field that can produce a magnetic field and it has a frequency.
Duh!!! Do you think a child in kindergarten might be able to get it that electrons, and only electrons, produce EM in an atom or in a molecule?
Klint Klown also brays that heat is not a form of energy but is merely a transport mechanism for energy. When I ask Mr. Klown to explain what energy heat is transporting, he refuses to answer. It’s blatantly obvious that heat is being transported but such an admission would claim that heat is then the transport of heat.
I doubt that Mr. Klown is so stoopid as to claim that.
gordon, you should have learned by now that insults and false accusations don’t work with me.
But, you can’t learn.
Infrared is associated with molecular vibrations and visible is associated with electron transitions. This is true in over 99.999% of all emissions/absorp.tions. It gets a little blurry around the area where infrared becomes visible. But, that’s a tiny, tiny portion of the spectrum.
You can’t understand infrared, and now bob has teamed up with you to attempt to pervert reality, as usual. But this is one for the comic books!
You’re trying to use the Paschen Series of Hydrogen to somehow “prove” electron transitions produce infrared. What you two don’t understand is the longest wavelength photon from the series is 1.875μ. That photon corresponds to a WDL temperature of 1445K. That’s 2321°F, or 1272°C!!! Such temperatures have NOTHING to do Earth’s climate. You and bob just stumbled upon something you don’t understand, and start flinging it at the wall, showing how little you know about science.
You two are like kids playing with matches….
Here is what you posted Clint, we don’t always confine the topic to climate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1669172
Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund are all in the infrared part of the spectrum.
Who cares if they apply to climate, they don’t.
Still you can’t admit you are wrong.
Braindead bobby,
You wrote –
“Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund are all in the infrared part of the spectrum.”
And you can’t or won’t say why that has any meaning to anybody at all!
You wrote –
“Here is what you posted Clint, we dont always confine the topic to climate. . . .”, and provided a link. Of course, you didnt contradict anything, because you are too stupid and ignorant to do so.
You don’t want to accept that all matter emits infrared, but of course you won’t say so.
You don’t want to accept Einstein’s work which showed that certain minimum energies are required to accomplish electron orbital level change to higher levels, but you won’t say that, either.
Pretending that you are intelligent by refusing to say anything is an interesting approach. Keep it up. The world can do with a bit more humour.
clint…”Infrared is associated with molecular vibrations and visible is associated with electron transitions”.
***
What is vibrating in the molecule? It is electron bonds vibrating. The electron bonds hold atoms together to form a molecule. There is nothing else in a molecule that can vibrate.
What makes electron bonds vibrate? Heat will do it and so will absorbing EM.
It doesn’t matter whether the EM is UV or IR, if the electron bonds absorbs it, it will cause the length of the bond to change and it will vibrate.
The frequency of energy the electron will emit depends on the number of orbital energy levels it drops through.
If you follow this explanation through it will explain it to you.
https://www.vaia.com/en-us/textbooks/physics/modern-physics-2nd-edition/quantum-mechanics-in-three-dimensions-and-the-hydrogen-atom/q84ce-classically-it-was-expected-that-an-orbiting-electron-/
Swenson,
“And you cant or wont say why that has any meaning to anybody at all!”
If you google Phund, Brackett, or Paschen, you might understand.
gordon now wants to play with the definition of “vibrating”, I guess.
None of what he blabbed changes the fact that Infrared is emitted from vibrating molecules.
“What is vibrating in the molecule? It is electron bonds vibrating. The electron bonds hold atoms together to form a molecule. There is nothing else in a molecule that can vibrate.”
Well, except for whole atoms. The O and C get closer or farther apart. Hence the whole O atom, including its nucleus, moved closer to or farther from the C atom during vibration.
Braindead bobby,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
“And you can’t or won’t say why that has any meaning to anybody at all!”
If you google Phund, Brackett, or Paschen, you might understand.”
You refuse to say anything at all that indicates you might understand what you are linking to.
That’s why people think you are an idiot – you just keep linking to stuff which you obviously don’t understand.
Next thing, you’ll be refusing to describe the GHE – claiming somebody else has!
You are a fanatical GHE cultist, and a foolish one at that!
Carry on.
Swenson,
I’ll use small words and write slowly so you can understand.
My point was that Hydrogen has electronic transitions, ie, it absorbs and emits light, in the infrared.
Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund are the scientists who made those discoveries, and the series are named for them.
And are you smart enough to see that I only posted a link to Clint’s comments.
I don’t think so.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
swenson…”Gordon,
The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency.
You wrote In order for EM to affect the electron, the frequency of the EM must match the electrons frequency exactly.
Well no, it doesnt. For example, an object at 1 K can be heated by exposure to an object at 2 K, emitting photons with extremely low energy. At that temperature, hydrogen is frozen but still absorbs and emits photons”.
***
From past discussions and your comment above, I think we are on the same page but viewing it a bit differently.
In your example above, the 2K photon has a frequency that can be absorbed by the 1K object. The 1K object will likely only absorb at one frequency, however. Look at any spectral diagram for any element and you will see this is true for all elements.
Mind you, atoms have electrons in various orbitals and the frequency required to excite an electron in a particular orbital depends on the angular frequency of the electron in that orbital.
Consider the following…
https://tinyurl.com/2th3d4yf
“Recall that the electrons must occupy one of the energy levels. To cause a transition between the levels requires an amount of energy exactly equal to the energy difference between the two levels. This has a profound effect on the absorp.tion and emission spectra of an element. Because the atom can only absorb specific amounts of energy, only certain wavelengths of light will be absorbed”.
***
The formula is E = hf
E can be written Eh – El, where h = higher orbital energy level and l = lower orbital energy level.
Remember, E is also the energy possessed by the electron in each orbital. It is measured in electron-volts and represents the potential energy of each orbital.
Suppose an atom in one orbital level has 7 different possible energy levels it can occupy. To excite it from ground state = 1 to the highest energy level =7, an energy intensity in the UV range or higher may be required. It has the frequency, f, that when multiplied by h, gives the highest energy intensity. Therefore Eh – El will be produced by such a frequency being absorbed.
Remember, as frequency increases (wavelength gets lower), the photon intensity increases.
The electron apparently does not hang out for long at the higher level, and must drop back. However, it is not required to drop right back to ground state directly. It might only drop back 2 levels we will call E7 and E5
Now you have E7 – E5 = hf where E7 – E5 is much lower in intensity than E7 – E1, therefore the frequency emitted will be much lower. In fact, for such a jump in hydrogen, IR is emitted.
Gordon,
You wrote –
“The 1K object will likely only absorb at one frequency, however.”
No. The 1 K object (no matter what matter it consists of) will absorb energy of any frequency which is emitted by an object which is hotter. 1.0000001 K, 100000000 K, it makes no difference. Eventually, the cooler will warm, the hotter will cool, and both will be at exactly the same temperature. Regardless of emissivity, absorptivity, shiny, dull, gas or liquid.
A photon can be of any energy whatever, and its energy is proportional to its wavelength – which can be anything at all, putting it simply.
Now a hydrogen electron will require 10.6 ev to move to a higher orbital, from a base level. However, any photon at or above this energy will do the job. The remaining energy is just scattered, and may be converted to kinetic energy, resulting in the atom having a higher velocity. This is perceived as heating of the gas. The excited electron will quickly fall back to its previous orbital, emitting a photon with maximum energy of 10.6 ev, which will then be scattered.
An example of the process will be seen in exciting rarefied neon gas – when the high voltage required to excite the electrons is turned off, the gas stops glowing. The absorption/emission process is not self sustaining, as energy is lost for various reasons.
Still no GHE. CO2 can absorb and emit IR of any frequency, under the right circumstances. For example, compress CO2 to 1000 C, and it will emit photons of exactly the same frequencies as O2 heated to the same temperature!
It depends on what is frozen at 1K. You need to specify which element/material is frozen.
Atomic structure does not suddenly change at 1K. I agree that the photons should still be transferred but that is the danger in presuming a photon is a separate entity.
It’s not, it’s a bundle (quantum) of energy radiated by an electron when the electron jumps to a lower orbit. The electron must be part of an atom, so you need to specify what atom is at 1K.
Make sense?
The photon frequency came from an electron jumping over a certain energy level as in E = hf. Each element has particular orbitals at particular frequencies. So, if an atom at 2k releases a photon of a certain frequency, in order to be absorbed, the receiving electron’s angular frequency must match the photon frequency.
On the other hand, if the radiation has a broad spectrum, say from sunlight, there’s a decent chance that the correct frequency will be in it. But that involves bazillions of photons with different and unique frequencies. So, talking about individual photons is pretty useless.
I am trying to convey that an individual photon of frequency x is unlikely to match with the electron frequency of a random atom’s electron angular frequency.
There is a danger in what we are discussing. The actual situation is so complex that it is folly to make presumptions about what will happen. I admit to being a rank amateur at this which puts me light years ahead of Clint and Norman.
☺ ☺ ☺
If you read about this on the Net you will find many people who are good with equations but short on the reality. Bohr tried to put it in a model that can be visualized and that model is still used in many chemistry courses. Whether it is accurate or not is another question.
However, the alternative is bleak. Quantum theory and Schrodinger’s wave equation, which models the energy level of electrons, is absolutely useless for visualization. That allows dweebs to make rash claims because no one can verify them.
There has to be a physical reality and I doubt if anyone has even gotten close. The planetary model has many holes in it and the basic theory of electron orbitals is far too cute. However, the wave equation theory has just as many holes.
When I debate electron theory I am not resenting myself as an authority, just as a dumb Scotsman who likes a good argument.
Mr. Asshat, please stop resenting yourself.
Tim, don’t be dim.
“In fact, hydrogen in the ground state can absorb a whole series of frequencies (aka the Lyman Series).”
You can play as many semantic games as you like. However, any atom at all can interact with any photon more energetic than those the atom’s electrons are emitting.
An electron may absorb part of a photons momentum, convert that to vibrational, rotational, or kinetic energy, and scatter the rest. Or it may not.
As I said, hydrogen at 1K will interact with photons emitted by anything at all at a higher temperature. The result is that both objects will reach thermal equilibrium with each other.
You have precisely no clue about any of this, and obviously don’t understand the stuff you find on the internet. Many university lecturers, and some textbook writers are similarly confused.
I would not be surprised if the following quote was true “Few modern physics departments have researchers working to understand the foundations of quantum theory. On the contrary, students who demonstrate an interest in the topic are gently but firmly maybe not so gently steered away, sometimes with an admonishment to “Shut up and calculate!” Professors who become interested might see their grant money drying up, as their colleagues bemoan that they have lost interest in serious work.”
You refuse to describe the GHE, but pretend to be wise and knowledgeable. That’s the hallmark of a fanatical GHE cultist.
Mike Flynn, please stop stumbling in the threads.
“Mike Flynn, please stop stumbling in the threads.”
Oh no, the ThreadMaster believes his opinion counts for something! Wrong.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop acting like an alpha right after apologizing.
“Mike Flynn, please stop acting like an alpha right after apologizing.”
Your fantasy is consuming you. Loser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
No need to show your teeth, Mike.
Still refusing to describe the GHE?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“So, if an atom at 2k releases a photon of a certain frequency, in order to be absorbed, the receiving electrons angular frequency must match the photon frequency”
No, it doesn’t, actually.
Start off at 0 K – with hydrogen, gold, or rat turd. At 0 K, none are emitting any photons at all – by definition. All will increase in temperature when exposed to radiation from any source.
Say hydrogen, gold, or rat turds at 1 K.
If you disagree, you might find yourself saying that an object at absolute zero must stay at 0 K, when exposed to an object at 1 K, regardless of whether it is hydrogen, gold, or rat turd.
Would you agree so far?
“in order to be absorbed, the receiving electrons angular frequency must match the photon frequency”
An electron in the ground state of a hydrogen atom has some single, specific angular frequency. If it could only absorb a photon with a matching frequency, then it could only absorb one frequency of photon.
In fact, hydrogen in the ground state can absorb a whole series of frequencies (aka the Lyman Series).
Time to revise your theory, since it doesn’t match experiment.
Glad to see Folkerts join in the effort to claim electron transitions emit infrared. I’m not sure how such nonsense helps the cult. It’s likely just more desperation. Folkerts can’t understand that ice cubes cannot boil water, so he’s joined gordon and bob to play with the definitions of “vibrating” and “infrared”. But, I’m just guessing — who knows what nonsense goes on in cult heads….
Puffman, please stop blabbing while having little to say.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“…to join in the effort to claim electron transitions emit infrared.”
I didn’t say anything about that here.
“… cant understand that ice cubes cannot boil water”
I didn’t say anything here about ice cubes. (And I have repeatedly explained I believe the opposite — the radiation from ice cannot by itself raise any surface to a temperature about 0 C.)
“… play with the definitions of vibrating and infrared.”
Nope. I didn’t mention either of those terms.
It’s pretty clear you don’t even read before commenting. If you want to reply to what I ACTUALLY write, feel free. The topic is what sort of photons can be absorbed by what sort of atoms.
Sorry, posted in wrong place before. My bad.
Tim, dont be dim.
“In fact, hydroge” in the ground state can absorb a whole series of frequencies (aka the Lyman Series).
You can play as many semantic games as you like. However, any atom at all can interact with any photon more energetic than those the atoms electrons are emitting.
An electron may absorb part of a photons momentum, convert that to vibrational, rotational, or kinetic energy, and scatter the rest. Or it may not.
As I said, hydrogen at 1K will interact with photons emitted by anything at all at a higher temperature. The result is that both objects will reach thermal equilibrium with each other.
You have precisely no clue about any of this, and obviously dont understand the stuff you find on the internet. Many university lecturers, and some textbook writers are similarly confused.
I would not be surprised if the following quote was true “Few modern physics departments have researchers working to understand the foundations of quantum theory. On the contrary, students who demonstrate an interest in the topic are gently but firmly maybe not so gently steered away, sometimes with an admonishment to “Shut up and calculate!” Professors who become interested might see their grant money drying up, as their colleagues bemoan that they have lost interest in serious work.”
You refuse to describe the GHE, but pretend to be wise and knowledgeable. Thats the hallmark of a fanatical GHE cultist.
Sorry Folkerts, but you don’t reply to things that expose your ineptitude.
For example, where is your valid support that fluxes simply add, as in your example — 315 + 315 = 630?
Also, you need to provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Now, run and hide under the bed.
Puffman, please stop failing to expose anything.
“An electron may absorb part of a photons momentum, convert that to vibrational, rotational, or kinetic energy, and scatter the rest. Or it may not.”
Momentum? A vector with a direction. Converted to rotation? Vibration?
Bwa ha ha!
Clearly YOU, Swenson, have precisely no clue about any of this, and obviously dont understand the stuff you find on the internet.
Nate,
A photon has no rest mass. However, it does possess momentum.
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, states that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a photon at the same time.
You don’t know this? Stupid or just ignorant and gullible?
Carry on.
Swenson,
“Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle, states that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a photon at the same time.”
Well, no, that’s not accurate!
See what I did there?
“Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle”
Are these the magic words to say when caught saying nonsense?
They didn’t work.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“For example, where is your valid support that fluxes simply add, as in your example 315 + 315 = 630?”
Shine 315 W/m^2 of sunlight onto a surface. Shine another 315 W/m^2 of sunlight onto the surface. The total flux onto the surface is 630 W/m^2 onto the surface.
It doesn’t get much simpler or more valid than that.
CBS News reported back on March 27 about the historic warmth experienced in Minnesota this past winter season:
“𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝-𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝. 𝐎𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞, 𝐰𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡,” 𝐁𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝. “𝐄𝐥 𝐍𝐢𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞. 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞, 𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐦 𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬. 𝐖𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫.”
What does this past winter in Minnesota looks like, when put in historical (somewhat) context?
Here are two plots. The first shows daily afternoon temperatures, and the second shows daily nighttime temperatures, both for meteorological winter. This data, spanning 20 years, comes from what NOAA heralds as the most accurate surface temperature measurements.
The blue arrow points to the start of ’23-’24 meteorological winter season.
1)https://i.postimg.cc/Kv8FRCBb/Screen-Shot-2024-05-25-at-5-15-05-PM.png
2)https://i.postimg.cc/K8dypzVc/Screen-Shot-2024-05-25-at-5-14-18-PM.png
𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬:
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/warmest-winter-minnesota-weather-record-hottest-climate-change/
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/month-summary?station_id=1039&date=2024-05
1)https://imgur.com/rbQvy2M
2)https://imgur.com/jve0Acx
walter…they are always on about historic warming, never historic cooling taking place in locales at the same time. We came close to setting some local lows last winter and some places did.
This season was mild for us, but the previous season was cold with record-breaking snow.
I did this out of curiosity. This data doesn’t really represent reality because it’s based on hourly averages. However, if there’s no warming here, it is significant, as no accurate data exists in any other country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3TKz6ZrAq0
Interviewing the Man Behind SpaceX Rocket Engines
Also catch stuff on Neuralink:
https://www.youtube.com/@ellieinspace
Funny he was a logger, loggers are crazy.
So, next test Starship launch going to be in about week, and focus seems to be on keeping it simple- recover of the stages.
Unlikely to be successful on either, but should learn how to do it.
The hardest is upper stage, but recovering the second stage in the beginning, isn’t as important as recovery of first stage. And Musk wants recover them, fast. And launch them again, fast.
And then, got to refuel in orbit.
Refueling in orbit, is very important. Space cadets have been talking orbital refilling, forever. NASA plan was spent +10 billion dollars to do it, and never got funding to try to do it.
Reagan wanted ISS to refuel rockets.
But in terms of Mars, I think we need ocean rocket launches {which will lead to ocean settlements, imo}. Of course a near term focus of Starship, is lunar exploration- which does not need ocean rocket launches.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
There is a paradox at the heart of our changing climate. While the blanket of air close to the Earths surface is warming, most of the atmosphere above is becoming dramatically colder. The same gases that are warming the bottom few miles of air are cooling the much greater expanses above that stretch to the edge of space.
This paradox has long been predicted by climate modelers, but only recently quantified in detail by satellite sensors. The new findings are providing a definitive confirmation on one important issue, but at the same time raising other questions.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate-change-upper-atmosphere-cooling
Emphasis on the bit cranks seem to be missing.
Willard,
Complete nonsense. No paradox – Ben Santer is a fantasist, not a scientist.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop giving me free wins with your pure denial and your gaslighting.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good morning, Mike.
What can I serve you today?
“What can I serve you today?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Quite right, Mike. *Hands over a bottle.*
Is the new job treating you well?
Still refusing to describe the GHE?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Let’s hope you’ll be able to keep this one.
*Takes the empty bottle.*
Another beer?
Climate modelers??!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
Gordon,
Are they really predicting paradoxes now? Next thing you know, they’ll be predicting tomorrow!
Oh dear, loonier and loonier.
Mr. Asshat, Mike Flynn, please stop lulzing like nobody’s watching.
“Mr. Asshat, Mike Flynn, please stop lulzing like nobodys watching.”
Your comments grow ever more bizarre.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Another coffee, Mike Flynn?
No, no booze in it before noon.
“Another coffee, Mike Flynn?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Two creams and two sugars as usual because you’re still a kid who likes candy, Mike?
“Two creams and two sugars as usual because youre still a kid who likes candy, Mike?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Perfect, Mike.
Coming right up!
“Coming right up!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here you go.
So, Mike, slow summer for O&G?
“So, Mike, slow summer for O&G?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey Mike, we’re past noon – would you start with a beer?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Coming right up, Mike!
“Coming right up, Mike!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
*Silently drops a beer in front of a taciturn client.*
Still refusing to describe the GHE?
Willard, please stop trolling.
When you start mumbling, Mike, you know it means you need to pay your tab.
This “paradox” is just another version of the back radiation of cooler air warming the warmer ground below nonsense.
It is becoming increasingly undeniable that CO2 has cooling properties so the climate shysters are inventing new bizarro fizzix of cooling above but warming below. This is their new Hockey Shtick
Eboy, please keep to your sandbox:
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/stratospheric-cooling-vertical-fingerprinting
Year 1967 is only “new” on a geological time scale.
Willard,
You are a strange gullible dreamer, arent you?
More Ben Santer fantasies.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop compromising Eboy’s sandboxes.
Willard,
You are a strange ignorant and gullible dreamer, aren’t you?
More Ben Santer fantasies.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey, Mike. You’re in my thread. Copypasting your comments. And abusing PSTering conventions.
Perhaps you need something stronger than coffee? It’s almost noon where you are.
Willard,
You are a strange ignorant and gullible dreamer, arent you?
More Ben Santer fantasies.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop fantasizing about anyone’s dream of curing you from your sociopathy.
Willard,
You are a strange ignorant and gullible dreamer, arent you?
More Ben Santer loser fantasies.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop making Eboy sadz.
You really are a juvenile loser, aren’t you?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop making your defeat so prosaic.
Why not a shot with that beer?
“Why not a shot with that beer?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Right on, Mike.
Here is your chaser.
Still refusing to describe the GHE?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Let’s wait before that other shot, Mike.
We both know what happens when you get too enthusiastic with the strong stuff.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
NASA Funded This Crazy Project To Search For Life On Mars
https://tinyurl.com/2bcdx7pj
oh, the d thing.
Anyways, I deleted my comment, then I realized the problem was in the URL.
Anyhow was 1/2 way thru it, then listened to more of it, and got into using impactor probes, more crazy, stuff, use thousands of them and also go into Jupiter moons, to find life.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Mexico City has long struggled to bring water to its millions of residents, but three consecutive years of low rainfall and high temperatures have created a serious emergency.
The Cutzamala water system a series of treatment plants, reservoirs, and canals that provide water to tens of millions of people is running dry.
Conditions are so bad that the North American Drought Monitor classified the federal district containing Mexico City as “severe” on April 30. Locals expect “Day Zero” could come as soon as June 26, according to Mexico Business News.
While local politicians downplayed the water crisis for months, several neighborhoods have already seen their water run out, CNN reported.
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/mexico-city-could-run-water-205814362.html
Perhaps they ought to do like Puffman suggests – let them drink margaritas!
Mexico in a despotic state run by corrupt officials and beleaguered by terrorist drug dealers. Despots are not known for their intelligence and/or compassion. As long as they have drinking water they won’t be worried about the hoi polloi.
Nothing to do with global warming or climate change.
Mr. Asshat, please stop bathing in pathos.
You’d fit right in in the Mexican government, corrupt as you are.
Mr. Asshat, please stop casting aspersions empty handed.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop casting aspersions empty handed.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop PSTering in my threads.
“Mike Flynn, please stop PSTering in my threads.”
I post as I wish, and there is nothing you can do about – except continually whine. You’re a loser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop manifesting the rage epidemic.
“Mike Flynn, please stop manifesting the rage epidemic.”
I post what I wish, and there is nothing you can do about except continually whine. Youre a loser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop the reactive abuse.
“Mike Flynn, please stop the reactive abuse.”
Feeling abused, are you? When you get sick of that, you could try feeling upset, offended, annoyed . . .
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop indulging in daydreams of omnipotent powers.
Another beer?
“Another beer?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
What are you mumbling to yourself, Mike?
*Takes the empty bottle.*
Here, have another one.
“Here, have another one.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Already going home, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tim f…in order to be absorbed, the receiving electrons angular frequency must match the photon frequency
An electron in the ground state of a hydrogen atom has some single, specific angular frequency. If it could only absorb a photon with a matching frequency, then it could only absorb one frequency of photon.
In fact, hydrogen in the ground state can absorb a whole series of frequencies (aka the Lyman Series).
***
That’s a good point, Tim, and I did try to address that in another post. I asked whether harmonics of that frequency could affect the electron as well.
Like I said, I don’t pretend to be an expert, just an interested student of science.
For example, if the electron could be excited by 1000 hz, could 2000hz, 4000 hz, etc. affect it? Of course, with normal harmonic, the amplitude decreases as the frequency is doubled.
The point is, something in the electron orbital only responds to certain frequencies. Having worked in electronics for a long time, that makes sense to me intuitively. There are other situation with electrons where resonance plays a part, and resonance is a phenomenon that is not easily understood.
However, you mentioned the Lyman series which represents the various frequencies of EM emitted as an electron falls through different energy levels. More specifically, the electron must fall from n >/= 2 to n =1. The energy difference generates EM in the UV frequency band.
The different Hydrogen series don’t tell you what the initial frequency was that raised the electron from the ground state but I am sure it was UV as well.
Now consider the Paschen series for hydrogen where the electron falls from n > 3 to n = 3. To absorb infrared, it suggests the electron must already be in orbital level n = 3 or greater.
http://astro.vaporia.com/start/paschenseries.html
“The Paschen series is the set of emission lines from atomic hydrogen gas, due to electrons descending from an electron shell of number n greater than 3 down to that of n = 3, or the analogous absor.p.tion lines when absorbed electromagnetic radiation (EMR) makes electrons do the opposite. It is one of the hydrogen line series, such as the Lyman series and Balmer series and is named after Friedrich Paschen. The lines are within near infrared and some are within atmospheric windows, so given no redshift, some of the lines in astronomical sources may be viewed from ground telescopes while others are blocked”.
So, hydrogen can emit and absorb infrared. I don’t see why any atom, or molecule can’t do the same, providing the circumstances are right.
As an after-thought, if all the frequencies in the Lyman series are generated by electrons dropping over various orbital levels, it stands to reason that different discrete UV frequencies are required to excite the electrons from n = 2 to various energy levels above that level.
The question unanswered for me is why electrons are hanging around at levels above the ground state. My understanding is that electrons only remain excited briefly before descending to ground state.
Then again, if atoms were heated externally, the electrons may have risen to others levels as a pseudo-ground state. For example, atoms excited by heat could have electrons residing at level n = 2 or above. If the hydrogen atoms have electrons residing at level n = 3 or higher, they can be excited by IR frequencies.
“The question unanswered for me is why electrons are hanging around at levels above the ground state”
You’re right. They don’t. Decay time after excitation is up to a few nanoseconds.
The minimum energy to excite a hydrogen atom is 10.2 ev, which is in the UV portion of the spectrum.
As Einstein showed, it doesn’t matter how much energy you have, unless the wavelengths are short enough, no raising of electrons to higher orbitals, nor actually ejecting electrons from the atoms!
Press releases such as –
“Innovative research from a UNSW team shows Earths radiant infrared heat can be used to generate electricity, even after the sun has set.” are completely misleading – “radiant infrared heat” is the sort of gibberish jargon favoured by fanatical GHE cultists.
CO2 can interact with photons of any frequency. The usual result is that the CO2 warms when exposed to radiation from a warmer body. And then radiates photons, almost always of lower frequency than it absorbed. Hence, all this nonsense about CO2 “preventing” ot “blocking” IR from reaching outer space is just that – nonsense!
No wonder the usual crop of idiots cunningly refuse to describe the GHE.
yes…but that theory destroys the Balmer, Lyman, Pfund, and Paschen series. They all rely on electrons starting at orbital levels above ground state and returning to those levels.
I tend to lean toward skepticism when pundits declare that the life of the electron at excited states is short. They don’t explain why an excitd electron should return almost instantly.
In fact, I am skeptical of the entire theory developed by Bohr and expanded upon by Schrodinger. Somehow, I get the feeling electrons don’t behave quite like that.
Please excuse my skepticism, I am a Scotsman whose ancestors are likely Picts.
“They all rely on electrons starting at orbital levels above ground state and returning to those levels.”
Well, yes, after sufficient energy has been absorbed to raise the electrons to an excited level.
Many people ignore that minor hurdle.
Just like people ignore the fact that CO2 can interact with photons of any wavelength at all. Just like all matter in the universe.
Still no GHE. Just a fantasy for the ignorant and gullible.
true. If you keeps changing the temperature of CO2 it will absorb and emit at different frequencies. Same with any atom/molecule from 0K up.
Here you can see the change in radiation frequency of hydrogen from 10 to 20K up to 10^6 K. It emits radio and IR at the lower temperature and x-rays and UV at the higher temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
BTW…the temperature of the interstellar medium, comprised largely of hydrogen gas clouds, is what they base the background temperature of the universe on. That’s the same background upon which the Big Bang is based.
If hydrogen did not emit at those temperatures in the radio and IR bands, we’d never have detected it with radio-telescopes. In fact, I know of no thermometer that measures down to 10K, and first you’d have to get it out there, with someone to read it. I nominate wee willy.
clint…”gordon now wants to play with the definition of vibrating, I guess.
None of what he blabbed changes the fact that Infrared is emitted from vibrating molecules”.
***
Again…what is vibrating in a molecule? We know there are natural vibrations involved between charged particles. For examples, copper atoms bound together in a copper bar will vibrate in a lattice. When you heat the bar, the atomic vibrations increase.
That’s not what goes on in a molecule although there are similarities. In a molecule, you can have the same atom bonded to another atom as in H2, N2, and O2, but generally, a molecule involves the bonding of dissimilar atoms via electron bonds. Sometimes the bonds are ionic, where the electrons are not shared but form dipoles of a sort due to different electron charges on different atoms, as in NaCl (salt).
If you take a molecule lime CO2…
O=====C=====O
there are double electron bonds either side of the carbon atom. It needs to be emphasized that the dashed lines either side of C are double bonds and they are made up of electrons orbiting both atoms.
There is nothing else in that molecule but the carbon nucleus and the oxygen nucleus, comprised of neutron and protons, and the associated electrons. The two electrons in either atom in the inner orbital cannot be shared but the outer-shell electrons can.
A molecule is made up of only neutrons, protons, and electrons, there is nothing else in a molecule that makes it any different than atoms. A molecules properties differ from the individual atoms only in the energy distribution between constituent atoms, and the angles with which the bonds are formed between atoms.
Oxygen has a total of 8 electrons and carbon has 6. That means oxygen can share 6 electrons and carbon 4.In order to form stable molecules oxygen needs 2 electron and carbon 4, the magic number being 8 for stability.
If you look at the diagram above, carbon shares 2 electrons per side with oxygen, which gives each O-atom a total of 8 and each O-atom shares two with C to give it a total of 8.
I am trying to emphasize that the bonds that do the vibrating are in fact electron bonds. There is nothing else in a molecule that could possibly cause such vibrations.
How does an electron bond change its state of vibration? By absorbing or emitting EM to change its bond energy. Either that or by absorbing or releasing heat. Take your pick, there is no other mechanism to emit or absorb IR. Only electrons are affected by heat or EM.
“Again…what is vibrating in a molecule?”
In the specific case of the CO2 molecule, the O atoms are vibrating.
The rest of your comment is just your usual babbling blah-blah.
Klint…try not to be so stoopid. Since when does a vibrating O-atom affect the electrons orbiting both the O and C atoms?
Even if it is vibrating, how does that absorb and emit IR.
Sorry gordon, but I sign off when you start the childishness. You should have learned that by watching how I handle Norman, Nate, bob, ball4, and the other children.
But, you can’t learn.
the childishness began when you decided to turn on a fellow skeptic for no known reason. You seem to have developed a god-complex along the way and that could be a sign of adult onset schizophrenia.
I don’t hold grudges. Anytime you want to get back to normal relations is OK with me.
Mr. Asshat, please stop politicking.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wrong gordon. The childishness began when you went ballistic just because I gave you some constructive criticism. I didn’t say anything that wasn’t true. You DO clog this blog. You DO insult people and make false accusations. You do NOT get much science right. You tend to make things up. You’re NOT a Skeptic, you just like to argue and clog the blog.
Anytime you want to start being responsible for your actions is OK with me.
Puffman, please stop revealing that you did not mind Mr. Asshat clogging up the blog until he insulted you when you hurled crap at him that you now call “criticism.”
Wrong again, silly willy.
But reality is not part of your routine. You’ll learn about reality, as you grow up.
Puffman, please saying I’m wrong when you mean I’m right.
Willard, please stop trolling.
norman…”I stated it is the positive charge that creates the dipole that allows an electromagnetic field that changes with a molecular vibration that allows IR to be emitted and absorbed at the frequency of the molecular vibration. The correct frequency IR will increase the amplitude of the vibration and an emission of IR will reduce the vibrational amplitude”.
***
There is no real positive charge as in a proton, the positive referenced is a relative positive, meaning it is less negative than the other end of the dipole,making it relatively positive wrt to the other end.
In other words, atomic dipole charges are always made up of negative charges with one end having more negative charge than the other. It is explained by Pauling’s electronegativity. The electronegativity of an atom represents it ability to attract electrons. In that capacity, oxygen is more electronegative than carbon and when both are part of a bond, the oxygen end has a greater affinity for electrons than the carbon end. therefore, the electrons in the bond tend to favour the oxygen end of the bond making it more negative than the carbon end. This a dipole is formed.
O=====C=====O
—O +++C+++ —O
It’s the same with water except the H and O atoms have a bond angle of 105 degrees. Still the bonds have a dipole with the H end more positive relatively and the O-end more negative. That dipole enable water molecules to bond in a weak hydrogen bond.
the formatting was lost…
O +++C+++ O
should have been
O—…..+++C+++…..—O
This likely won’t come through either.
I wonder if some space cadet has written some AI into the program to try interpreting what is meant.
Since when, even in the most primitive word processor does three dashes become interpreted as a solid dashed line?
Gordon Robertson
Do you know what an ion is? Do you know that a Sodium atom will lose and electron and become a positive ion. Yes Gordon the nucleus plays a role. You don’t seem to understand that without the positive charge of the nucleus no electrons would form around it!
I think you lack any real Chemistry knowledge and just make up stuff from blogs you have read on the subject. You are lacking in the fundamentals. You still think electrons orbit around the nucleus. So pray tell how do you explain P orbitals?? Modern Chemistry is not a bunch of made up ideas like you do. It is based upon real world observations and trying to figure out what is going on.
You also do not grasp that the positive charge of the nucleus is what causes the electron to gain or lose energy. An energy gradient exists as potential. The farther away and electron is moved from the nucleus, the more potential energy it has (not kinetic as you falsely believe!!, electrons have less kinetic energy when further from the nucleus. They have more potential energy). Without the positive charge there are no photons emitted. The potential energy of attraction is what generates the energy a photon carries away when the potential energy is lost as the electron moves closer to the nucleus.
Clint R does have more knowledge of basic Chemistry than you have. He is correct that the majority of the IR band is a product of molecular vibrations. The dipoles vibrate and create an electromagnetic energy at lower frequencies than visible (which are the product of electron transitions). The electron transitions that produce IR are at the Near end of the band just below red light. The rest of the IR band is mostly energy in molecular vibrations. You can’t understand it and never will.
“You also do not grasp that the positive charge of the nucleus is what causes the electron to gain or lose energy.”
Really? No wonder you steadfastly refuse to describe the GHE.
You really have no clue, do you?
Norman, please stop trolling.
norman…”You still think electrons orbit around the nucleus. So pray tell how do you explain P orbitals??”
***
The only reason I think that is due to the way theory is presented. In reality, I doubt that anyone knows the physical reality. If you are writing an exam in first year chemistry you have to tell them what they want to know.
When I first learned this theory, the first orbital had only two electrons in it. Hydrogen had one and helium had two. The next orbital had up to 8 electrons. If you look at the Periodic Table you can see this. In row one, there is hydrogen with 1 electron and helium with 2. This orbital is called an ‘s’ orbital
For hydrogen it is called 1s1 and helium is called 1s2. That means the s orbital is full for helium
The next orbital has…
Lithium – 3 electrons
Berylium – 4 electrons
Boron – 5 electrons
Carbon – 6 electrons
Nitrogen – 7 electrons
Oxygen – 8 electrons
Fluorine – 9 electrons
Neon – 10 electrons
However,this orbital is sub-divided again,into 2 (s-orbital) and 6 electrons (p-orbitals).
For Lithium, you start over and forget about the s=orbital being associated only with hydrogen and helium. So lithium has its own 1s orbital and it has 2 electrons in it. This is where it gets tricky. With 1s filled the next orbital is divided into its own 2s sub-orbital and it holds 2 electrons. The next sub-orbital is a p-orbital and contains 6 electrons. But lithium does not have enough electrons to reach the p-orbital so it is designated …
1s2 2s1
With Berylium, the 2s orbital gets filled so it becomes…
1s2 2s2
Now we go to Boron…1s2 2s2 1p
So the configuration for the first orbital is 1s1 and 1s2 then its full.
The next orbital has sub-orbitals with 2 in the s-orbital and 6 in the p-orbital.
So we go to carbon…but there is a far better explanation here…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ououF9nHUhk&ab_channel=WayneBreslyn
Note that the first two columns in the periodic table always end in s1 whereas column 2 always end in 2s. To get the p-orbitals we need to jump over to column 13 (3A) where we find Boron, That is the p1 orbital and each column after that is numbered consecutively as p2,p3,p4,p5,p6.
When you reach the 3rd row with Sodium, it becomes the 3s orbital and it becomes 2s1 2s2
So, if we pick oxygen in column 16 (6A) we can see it has…
1s2 2s2 2p6 3s1
Magnesium becomes ….1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2
But it too has sub-orbitals with the first containing only 2 electrons. So, we jump across the table to column 13 and find aluminum, where the p-orbitals become and aluminum is….
1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p1.
At the end of that row is Argon, another inert element and it has config…1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6
For oxygen again, with 8 electrons…
That means its first 1s orbital is full as is its first sub-orbital in orbital 2, the 2s orbital, That accounts for 4 of oxygen’s 8 electrons, so the next 4 go in the p-orbital as 2p4.
In the real old days we learned this as an inner orbital with 2 electrons and the next orbital or shell had 8 electrons. When both shells were full, with a total of 10 electrons, you had Neon, an inert gas. When the 3rd row was full, starting with sodium, you had Argon, another inert gas. All elements in column 18 (8A) are inert because all shells are full and cannot theoretically bond with other atoms because the have no free valence (bonding) electrons.
I did relearn s, p,and d orbitals and in 1styear chemistry I had to draw simple molecules like NH3. That’s where p-orbitals come in because they give you hints in a molecule what shape it has.
It’s not the real shape, it is a probability space for finding an electron around an atom.
gordon, none of that changes the fact that infrared is associated with molecular vibrations.
You’re just clogging the blog with irrelevant stuff you found on the Internet.
nate…”The O and C get closer or farther apart. Hence the whole O atom, including its nucleus, moved closer to or farther from the C atom during vibration”
***
Nate…a good try, but that does not explain the electron orbitals common to both O and C. I have no doubt that a vibration exists between the C and O atoms, and that is especially true in solids.
I think a better explanation is the skrinking and expanding of bonding orbitals, both symmetrically and asymmetrically, as the bonding electrons absorb and emit EM. The bonds actually increase and decrease in energy.
The vibration between atoms is due to the difference in polarity between nucleii with positive charges and the orbiting electron with negative charges. It’s not as pronounced as the change in bond angles. That action is not the same as the skrinking/expansion of bonding orbitals or the bending angles of the same from the axis through the C and 0 atoms.
And we have not discussed rotation. If the CO2 molecule is rotating about the axis through the C and O atoms, that cannot be explained by vibration between the atoms.
I might suggest taking a basic chemistry course before posting anything else on a subject you clearly know nothing about.
Ken, I might suggest you stop trolling.
You are refusing to describe the GHE, like the rest of the fanatical GHE cultists. I suppose?
That lessens your authority to be suggestive a wee bit.
Carry on.
ken…obviously if you knew anything abut chemistry you would have been able to point out any errors in my post. I have found that posters who specialize in ad homs and insults usually do so because they lack the ability to critique objectively.
Mr. Assshat, please stop specializing in ad homs and insults.
Oh, look at the Robertson ignoramus whining about Ken’s perfectly correct language, but cowardly turning it into insults!
He seems to forget that he calls others ‘cheating SОB’, ‘asshole’ etc etc etc.
Perhaps you would like a reference to an undergraduate chemistry textbook?
Kennui, please stop threatening other comments of a good time.
Bindidon, Ken, Willard, please stop trolling.
Nutters who point-blank refuse to even describe the GHE, have no recourse other than to troll, obviously.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying having been served your silly sammich for more than a lifetime.
Weird Wee Willy,
Still refusing to describe the GHE? Talking gibberish might not help you as much as you think.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop denying that you are Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn.
“Please stop denying that you are Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier bumbling bobdroege wrote about something he didn’t understand, wound up talking nonsense, and decided he would try and wriggle out of looking stupid.
“My point was that Hydrogen has electronic transitions, ie, it absorbs and emits light, in the infrared.
Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund are the scientists who made those discoveries, and the series are named for them.”
Unfortunately, because bobdroege is a dimwit, and doesn’t understand what he finds on the internet, his wriggling is more akin to that of a worm on a hook.
To put it simply, the emission spectra of the hydrogen atom do not appear until the atom has been excited by a photon of sufficient energy. The lowest energy necessary for the lowest transition is in excess of that possible for any infrared photon.
No wonder bumbling bobby refuses to describe the GHE – he would wind up looking even more stupid than he does already.
Clueless.
Swenson,
“To put it simply, the emission spectra of the hydrogen atom do not appear until the atom has been excited by a photon of sufficient energy. The lowest energy necessary for the lowest transition is in excess of that possible for any infrared photon.”
Yes, but once excited, Hydrogen does absorb and emit infrared.
Your objection is denied because you don’t know what you are talking about, and I learned this shit before there was an internet.
Did you ever study physics or chemistry other than reading on the internet things you don’t understand?
bob, are you now claiming that hydrogen is “heating the planet”?
Do you understand that where the upper frequency for infrared range ends is arbitrary? You don’t seem to have a clue about this nonsense of hydrogen emitting infrared.
Puffman, please stop drizzling inanity in the threads, and try to make yourself useful, for instance by recalling that Mike Flynn is supposed to be some kind of chemical engineer.
Bumbling bobby, you are an idiot, and wriggling furiously.
You wrote –
“Yes, but once excited, Hydrogen does absorb and emit infrared.”
Hydrogen doesn’t need to be excited to absorb and emit infrared, you fool! You were burbling about emission phenomena such as the Paschen, Brackett, and Pfund series, which relate to excited atoms only.
In the absence of photons sufficiently energetic to cause excitation, you cannot see excitation phenomena.
However, like all matter, hydrogen can absorb and emit infrared photons of any frequency at all.
You agree, you just don’t want to admit it. You refuse to acknowledge that all matter can absorb and emit infrared of any frequency at all.
That would make you a denier and a contrarian, wouldn’t it? Refusing to accept reality?
Carry on.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“recalling that Mike Flynn is supposed to be some kind of chemical engineer.”
Is he really? That comes as a great surprise to Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you wrote:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/18/deforestation-in-the-uk/#comment-711436
“Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you wrote:”
What are you burbling about? You are dreaming. Who will you think I am next?
You have been overdosing on your stupid pills. Or maybe you need a thicker tinfoil hat.
Why do you refuse to describe the GHE? Lack of knowledge? Fear of others sniggering at your ignorance and gullibility?
Carry on, dimwit. You keep me amused.
Mike Flynn, please stop regressing.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
“However, like all matter, hydrogen can absorb and emit infrared photons of any frequency at all.”
Yes, all matter, that is in the solid state, gases emit and absorb differently.
Did you ever study physics or chemistry other than to look up stuff on the internet that you don’t understand.
Clint,
“bob, are you now claiming that hydrogen is heating the planet?”
Of course not.
Well, do Hydrogen atoms emit infrared?
That guy was too intelligent, and had both useful and scientifically accurate information in his posts.
He couldnt possibly be our Swenson.
Bumbling bobby,
All matter emits IR.
if you want to refuse to say why you think that gases emit IR “differently”, I assume it’s because you are an idiot. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Braindead bobby,
You try for a gotcha, writing –
“Well, do Hydrogen atoms emit infrared?”. Don’t you know?
Do bananas emit infrared?
You refuse to describe the GHE, just as you refuse to say why IR emissions from any matter at all at the same wavelength should be viewed differently.
Ah well, bobby, if you refuse to say anything at all, you can’t be criticised, can you?
Everybody will plainly see you are a fanatical GHE cultist fool, trying to appear clever.
Who would value the opinion of a self-proclaimed idiot?
Not me. Others may think differently.
Swenson,
It should be obvious that bananas and gases behave differently, after all you can see a banana but you can not see gaseous CO2.
Is banana your favorite flavor of Maypo?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Monomaniacal Mike said –
You foolishly tried for a gotcha
(Random quote]
Of course. Dont you? Are you stupid and ignorant?
***
That looks like the perfect response for his monomaniacal sammich requests!
Cheers.
Has your tinfoil hat failed you again? Maybe alien mind probes really have affected you!
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Rotational Warming is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON, because what we have discovered is that
for all planets and moons the average surface temperatures, measured by satellites (Tsat)
RELATE, (everything else equals),
as their respective (N*cp) product in SIXTEENTH ROOT.
(Tsat.planet.1) /(Tsat.planet.2) =
= [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ]^ 1/16
Where:
Tsat – Kelvin, is the planet’s average surface temperature
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
**********************
Example: Planet 2 rotates twice as fast as Planet 1.
(N2) = 2*(N1) everything else equals,
(T1) /(T2)= [ (N1) /(N2) ] ^1/16
(T2) = (2^1/16)*(T1) = 1,0443*(T1)
If (T1) = 250K,
(T2) = 1,0443*250K =
= 261K
**************
ALso, we have corrected their respective Blackbody Effective Temperatures (Te),
because we concluded that planets and moons with smooth surface have a STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION.
*****************
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You say some things that are true, and some things that are new. Unfortunately, the two do not intersect.
1./ In optics, a smooth surface is defined as a surface with irregularities or roughness features that are smaller than the wavelength of the incident light.
2./ Only if the surface height variations are significantly less than the wavelength of the incident light, can the surface be considered optically smooth.
3./ For visible light, which has wavelengths in the range of approximately 400 to 700 nanometers, a smooth surface would have irregularities on the order of tens of nanometers or less.
4./ The Earth’s surface has irregularities and roughness features (such as mountains, valleys, buildings, and trees) that are much larger than the wavelength of visible light, and is far too rough to be considered smooth from an optical perspective. Light interacting with it primarily experiences diffuse reflection rather than specular reflection.
5./ The ocean surface, even relatively calm ocean surfaces, have wave heights and surface roughness features much larger than the wavelength of the incident light.
5.a/ Under very calm conditions (minimal wind and waves), certain small areas of the ocean can appear smooth over short periods. These localized smooth patches might reflect light in a somewhat specular manner. However, this is not consistent over large areas or extended periods due to the dynamic nature of the ocean.
Reference: Principles of Optics by Max Born and Emil Wolf
In conclusion, the Earth is neither smooth, nor has strong specular reflection.
Thank you, Arkady, for your response.
–
Please, Arkady, I have explained about what it is, in my site.
Please visit,
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This couldn’t be any clearer:
For visible light, which has wavelengths in the range of approximately 400 to 700 nanometers, a smooth surface would have irregularities on the order of tens of nanometers or less.
Thank you, Arkady,for your response.
–
Now, please, read what I am saying:
planets and moons with smooth surface have a STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION.
*****************
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Read what I’m saying:
The Earth’s surface has irregularities and roughness features (such as mountains, valleys, buildings, and trees) that are much larger than the wavelength of visible light, and is far too rough to be considered smooth from an optical perspective. Light interacting with it primarily experiences diffuse reflection rather than specular reflection.
Christos Vournas,
I’m not trying to debate you on this.
I’m simply highlighting a physical fact that you appear to be ignoring.
Thank you, Arkady, for your response,
“Im simply highlighting a physical fact that you appear to be ignoring.”
Arkady, it is very important, what I am saying about smooth surface planets and moons the strong specular reflection.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas,
Yes, it is very important. That’s the reason I’ve pointed out the physics requirements for specular reflection:
You don’t see many natural surfaces on Earth that are tens of nanometers or less in vertical relief, do you?
Arkady,
“You dont see many natural surfaces on Earth that are tens of nanometers or less in vertical relief, do you?”
–
Every infinitesimal point reflects specularly.
And every infinitesimal point reflects specularly according to its respective infinitesimal orientation to the incident solar flux.
As a result, an observer sees a scattered light, which looks like a diffuse reflection.
Since the incoming solar flux is directional, there always is a stronger scattering of reflected light towards the opposite direction. Thus the reflection of solar light is always a combination of diffuse and specular reflection.
Some planets and moons have surfaces which permit that infinitesimal point reflection to escape the planet surface. Those are the smooth surface planets and moons (Mercury, Earth, Moon, Mars, Europa and Ganymede).
The rest planets and moons have surfaces’ features, which capture that primer infinitesimal point reflection (because, on those surfaces, the primer reflected light gets reflected multiple times, and only after, what is not absorbed, finally escapes surface) ,
thus those planets and moons do not let the directional reflection out, so their respective the out reflected light is entirely diffuse reflection.
Albedo is the measure of diffuse reflection. For those planets and moons the “radiative energy in” = (1-a)S.
For the smooth surface planets and moons the
“radiative energy in” = Φ*(1-a)S.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Arkady,
You qwrote –
“You dont see many natural surfaces on Earth that are tens of nanometers or less in vertical relief, do you?”
Well, yes, they are all around you. Your eyeball has a liquid film covering it. Look closely, and you can see reflections in it. Specular reflections.
Water, whether moving or not, exhibits specular reflection. A glistening dew drop shows specular reflection. Look at a few grains of sand in bright light. Depending on their structure, you may see light glinting off them – specular reflections.
Maybe you need to refer back to your reference, and understand what it says.
Christos Vournas
You are describing diffuse reflection and calling it specular reflection.
I don’t like repeating myself but as you said, this “is very important. ”
The Law of Reflection says that:
The angle between every ray in an incoming beam of light and the line perpendicular to the surface (the surface normal), is equal to the angle between every ray in the outgoing beam and the surface normal.
This applies to both, diffuse and specular reflection because… it’s a law.
The difference between diffuse and specular reflection is that:
Because of surface irregularities not every ray in a beam of light intersects the same surface orientation, the surface normal line is different for every ray which diffuses the beam.
Thank you, Arkady.
With your help I have corrected the opennig sentence.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1669721
“planets and moons with smooth surface have diffuse reflection with a strong directional constituent which has resemblances with a STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas,
Please don’t involve me in your “corrected” sentence.
I categorically stated that there aren’t enough natural surfaces on Earth specularly reflecting light so as to affect the planet’s albedo.
An example of the type of surface implied in your “corrected” statement is polished wood.
The polish on the wood provides a smooth surface that reflects light specularly, but the natural grain and micro-textures of the wood scatter some light diffusely. This results in a surface that is shiny with visible highlights but also has a soft, scattered reflection.
Your statement contains a conceptual misunderstanding regarding the nature of diffuse and specular reflections.
You’re on your own.
Arkady, thank you for your response,
“I categorically stated that there arent enough natural surfaces on Earth specularly reflecting light so as to affect the planets albedo.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Instead of manipulating the blog with your claims on alleged ‘STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION’, you’d better look at
https://www.rp-photonics.com/specular_reflection.html
Nowhere on Earth will you see any big surface having the least in common with a mirror, even the calmest lake.
Thank you, Bindidon, for your response,
“Nowhere on Earth will you see any big surface having the least in common with a mirror, even the calmest lake.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Bindidon, for the very good sourse you provided:
https://www.rp-photonics.com/specular_reflection.html
It is very important what it says:
” There can be also a combination of specular and diffuse reflection; an object with such properties exhibits specular highlights (depending on the illumination conditions) in addition to the appearance generated by diffuse scattering.
Specular reflections can appear much brighter than diffuse reflections, when seen from a large distance because the reflected light is concentrated to a smaller range of directions. (That can be a problem in the context of laser safety.) On the other hand, specular reflections remain unnoticed for an absorber if the reflected light misses his or her eyes.”
–
Thank you again.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Binny,
Whether a mirror is large or small, it reflects in a specular fashion – otherwise it would not be a mirror.
Seeing the Moon reflected in a lake, or when the sea is reasonably calm, shows a mirror-like reflection.
I am not commenting on Christos’ planetary temperature hypothesis, just pointing out what should be obvious.
However, even for which normally exhibit diffuse reflection, “Specular reflection at low angles to the surface is the source of glare on table tops under bright light, and of stray light in optical instruments”. You can see this yourself.
” I am not commenting on Christos’ planetary temperature hypothesis, just pointing out what should be obvious. ”
By the way, Flynnson confirms the total insignificance of all his interventions (which are all 100% in the same vein).
Also, we have corrected their respective Blackbody Effective Temperatures (Te),
because we concluded that planets and moons with smooth surface have diffuse reflection with a strong directional constituent which has resemblances with a STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Word to the wise:
Atoms are not miniature solar systems. Repeat that to yourself until it sticks.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Maybe you could supply a better model, no on else can. I don’t think so either, but it’s the best model we have.
Schrodinger’s wave equation cannot be visualized nor can any quantum theory. Yet there must be a reality. What is it?
Ironically, Schrodinger’s wave equation, the basis of quantum theory, is based on the potential and kinetic energy of an electron orbiting a nucleus. What you seem to be saying is that quantum theory is wrong, and I might agree with you at times.
Feynman claimed it works but that one knows why. Careful that you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
If it is a wave equation, then it is not describing an electron orbiting a nucleus.
Wave particle duality is a basis of quantum mechanics.
The wave equation treats electrons as waves.
“Maybe you could supply a better model, no on else can. I don’t think so either, but it’s the best model we have. ”
It all started with the work of Louis de Broglie in 1924, and the rest is history.
Braindead bobby,
You wrote –
“If it is a wave equation, then it is not describing an electron orbiting a nucleus.”
And in your usual unhelpful and obstructive fashion, you refuse to say what it does describe!
Is that due to ignorance or stupidty?
Not all that clever, bobby, refusing to be helpful.
Swenson,
Like the farmer with the three legged pig, you can’t teach Gordon everything all at once.
Schrdinger’s equation describes a standing wave instead of a particle orbiting the nucleus.
I’ve tried to explain to Gordon that electrons do not orbit the nucleus to no avail.
You are not much better as a student either, repeating over and over things you do not understand.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Diluting gasoline with ethanol is not the smartest thing to do. Its calorific value is lower, it is hygroscopic, can be deleterious to some components in the fuel path, and so on.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/18/deforestation-in-the-uk/#comment-711436
Back in the days, Mike Flynn was kinda useful from time to time.
More recent.
“All things considered, planet earth is doing fine. Humans are doing better than at any other time in history. Over the last hundred years, when temperatures have warmed by about two degrees Fahrenheit:
Global population has increased by 6 billion people
Global poverty has substantially decreased
And the number of people killed from weather disasters has decreased by 97% on a per capita basis.
We are obviously not facing an existential crisis.”
https://judithcurry.com/2024/05/26/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-on-my-prager-u-video/
Net Zero will end access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels. It means reversing all that human flourishing since fossil fuel technologies were unlocked: population will drop to under a billion; lifespans cut in half; localized famine that can’t be obviated because there is no transportation network; and most people that survive will be dragged into grinding poverty. There will likely be a revival of slavery to do the hard dirty work that is now being done by machines.
The Net Zero Agenda is an existential crisis.
Nix Net Zero.
Richard, Kennui, please stop peddling.
More relevant to Mike Flynn:
Op. Cit.
Is that something a chemical engineer working in the O&G industry would say?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard does not want the latest post from his url to be noticed.
Richard, please stop thinking that every printed word at Judy’s is relevant to every other printed word at Judy’s.
Here is more relevant to Mike Flynn:
Op. Cit.
Who knew that Monomaniacal Mike was so knowledgeable in O&G stuff?
Wee Willy Wanker,
You are obviously insane.
“Who knew that Monomaniacal Mike was so knowledgeable in O&G stuff?”
You have lost it completely. Definitely away with the fairies! O&G stuff?
Keep it up – others can laugh at your attempts to appear rational as well.
Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting:
Op. Cit.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good afternoon, Mike.
Let’s start it with a beer, shall we?
“Lets start it with a beer, shall we?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
ken…nix Net Zero….
Amen!!!
Mr. Asshat, please stop politicking, and Mike Flynn, here is your beer.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop politicking, and Mike Flynn, here is your beer”
Willard is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Already finished, Mike.
You must be thirsty, here is another one.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Already finished, Mike?
You must be doing some good money in O&G.
“You must be doing some good money in O&G.”
Who or what is O&G? Are you refusing to say because you just write gibberish, hoping that someone will think it means something? Who or what is G&O? Who knows? Who cares?
You are definitely one strange GHE cultist. Quite delusional, but trying to appear sane!
Carry on.
Sorry, Mike. I was distracted.
What were you saying?
Never mind. Here’s another beer.
“You must be doing some good money in O&G.”
Who or what is O&G? Are you refusing to say because you just write gibberish, hoping that someone will think it means something? Who or what is G&O? Who knows? Who cares?
You are definitely one strange GHE cultist. Quite delusional, but trying to appear sane!
Carry on.
Already going home, Mike?
Do not forget to pay before you leave.
For those who might be interested in reality, the EPA sets fuel standards and some states add other requirements.
https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards
tim s…the US EPA are a load of Nazi alarmists.
“Back in the days, Mike Flynn was kinda useful from time to time.”
You are seriously disturbed. I looked up O&G – what has Obstetrics and Gynaecology to do with anything at all? Maybe in your usual stupid obscure fashion, refusing to say what you mean, you meant Oil and Gas?
In either case, what are you babbling about? Your fantasies have obviously supplanted reality. Either that, or the “mind probes” that you seem obsessed with, have removed what little reason you possessed!
You are definitely a strange and deluded GHE cultist.
Carry on. Good for a laugh at your desperation.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb:
Op. Cit.
Your tinfoil hat is sadly in need of repair.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop whining:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/18/deforestation-in-the-uk/#comment-711481
“Mike Flynn, please stop whining:”
How many Mike Flynns do you want me to be? I can only humour you so much.
Who is Mike Flynn, anyway? You seem to think he is a chemical engineer (or something) involved with O&G (either obstetrics and gynaecology or oil and gas – or something, you refuse to say), or maybe somebody else totally! An American general, or science fiction writer, perhaps?
It’s obvious that you are mentally unbalanced, not to say ignorant and gullible. So carry on, fool. I dont value your opinions in the slightest, and I doubt you can name one person who will admit otherwise.
You are definitely strange.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you are the one and only Mike Flynn everyone in the Climateball world all know and love, and please stop playing the sociopathic dumb-dumb.
“Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you are the one and only Mike Flynn everyone in the Climateball world all know and love, and please stop playing the sociopathic dumb-dumb.”
Really? The “one and only Mike Flynn”? Who would that be, then?
Refusing to be specific? Tut, tut, Willard. Are you having a nervous breakdown?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop acting like a scatterbrained maniac.
“Mike Flynn, please stop acting like a scatterbrained maniac.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Not here, Mike.
“Not here, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop stuttering, Mike.
“Please stop stuttering, Mike.”
Please stop trolling, loser.
Time to clear your tab and go home, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good night, Mike.
Been using ethanol diluted gas for years and noticed no problems with engine power or deterioration.
In fact, when we had the pollution control tests in our province, adding a litre of methanol to the tank lowered emissions enough in an older, smokey car to pass the test. So, ethanol and methanol reduce pollution.
When there are billions of people living in Venus orbit, you will need things like parks, wilderness area, skiing, surfing, beaches, and/or such things but unlike what can found on Earth.
On Mars or Moon, one could fly {like a bird] as example of what you can’t really do on Earth. And with microgravity/artificial gravity, you can likewise do this in Venus orbit. Underground caves on Mars and Moon would a good place for flying or large wilderness areas.
On Mars {etc} one mostly going to find such areas, rather construct such things, as would in orbit.
One alternative, would be just traveling fast from Venus, to some wilderness area on some planet- Mercury, Earth, Moon, Mars or whatever.
Another alternative, is bringing large space rocks into some orbits of Venus, and one mines the space rock with goal, that it will become wilderness type area.
So, billions living in Venus L-1 and got big space rock at the L-1 point, with everyone in L-1 sort of orbiting it. It could still take many hours or even days to get to it. And probably still want local parks within couple miles of where you staying.
Gordon Robertson
Here is a very good little video explaining in simple terms how molecules vibrate, how dipoles will be affected by EMR. It gives you a valid explanation of how EMR energy changes the vibration.
The bonds act like a spring. They will determine the frequency of the dipole vibration.
I am really hoping this video does help you to understand how IR emission works and what it is based upon and how dipoles will absorb certain frequencies of EMR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8O-SOa3bw
Good link, Norman — straight forward, no nonsense, and easy-to-understand.
Just like the simple ball-on-a-string….
Which only refers to itself.
RLH, thanks for making it clear you’re got NOTHING.
Resonance is a completely separate phenomenon, and nothing to do with the ability of CO2 to both absorb and emit IR of any frequency at all.
One thing often overlooked is that the resonating item emits photons, losing energy, and ceases to vibrate. Nothing to do with heat trapping, or any of that sort of nonsense.
All matter both absorbs and emits IR. Anything over absolute zero is continuously emitting IR. You cannot stop it, you cannot reduce it. The emission is a function of temperature.
CO2 has no heat producing property. However, the process which produces CO2 generates heat.
Maybe you and other fanatical GHE cultists are simply confused, and imagining that CO2 is responsible for observed heating.
Mike Flynn, please stop your silly semantic games, this time with “heat producing property.”
Whacky Wee Willy,
“Mike Flynn, please stop your silly semantic games, this time with “heat producing property.””
Why do you refuse to say what you mean? Are you disagreeing with something I wrote, but refusing to say what it is? Not the cleverest ploy, in my opinion.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop forgetting you already pulled that one with Bob:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/21/the-tragedy-of-the-horizon/#comment-832070
Weird Wee Willy,
“Thermometers react to heat, and CO2 has no heat creating properties.”
I agree absolutely. You obviously refuse to agree or disagree, but that’s because you are a fanatical GHE cultist of the idiot variety.
Carry on being an idiot. Good for a laugh, anyway.
Mike Flynn, please stop presenting agreeing with yourself as something truly meaningful.
“Mike Flynn, please stop presenting agreeing with yourself as something truly meaningful.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
“Anything over absolute zero is continuously emitting IR.”
Sorry Swenson, but nothing is continuous, not even time or distance, everything is quantized.
Not trying to be helpful or to appear intelligent, I’ll leave that to you.
norman…one of the more stoopid, uninformative examples you have ever produced. Of course, Clint will agree with you because he is as uninformed as you.
Did you see the hokey spring between the atoms that he admitted is a bond? That bond is made up of shared electrons in orbitals around both atoms. The spring does not act between atoms as depicted but around both simultaneously.
Also, there is no oscillating field surrounding both atoms as he depicts. Any oscillating field has to be the EM field, and it acts by being absorbed by electrons in the spring…em…er… bond. What is there in the spring to absorb EM? Electrons, of course.
All in all, an amateur production aimed at elementary school level. But, hey, glad you and your new buddy Clint enjoyed it.
No one expected you to understand it, gordon.
Even the simplest explanations are WAY over your head.
You don’t even know what time it is.
Here’s a complete comment from the exceptionally strange Willard –
“Please stop denying that you are Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn.”
In order to humour Willard some time ago, I agreed to be Mike Flynn, as far as Willard was concerned. Nothing wrong with humouring the mentally disturbed, if it gives them solace.
Willard now seems to think that I have to agree that I am every Mike Flynn in the world, and I will, if it keeps Willard happy (and I must admit I get some enjoyment from the agreement).
However, as usual Willard refuses to state which Mike Flynn he thinks I am, at any given time.
He’s definitely an odd lad, and point-blank refuses to provide any rational reasons for his bizarre fixation. I must admit his motives elude me, but of course I dont really care, as they don’t affect me at all.
Willard refuses to acknowledge that thermometers react to heat, and also refuses to describe the GHE. What a guy!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying the obvious:
[HIM, IN 2016] Thermometers react to heat, and CO2 has no heat creating properties.
[HIM, A FEW DAYS AGO] CO2 has no heating powers. None. So sad, too bad.
[HIM, TODAY] CO2 has no heat producing property.
There are many Sky Dragon cranks who confuse warming with heating, but there’s only one who does it like you.
CO2 has no heating (or warming) powers. You will refuse to disagree, so why do you bother repeating it? Are you some strange masochistic GHE cultist?
You can repeat your agreement that CO2 has no heating or warming properties, of course. The more often the better.
You will even refuse to say what you believe the difference between warming, heating, and cooling is, won’t you? What an idiot you are!
Which Mike Flynn are you accusing me of being at the moment? Refusing to say? Why am I not surprised?
By the way, you might tell others why you refuse to comment on this –
“Global heating” is a more accurate term than “global warming” to describe the changes taking place to the worlds climate, according to a key scientist at the UK Met Office.”
You really are a loser, trying to play your “silly semantic games”.
Dimwit.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to imply that those “heating properties” are of any relevance whatever, and please stop denying that you are Mike Flynn.
” please stop denying that you are Mike Flynn.” Which Mike Flynn would that be? How can I deny what you refuse to say?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb over a simple fact even you can understand.
“Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb over a simple fact even you can understand.”
Of course, you are refusing to tell anybody what “simple fact” you are referring to. Dont you know what it is?
Not terribly bright, are you?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop forgetting what is the topic of an exchange between one reply and the next.
“Mike Flynn, please stop forgetting what is the topic of an exchange between one reply and the next.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
swenson…”The lowest energy necessary for the lowest transition is in excess of that possible for any infrared photon”.
***
Devils Advocate here, Lucifer McPhail, Scottish underground section. What happens if the hydrogen electron is already in atomic orbital 3 and it encounters IR? The IR then has sufficient energy to raise it to levels 4,5,or 6. Heat itself could raise it to level 3.
Remember, as the orbital number increases, it takes less energy to move the electron up one or two levels.
Gordon,
No, without sufficient energy to keep the electron at level 4, it will emit energy, and very quickly drop to its ground state. So you need a photon with at least enough energy to shift the electron from its ground state to whatever level it reaches.
But it won’t stay there, all by itself. No more than an object will stay at 20 C all by itself – it will emit energy, and cool.
This is why you need to provide minimum 10.2 ev (UV) to move the electron up to level 2. Now, although it may take another 1.89 ev to raise it to level 3, you can’t use a photon of that energy (IR), and add it to a 10.2 ev photon, and get 12.09 ev. That’s why thinking fluxes can be added is just silly.
However, if an electron drops to a lower orbital, there is nothing to stop it emitting a 1.89 ev photon – which is IR, followed by a 10.2 ev photon (UV), dropping back to its grounded state.
Still no GHE. No type or amount of gas between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter. That’s just fantasy.
swenson…”without sufficient energy to keep the electron at level 4, it will emit energy, and very quickly drop to its ground state”.
***
How do you explain the 3 different series of IR that is emitted by hydrogen?
BTW…I don’t buy that theory about the electron being excited briefly then dropping back to ground state. It has been well established that it can drop back to any levels between the highest and ground state.
Interesting article…
https://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch6/bohr.html
Gordon,
As your link shows, a hydrogen gas discharge tube is used. Generally, 2 – 5 kV is applied, quite enough to ionise the hydrogen, let alone elevate electron orbitals. As electrons drop down, others atoms are excited, and so on.
Test? Turn off the power. The only photons emitted are those proportional to temperature.
Your concern about electrons dropping back to the grounded state is unwarranted. As the electrons quickly return to the grounded state, some may drop a level, and emit a photon containing the energy lost – maybe IR. Some may drop more than one level at a time, resulting in UV. Turn the excitation power off, and all electrons return to the grounded state in nanoseconds. No reason not to.
Add all the ups and downs – an emission spectrum!
Brief explanation, but fits experimental results.
clint…”gordon, none of that changes the fact that infrared is associated with molecular vibrations”.
***
For about the 35th time, what causes a molecular vibration? By sticking with your current monologue you re revealing that you have no idea what a molecule is or how it vibrates.
I learned in high school, the difference between an atom and a molecule but many so-called learned scholars still seem confused about the concept, and when they write textbooks, they make claims about molecules that are far too general.
It is not enough to talk about molecules, as a unit, and vibration because at the molecular level you lack the information required. You must go deeper and examine what makes a molecule. I learned in high school that a molecule is two or more atoms bonded by electron orbitals (bonds).
So, there you have it, the constituent parts of any molecule are electrons, protons, and neutrons, nothing more. Any vibration is due to the action in the electron bonds. And the only way those bonds can vibrate more or less is by absorbing or emitting EM, or by heating or cooling of the entire mass.
Again gordon, none of that pointless rambling changes the fact that infrared is associated with molecular vibrations.
The more you repeat that mantra the more ignorant you appear. If you had an answer you’d have posted it by now but you have nothing to rebutt what I wrote.
Sorry gordon, but it’s already been explained to you. You just can’t understand.
You can’t learn. That’s why you keep attempting insults and false accusations, that don’t work on me. You can’t learn.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Wave functions of the electron in a hydrogen atom at different energy levels. They are plotted according to solutions of the Schrdinger equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation#/media/File:Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png
Does that explain why you refuse to describe the GHE? Or just another stupid diversion, explaining why you can’t?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop acting like a monomaniac who can’t think of any other thing than your pet topic.
Does that explain why you refuse to describe the GHE? Or just another stupid diversion, explaining why you cant?
Willard, please stop trolling.
The greenhouse effect. That which Swenson denies.
EM,
The greenhouse which you refuse to describe, is it? Or are you confused, and talking about a stack of blankets? You wrote “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets”.
Why would I deny something that makes you look foolsh?
A “stack of blankets”? Why not a stack of poker chips? A stack of books?
I can see why fanatical GHE cultists refuse to say anything that makes sense about the object of their cult worship. Like Willard “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Nobody needs to deny the existence of the non-existent, do they?
Carry on with the humorous attempts to appear intelligent.
[a stack of blankets?]
ent…please explain, in scientific terms how it works. Each part of the theory has been falsified.
1)Solar heats a greenhouse interior and plants. Heated surfaces emit IR. IR is trapped by glass and heats interior more.
falsification…IR cannot reheat surface and air from which it was produced. A greenhouse heats when heated air molecules are trapped and cannot rise.
2)AGW based on greenhouse theory…
a)solar heats surface and surface emits IR. IR and or heat is trapped by greenhouse gases in atmosphere.
falsification…
i)same as real greenhouse, IR cannot be used to heat surface from where it came. Raising surface temperature by recycling IR is perpetual motion.
ii)2nd law…Heat cannot be transferred from a colder region of space to a warmer region.
b)alternate AGW…GHGs trap radiated surface IR and slow heat dissipation at surface.
falsification…the heat producing the radiated IR at the surface is lost at the instant the IR is radiated. Therefore, it was dissipated at a rate independent of GHGs. In fact, this is Newton’s law of cooling in effect. It states that the rate of heat dissipation at a surface is dependent on the temperature difference between the surface and its environment.
The environment is the entire atmosphere which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen. Those two gases control the rate of heat dissipation, not a trace gas.
Gordo’s endless repetition of his strange physics continues, for example:
Sorry, Gordo, the use of a greenhouse as a model of the physics of what’s now called the GHE was a poor analogy, used to educate those without knowledge of the actual physics. For starters, the GHG includes IR losses to deep space, which is a vacuum, thus there would be no convection outside said “greenhouse”. The physics, which you obviously don’t understand, is different. A glass covered structure like a “greenhouse” in space would exhibit external energy loss only via thermal IR radiation from the glass, which happens to be a good emitter. Convection within such a structure might occur, if fans were used to circulate the air inside.
Gordo concludes his demonstration of his ignorance, writing:
Oxygen and nitrogen do not emit the thermal IR radiation to deep space, which is required to balance the SW energy which arrives from the Sun every day. They do not “control” the Earth’s temperature.
“please explain, in scientific terms how it works.”
Will Happer (patron saint of “skeptics”) does a very good job explaining it here:
Ark, what is Earth’s average temperature supposed to be?
(Please don’t use an imaginary sphere in your answer. That ain’t science.)
Please stop issuing demands that are not well=formed.
Title of the headline post is:
UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2024: +1.05 deg. C
Well Ark, that’s not surface temperature, but I accept it. Earth’s temperature is exactly where it should be.
Let’s not tell the Alarmists. That would spoil all the fun….
Puffman, please stop trying to speak for Nature, for she can speak Herself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmVLcj-XKnM
Silly willy found another link he can’t understand.
Nature doesn’t need us. And, nature does as nature wants. Wacko Alarmists can be so afraid they can’t sleep, but nature doesn’t care….
Puffman, please stop commenting on resources you obviously haven’t consulted.
“Puffman, please stop commenting on resources you obviously havent consulted.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Oxygen and nitrogen do not emit the thermal IR radiation to deep space, . . . ”
Of course they do. Everything emits IR. Oxygen and nitrogen are no exception.
This is why the atmosphere cools in general with increasing altitude at night.
All matter, without energy input, will keep emitting IR energy until runs out of available energy. That’s what absolute zero is – no IR emission at all.
“Will Happer (patron saint of skeptics) does a very good job explaining it here:”
I note the same fundamental flaws in his model that is the fundamental flaw all GHE heating the surface models make.
The Earth is not a BB heated only by the sun
How about taking a BB at 278 K and Then adding your solar input… while still not truly representing the much hotter interior, at least yould have better results and the cooling effect of evaporation and convection on the surface would of course be obvious..
Phil, please stop confusing a dimmer for an on/off switch.
Ah Willard, you seem like a fun guy. Poker maybe?
How long would it take a BB of Earth mass at 278 K to cool to 250 K? Keeping in mind of course that it’s rate of cooling will decrease as it’s temp decreases..
Here’s some help if anyone wants to do the math lol
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/454337/time-for-black-body-to-cool-to-a-given-temperature
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Phil, please stop confusing a dimmer for an on/off switch.”
Why are you spouting irrelevant and inane rubbish? Are you intentionally trying to look like a loser, or is that accidental, because you are just an idiot?
There is no confusion – you are definitely dimmer than even a particularly dim GHE cultist. Still refusing to describe the GHE, are you?
Carry on.
Phil, please stop the silly sammich request when being caught pants down with a silly logic error.
“Phil, please stop the silly sammich request when being caught pants down with a silly logic error.”
Still refusing to say what you mean? Or is it just that you cannot communicate using the English language?
What a pathetic loser!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to shield a guy who’s almost as lazy as Puffman.
“Phil, please stop the silly sammich request when being caught pants down with a silly logic error.”
Still refusing to say what you mean? Or is it just that you cannot communicate using the English language?
What a pathetic loser!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb.
“Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb.”
You keep refusing to say what you are talking about. You just look like an ignorant loser. Your choice.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Why do you drink your whiskey on the rocks, Mike?
“Why do you drink your whiskey on the rocks, Mike?”
What rocks are you talking about? Do you imagine that I am a geologist now?
Why are you obsessed with alcohol? Is that your excuse for looking like an idiot?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Then adding your solar input while still not truly representing the much hotter interior”
Because the geothermal heat flux at the surface is observed to be 87 mW/m^2, about 1/3000th the size of the solar input to the Earth.
Sorry PhilJ, this is insignificant and not worth getting your panties in a bunch over..
Nate,
”
Because the geothermal heat flux at the surface is observed to be 87 mW/m^”
And if the Earth was an isothermal BB there would be no measurable heat Flux from the interior at all.
Now the abysmal depths, where no solar radiation ever generates to, are about 278K
So starting at 278 K and then adding solar input at the surface would seem like a reasonable start to me.
Certainly better than a BB at 0 K warmed only by the sun for a model of the Earth
Phil, please stop appealing to details even you won’t argue is of any significance.
Willard,
The fundamental flaw of using a BB heated only by the sun for a model Earth, which lies behind the whole GHE fantasy land, is certainly significant
Phil, please stop providing tells that you only know very rudimentary models.
Solar wind
speed: 359.8 km/sec
density: 7.71 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 28 May 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 116
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 170 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.16×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.4% Low
8 numbered spots. a large spot coming from farside [southern hemisphere}. A spot might leave within a day, to the farside
“Sunspot AR3691 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares. ” And:
“RETURN OF AN HISTORIC SUNSPOT: It’s back. Almost. Sunspot AR3664, the source of the historic May 10th superstorm, has spent the past two week’s transiting the farside of the sun. Yesterday, it announced its return with an X2.8-class solar flare. ”
It’s Back! The Super Solar Storm & X-Flare Producer Returns | Space Weather News 28 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Y9QGLMvsc
She isn’t as excited by AR3691 but thinks when 3664 return in a few days, we could have some excitement.
Anyways, seems like May will be about 140 sunspots.
Solar wind
speed: 340.4 km/sec
density: 3.41 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 29 May 24
“Per tradition, sunspot AR3664 has been re-numbered for its second trip across the Earthside of the sun. It is now AR3697.”
Sunspot number: 141
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 166 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.22×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.1% Low
9 numbered spot, new one is 3697. No others coming from farside, and 2 will leaving to farside.
Solar wind
speed: 357.8 km/sec
density: 2.46 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 30 May 24
“ANOTHER X-FLARE: Old sunspot AR3664 isn’t as big as it used to be, but it is still very active. On May 29th (1437 UT), it produced an X1.4-class solar flare…”
Sunspot number: 131
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 171 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.13×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.1% Low
8 numbered spots. Only 1 of 2 spots left, and 1 is leaving to farside. About 4 days before any other spot leaves [unless a spot appears on nearside]. No spots coming, yet from farside. There is small unnumbered spot which is about 2 or 3 days away from coming from farside- it could grow more, or fade.
Solar wind
speed: 365.5 km/sec
density: 17.41 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 31 May 24
Sunspot number: 144
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 171 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.22×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.1% Low
8 numbered spot. That small spot grew [it’s numbered 3698] and might grow more.
No spot coming from farside and no spot is leaving to farside.
And both the big spots have grown, and both have potential of X-flares. I would keep on guessing, 3697 is most likely to give us a big flare and it will face Earth in couple days.
norman…”Do you know what an ion is? Do you know that a Sodium atom will lose and electron and become a positive ion”.
***
Norman…you are confusing a positive charge with relative positivity. A proton has a positive charge and an electron has a negative charge. Those charges have nothing to do with a positive or negative ion.
An ion is defined as an atom or molecule with less or more electrons than in its neutral state. Positive here is a reference to the number of electrons being less than normal. In an ion, there is a hole in the orbital where an electron should be and that gives an atom a net negative charge less than normal. The positive ion label only means it is ‘relatively’ less negative, hence more positive. It does no mean the remaining electrons in the sodium atom orbitals have suddenly gained a positive charge, like a proton.
The same mistake is often made in electronics. When an electron vacates a valance orbital position, it leaves a hole. Because the vacating electron leaves a charge in the orbital that is less than normal, the hole is claimed to be a positive space. Many people who are less informed as to the reality, think these holes can act in lieu of an electron of opposite charge, but that is nonsense.
A hole is hole!!! It has no mass and is not a particle. However, the inventor of hole theory in semiconductors, Schockley, introduced the notion of holes to make visualization easier in a PNP transistor. A p-type semiconductor is doped with donor atoms to decrease the number of natural electrons whereas an n-type is doped to give an excess of electrons.
I find it jut as easy to forget about holes and think in terms of electrons.
Gordon Robertson
You do not even have the most basic Chemistry down and yet you babble on demonstrating complete ignorance of the topic.
A positive ion has a NET positive charge just like a proton!
You do not understand an atom. It is system composed of protons and electrons in equal number to create an electrical neutral atom (neutrons come in to balance the positive charge repulsion to help generate the strong nuclear force).
You can find out how ignorant your post actually is. (I agree with Clint R on you, you are a fraud, no way you studied any real Chemistry and you can’t understand the basics and make up some idea based upon your faulty reasoning abilities, or lack of)
Do you have salt in your home? Sprinkle some out and feel how hard and solid it is. It is formed by POSITIVE sodium ion attracted to NEGATIVE Chloride ion! If sodium were just less negative as you falsely believe (for no good reason) then it would still be repelled by the negative chloride and would form a strong ionic bond!
You can move ions by using an electric field. As an electrical engineer who claims to have studied the topic you should know that you could not form any bond with two negative charged particles even if one was “less” negative.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Analytical_Chemistry/Supplemental_Modules_(Analytical_Chemistry)/Instrumentation_and_Analysis/Capillary_Electrophoresis
norman…”A positive ion has a NET positive charge just like a proton!”
***
A proton has mass, 1800 times the mass of an electron’s mass, yet both have equal and opposite charges. The hole left in an electron orbital has no mass, therefore an ion and a proton are not equivalent.
In fact, an ion is an ion due only to electron negative charges. There is not a proton in site, yet an electron leaving the orbital classifies the ion as positive.
Ions are normally related to aqueous solutions. If you mix HCL in water, the HCL breaks into ions of H+ and Cl-. If hydrogen loses an electron, it becomes a proton, and as far as I am concerned, it is no longer hydrogen. However, the equation for HCL is…
HCL -> H+ + CL-
That’s the foundation of a battery. sulphuric acid, H2SO4, also break up into ions in water. When it does, electrons are released and they gather on one battery plate, building up a massive negative electric charge of free electrons, just like a capacitor plate.
The arrow should be pointed both ways since the process is reversible.
The H+ suggests that hydrogen has lost its electron but it does not simply disappear. It has to be somewhere in the solution. However, one can consider the H+ to be a proton.
How about a similar reaction…
NaCl -> Na+ + Cl- ???
In both equations, Chlorine has 17 electrons. If you look at its position in the Periodic Table, it is right next to Argon, which has a full complement of electrons. That means Chlrorine needs 1 electron to form a stable outer shell. Guess what? Both hydrogen and sodium have that spare electron that chlorine needs.
However, sodium has 11 electron and if it gives 1 up, or at least shares it with chlorine, it too has a stable outer shell. So, sodium gives up an electron to become Na+ and chlorine accepts one to become Cl-. That is, the ion Na+ has 1 less electron than normal, making it a positive ion, and Chlorine has 1 more electron than normal making it a negative ion.
Can you claim that sodium, still with its full complement of 11 protons in the nucleus, is similar to a proton? No, you can’t, all it has is one missing electron and removing an electron does not a proton make. It does form a relative positive charge but that charge is not a proton and it has no mass. It’s a hole!!!
It’s nothing more than a fluke that hydrogen, missing its sole electron, is a proton. The + in H+ does not refer to the proton but to the missing electron.
Gordon Robertson
Sodium with 10 electrons cannot keep the positive charge of the nucleus from extending to space. The sodium ion has a net positive charge from the one proton not cancelled by an electron. The positive charge extends outward just as does that of a single proton. It can be moved in a magnetic field just as a proton can only it is heavier.
You probably do not understand how a mass spectrometer works.
https://chemistrymadesimple.net/episode/5/
These are real working instruments. Read up on how this device works, what it does and you will come to understand your ideas are really really bad and posting them is not a wise thing to do.
Posting your endless wrong opinions does wear a person down. I am not sure why you think your mindless opinions are valid but you seem to stick to them regardless of how much evidence shows you are totally wrong. Even with this link you will not come to realize you really do not know what you are talking about. You just make up things and post them as some type of expert. You are not even remotely knowledgeable about any Chemistry. What you post is the most simplistic basics that you read on the Internet.
“Posting your endless wrong opinions does wear a person down. I am not sure why you think your mindless opinions are valid . . . ”
Norman, please stop trolling.
norman…”Sodium with 10 electrons cannot keep the positive charge of the nucleus from extending to space. The sodium ion has a net positive charge from the one proton not cancelled by an electron. The positive charge extends outward just as does that of a single proton. It can be moved in a magnetic field just as a proton can only it is heavier”.
***
The 9 planets cannot stop solar gravity from extending to space. What is your point and how does it relate to dipoles formed between the O- and C-atoms?
According to you, there must be dipoles set up between each of the 16 electron of all three atoms and the nucleus. But which of the 16 protons in the three nucleii are involved in each dipole?
Come on, Norman, you are just arguing for the sake of it.
Nobody knowz how the Sun works
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/27/the-solar-cycles-a-new-physical-model/
If we did, we might have an alternative to nuclear power. All attempts at reproducing the Sun’s energy source have failed dramatically.
Gordon,
Edward Teller is on line 2.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=mb0iAf1k&id=FD5076B86F2AC9A1ED9E6AF958F41281DB040805&thid=OIP.mb0iAf1kIiP3CJmqWeeFoAHaD4&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fwww.wearethemighty.com%2fuploads%2f2021%2f11%2fHydrogen-Bomb.jpg%3fauto%3dwebp%26auto%3dwebp%26optimize%3dhigh%26quality%3d70%26width%3d1440&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.99bd2201fd642223f70899aa59e785a0%3frik%3dBQgE24ES9Fj5ag%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=628&expw=1200&q=hydrogen+bomb+explosion&simid=608035441362213326&FORM=IRPRST&ck=30D04AF6063A457BBB45722271336AF5&selectedIndex=4&itb=0&qpvt=hydrogen+bomb+explosion&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
Nobody knows why contrarians become cranks
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/beware-cranks
Nobody knows why Willard is an i d i o t.
Richard, please stop using a word blacklisted because of your previous abuses.
Willard, why do you go out of your way to be unhelpful? Why are you refusing to provide a list of these “blacklisted” words?
That’s a bit mean-spirited, jealously hoarding information which might be of benefit to others.
Nothing new there, is there?
Come on Willard -share your knowledge! Show everybody how generous and well-informed you are!
Or continue to look like a fanatical GHE cultist, both ignorant and gullible.
Off you go now.
Here’s your coffee, Mike.
*A coffee appears in front of our jovial Sky Dragon crank.*
“Heres your coffee, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop slurping, Mike.
“Please stop slurping, Mike.”
Willard, you loser, please stop trolling.
Thank you for not slurping, Mike.
Here’s another one.
“Heres another one.”
Willard, you loser, please stop trolling.
Already finished, Mike?
Perhaps you should hydrate better.
“Already finished, Mike?
Perhaps you should hydrate better.”
You’ve lost it. No need to explain why you refuse to describe the GHE.
Willard, please stop trolling.
No need to get angry, Mike.
We both know what happened last time you did.
“No need to get angry, Mike.”
You are obviously dreaming – what mental deficit leads you to think I would bother getting angry?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I was washing glasses and bucks, Mike. You know I cannot hear you from the sink. What were you braying about?
“I was washing glasses and bucks,”
You were dreaming.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Still here, Mike?
Time to go.
Willard,
Yes, fanatical GHE cultists simply refuse to believe that the Earth’s surface has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and that the surface cools each night.
This is known to the majority of sensible but GHE cultists take a contrarian view, rejecting reality. They also point-blank refuse to describe the GHE, which makes them cranks as well.
So yes, contrarian cranks, believe that some mythical SkyDragon is going to blast us with its fiery breath, and we will all be “roasted, toasted, fried and grilled.”, in the words of one notable contrarian SkyDragon crank.
But hey, you won’t be swayed from your bizarre beliefs, will you?
Is that because you are a confirmed SkyDragon crank, or just an ignorant and gullible idiot?
Mike Flynn, please stop writing walls of words I won’t read.
“Mike Flynn, please stop writing walls of words I wont read.”
Do I really care what you read?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
A bit early for a beer, don’t you think?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Fine. A coffee it is.
*Prepares a coffee. Puts a drop of Irish cream in it.*
“Fine. A coffee it is.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
*Gives his best customer his Irish coffee.*
So, Mike – what are the news at the O&G company?
“So, Mike what are the news at the O&G company?”
What are you babbling about, fool? What is “the O&G company”? Another of your bizarre fantasies, and you are going to refuse to justify your reason for appearing quite mad?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Slow down, Mike.
A penny, stock you say?
That must be thrilling!
“What are you babbling about, fool? What is “the O&G company”? Another of your bizarre fantasies, and you are going to refuse to justify your reason for appearing quite mad?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Slow down, Mike.
A penny, stock you say?
That must be thrilling!”
I don’t blame you for refusing to even try to explain your babbling. You are probably having a nervous breakdown, due to your refusal to accept reality.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and the surface cools every night.
You refuse to describe the GHE. How hard can it be?
You’re losing it, Willard. Bad luck for you.
What you start ranting, Mike, that means it’s time for a beer. Is it?
Yes, it is.
*Hands over a cold one.*
“What you start ranting, Mike, that means its time for a beer. Is it?
Yes, it is.
*Hands over a cold one.*”
Can you translate that into English?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Drink your beer, Mike.
It’ll calm your nerves.
Obsessed with alcohol now?
Maybe you could use that as an excuse for refusing to describe the GHE. Better than admitting you are just naturally stupid and ignorant, I suppose.
Do you enjoy coming across as a desperate loser?
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are not having a good evening, Mike.
Alright, you will be back tomorrow.
“The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and the surface cools every night.”
Also maybe you could inform us about the price of various consumer products where you live.
That would be just as useful and relevant to the discussion…
Nate
You wrote –
“The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and the surface cools every night.”
Also maybe you could inform us about the price of various consumer products where you live.
That would be just as useful and relevant to the discussion”
If you refuse to describe the GHE, obviously you think it has some role in the cooling of the earth. It’s a myth – there is no GHE!
Why are you babbling about consumer products? You refuse to say?
That’s pretty silly, isn’t it?
What happened to the Mike Flynn that could occasionally make intelligent posts with new, relevant, factual and useful information?
Obviously you no longer have this ability and now just repeat old, tired, unsupported, irrelevant talking points. Sad.
4,415 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2024: +1.05 deg. C”
Swenson : 1016
Willard : 996
” Xyz, please stop trolling. ” : 590
Once upon a time, my name was ‘Amazed’.
“Once upon a time, my name was ‘Amazed’.”
Was it really?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop expressing disingenuous incredulity.
“Mike Flynn, please stop expressing disingenuous incredulity.”
Of course, you refuse to specify this “disingenuous incredulity”, don’t you? Is this because you are stupid or just don’t know?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop illustrating your disingenuous incredulity.
“Mike Flynn, please stop illustrating your disingenuous incredulity.”
Of course, you refuse to specify this disingenuous incredulity, dont you? Is this because you are stupid or just dont know?
Willard, please stop trolling.
[what a laughable loser]
Mike Flynn, please stop being a silly loser.
“Mike Flynn, please stop being a silly loser.”
Oh dear – I should feel grateful for the flattery through imitation. It’s a pity it comes from somebody suffering severe mental deficit, but no matter.
I accept flattery from anyone – even laughable losers like Willard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You already said that irrelevant crap a thousand times, Mike.
Being drunk does not seem to make you happy.
“Mike Flynn, please stop being a silly loser.”
Oh dear I should feel grateful for the flattery through imitation. Its a pity it comes from somebody suffering severe mental deficit, but no matter.
I accept flattery from anyone even laughable losers like you.
Have I really said that a thousand times before, or are you just being an idiot?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Time to go, Mike.
Can you still walk?
“Mike Flynn, please stop being a silly loser.”
Oh dear I should feel grateful for the flattery through imitation. Its a pity it comes from somebody suffering severe mental deficit, but no matter.
I accept flattery from anyone even laughable losers like you.
Have I really said that a thousand times before, or are you just being an idiot?
Willard, please stop tro
Mike, please stop falling asleep in the middle of your invective.
troublshooting…won’t post…
ark…”Will Happer (patron saint of skep.tics) does a very good job explaining it (GHE) here:”
***
Happer, in fact, does a lousy job of it. If he is a patron saint of skep.tics it’s because he makes statements such as “climate change/global warming theory is a scam”. He added that he’d settle for hoax, but he prefers scam.
My problem with Happer is the nonsense he often claims about the GHE. How can he call the GHE theory a scam then defend it?
His explanation of the GHE is primitive and full of errors. For example…
“Vibrating or rotating electric dipole moments are the most efficient molecular antennas for emitting or absorbing electromagnetic radiation. The electric dipole moment of a molecule is the product of the spatial separation between the center of negative electron charge and the center of positive nuclear charge, and the magnitude of the positive charge”.
Here he makes the same mistake as Norman. The dipole referred to in a molecule like CO2 has nothing to do with the positive charge of either nucleus. There is a definite attraction/repulsion between the electrons in the atoms of CO2 and the that sets up a minor vibration but the lengthening and shortening of the bonding electron orbitals, and the vibration about the common axis through them, is not elated to that vibration, nor is the dipole in question.
The dipole is formed by a difference in electronegativity between the oxygen molecules at either end of the CO2 molecule and the electronegativity of the central C-atom. It’s ridiculous to claim the positive charges in either nucleus is involved in established both dipoles on either side of that C-atom.
“By symmetry, the centers of both positive and negative charges of N2 and O2 are at the center of the molecule (and at the center of mass)”.
This is nonsense, it does not explain why CO2 absorbs IR and neither N2 nor O2 can. A better explanation is that the CO2 bonding electrons have an angular frequency more conducive to IR absor.p.tion.
Again, what does he mean by a negative charge centre? That would theoretically be in the position of the nucleus, making it make no sense.
In typical fashion you’ve stopped reading too soon. You’ll never learn anything unless you apply yourself.
Had you continued on to the next paragraph you would have found your answer.
Atoms are not miniature solar systems. Repeat that to yourself until it sticks.
Here are the reasons.
1)There are two dipoles, on either side of the C-atom. The dipole is +ve on the C-atom end -ve on the O-ends. That immediately rules out the +ve nucleus. The O-nucleus has two more protons than the C-atom. The C-atom has 4 electrons and the O-atoms have 6 each. Where is the centre of negative charge mentioned by Happer at al?
Under normal situations, such a setup would produce a minor vibrations but never an asymmetric vibration. Any vibration would have to be symmetric and it is known that the CO2 molecule has both symmetric and asymmetric vibrations. Not only that, the vibration amplitudes can be variable.
The only thing that would cause such variations in amplitude is the absor.p-tion of IR or the application of heat. However, one would think that the application of heat would only add to the symmetry.
Asymmetric vibration would require absor.p.tion in one dipole leg and none in the other. Or emission in one and not the other. In other words, the energy in either legs must increase simultaneously, or in either dipole leg. That cannot happen in an atomic structure in equilibrium with normal vibration.
“Where is the centre of negative charge mentioned by Happer at al?”
Your comment below answers your own question and you don’t even realize it.
The CO2 molecule is set to bend and vibrate by collisions with other molecules.
The vibrating bent mode has an electric dipole moment.
The vibrating symmetric stretch mode has no electric dipole moment.
The vibrating asymmetric stretch mode has no electric dipole moment.
Correction:
The vibrating asymmetric stretch mode has
noan electric dipole moment.2)the dipole legs in CO2 are bonding electrons in orbitals surrounding both atoms (C and O) per side. The only relationship between those orbitals and the nucleii are weaker attractive forces that keep the electrons in the outer orbit. That weaker force is constant (not variable) therefore the vibrations must come from another mechanism.
3)the mechanism is best explained by electronegativity and absor.p-tion emission of EM. The O-atoms are more electronegative than the C-atoms and have a greater attraction on the bonding electrons. Therefore the electrons favour the O-ends, setting up a dipole that is more negative on the O-end.
It also explains why the dipoles can vibrate both symmetrically and asymmetrically. If one dipole absorbs IR and the other does not, that dipole stretches with the added energy and the other does not.
***
You are so close!
Go back and read Happer’s section 2.1 Greenhouse Gases, carefully, over and over, until it sinks in.
Then go back and critically analyze your previous statement:
“A better explanation is that the CO2 bonding electrons have an angular frequency more conducive to IR absor.p.tion.”
1/ Which “bonding electrons” would that be? Since there are 4 pairs of electrons being shared, and only one photon being αbsorbed,
2/ how is the selection made?
3/ or, are you saying that each CO2 molecule αbsorbs one photon for each electron being shared? That would be contrary to evidence.
“GHE theory” doesn’t exist and is a scam.
Earth has a greenhouse effect- it has uniformity of global temperature.
Earth also absorbs a large amount of sunlight.
Venus much closer to the sun, and gets twice as sunlight, absorbs far less sunlight.
The reason Earth absorbs so much sunlight and has a fairly uniform temperature, is because Earth has an ocean.
Venus has ocean of air, and there is no evident that Venus ever had a liquid ocean.
But scam claims it did.
As I said, Venus is something people don’t understand, is is related to the scam.
There is no “GHE theory”.
Even fanatical GHE cultists refuse to describe the GHE. It’s a fantasy.
gb…that point is, 70% of the surface is ocean and it is largely ignored by alarmists.
Mr. Asshat, gb, please stop skipping your meds.
“Mr. Asshat, gb, please stop skipping your meds.”
What a loser – reduced to sly ad-hominem epithets!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop butchering PSTering norms.
“Mike Flynn, please stop butchering PSTering norms.”
Willard, please stop trolling, you are an idiot. No wonder people find you an object of derision.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
PHOENIX (AP) Priscilla Orr, 75, was living in her old white Kia in a supermarket parking lot last summer after telling her family she lost her money and home to a romance scam.
But the car broke down, and the air conditioner stopped working, leaving her vulnerable to the dangerous desert heat. Orr collapsed last July as she walked on the lot’s scalding asphalt, which registered 149 degrees Fahrenheit (65 C) as the air temperature topped the triple digits.
She was dead by the time paramedics arrived.
Orr was among over 400 people who died last year in metro Phoenix from heat-associated causes during a 31-day streak of sizzling days of 110 F (43.3 C) or higher that stretched from the last day of June through all of July.
Source: AP
Very sad. Do you have a point, Willard, or are you refusing to say why you waste your time copying and posting random news items.
That would make you a silly loser, wouldn’t it?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop allowing me to follow up:
Thats about two-thirds of 645 heat-related deaths confirmed from the whole year in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix and Arizonas most populous county. No other major metropolitan area in the U.S. has reported such high heat-associated death figures.
Heat is the top cause of weather-related deaths, killing more people than hurricanes, tornadoes and floods combined, said Tom Frieders, the agencys warning coordination meteorologist in Phoenix.
Lives are at risk again this summer as the National Weather Service predicts above-normal temperatures and below-normal precipitation.
Were just hoping its not to the extreme level we saw last year, Frieders said.
Op. Cit.
Very sad. Do you have a point, Willard, or are you refusing to say why you waste your time copying and posting random news items.
That would make you a silly loser, wouldnt it?
I’ll help you out “Overall, a total of more than 19,000 Americans have died from cold-related causes since 1979, according to death certificates.” – US Govt. Just another random fact copied and pasted.
Willard, please stop trolling. .
Mike Flynn, please stop allowing me to follow up:
Climate change is causing heat waves that bake more of the population for a longer time, with higher temperatures over wider areas, according to a study released this spring by Science Advances.
Last summer, Phoenix experienced the hottest three months since record-keeping began in 1895, including the hottest July and the second-hottest August. The daily average temperature of 97 F (36.1 C) in June, July and August passed the previous record of 96.7 F (35.9 C) set in 2020.
Op. Cit.
“Climate change is causing heat waves that bake more of the population for a longer time, with higher temperatures over wider areas, according to a study released this spring by Science Advances.”
You really are a and ignorant dimwit, aren’t you?
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Weather always changes, so does climate. Climate changes nothing – it is statistics derived from something else.
If people choose to live in hot locations, that is their affair. There is no GHE – even you refuse to describe it. Is that why you babble about “climate change” and “heat waves”? Keep refusing to say why you post the nonsense you do. Maybe people will think that you are very clever.
[laughing at strange obsessed looney]
Hey Mike, you are already ranting.
You sure you want another drink?
“Climate change is causing heat waves that bake more of the population for a longer time, with higher temperatures over wider areas, according to a study released this spring by Science Advances.”
You really are a and ignorant dimwit, arent you?
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Weather always changes, so does climate. Climate changes nothing it is statistics derived from something else.
If people choose to live in hot locations, that is their affair. There is no GHE even you refuse to describe it. Is that why you babble about “climate change”and “heat waves”? Keep refusing to say why you post the nonsense you do. Maybe people will think that you are very clever.
[laughing at strange alcohol obsessed looney]
Time to walk home, Mike.
Willard,
“Time to walk home, Mike.”
Yes, you should. Give the supervisors of the sheltered workshop some respite from your continual incoherent babbling.
Off you go now.
43C??? We get that up here regularly in Lytton, BC, about 150 miles miles NE of Vancouver. That heat can be found in a wide area around Lytton that can extend 100 miles. The entire area has a desert climate while Vancouver has a rain forest climate. The area is located behind two mountain ranges which suck all the moisture out of the air before it reaches the area.
Meantime, in Vancouver, at the same time, temps hardly ever exceed 30C at the worst, with average temps being around 22C.
How does the GHG or AGW explain such disparities in temperature?
I fear the elderly woman in Phoenix died from an ignorance of heat, just as the elderly and poor globally, unfortunately. Nothing to do with global warming or climate change.
Mr. Asshat, please stop saying stuff.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop saying stuff.”
You really are refusing to appear sane, aren’t you?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting.
Ah yes, Lytton.
The town that reached 49.6C on a Tuesday in 2021 and was 90% destroyed by a wildfire the following day.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/lytton-fire-likely-human-caused-1.6089991
Willard,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting.”
You are mentally disturbed. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Idiot
EM
“Ah yes, Lytton.”
Well – that’s meant to be informative, is it?
Something to do with your statement that “The GHE is a pile of blankets”? Or are you just babbling to stop your keyboard from falling into disuse.
Either way, you are not looking like the smartest GHE cultist God ever put breath into, are you?
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn, please stop rage drinking.
“Mike Flynn, please stop rage drinking.”
This is gibberish from Wiltard who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
What an idiot h is!
About 40 years ago the temperature at the Phoenix Airport exceeded 120 deg. F (49C). Planes could not takeoff because the performance charts only went to 120. The engineers at Boeing quickly calculated new perform figures. New performance charts were typed on something called a typewriter and faxed (no internet or email back then) the data to the airlines so they could resume operations. Children with no experience often think everything they see for the first tine is new for everyone. Adults usually have some sense of history.
TS, please stop failing basic statistics.
tim s…that would be a teletypewriter, a typewriter with an ability to send data over a wire. They preceded FAX machines. In fact, the Unix language was in part geared to teletypewriters and many of the current Linux apps, like emacs, was designed for that purpose.
tim…more on teletypes. If you look up ‘ASCII table’ on Google, in the first column from decimal 0 to 47, there are symbols used in teletypes. In the following table, they have a column for Octal, which was the old binary-based code used in teletype transmission. These days, they use hexadecimal, and you will see the hex code listed as well.
You can see all the typewriter instructions like LF = linefeed, CR = carriage return, TAB, ESC, etc.
The same ASCII code is the same code that is the basis of modern computers. ASCII translates human alpha-numeric symbols into a binary code the computer can understand. The numeric number begin at decimal 48 (hex 30) and go to decimal 57 (hex 39), then you find more typewriter symbols from decimal 58 (hex 3A) to decimal 64 (hex 40). At decimal 65 (hex 41) the upper case alpha characters begin and run to decimal 90 (hex 5A).
There are a few more typewriter symbols till decimal 97 (hex 61) where the lower case alpha characters begin. Following that, the table ends with more typewriter characters.
That ASCII table ends at hex 127 and the codes represented in 0x000 – 0x127 can be covered with 8 binary bits. There is an extended ASCII table that runs from 0x127 – 0x255 but that needs 16 binary bits. You can see both tables here…
https://www.ascii-code.com/
Willard,
You wrote –
“TS, please stop failing basic statistics.”
You refuse to say what basic statistics are being failed, and why you think so.
Are you concerned people will laugh at you?
Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring that Mr. Asshat is still saying stuff, this time about emacs’ TTY.
“Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring that Mr. Asshat is still saying stuff, this time about emacs TTY.”
I’ll do as I wish – and there is nothing you can do about it, is there?
I’ll even heap scorn and derision on you, if I feel it’s justified. Nothing you can do about that, either! Maybe you could issue a pointless threat? I’ll just laugh at you.
Carry on being an idiot.
Mike Flynn, please stop advertising your DSM profile.
Gordon, it was a “fax” from what was stilled called a facsimile machine in those days. It would have been printed on heat sensitive paper and photocopied by, wait for it, a Xerox machine to produce a plain paper copy for distribution to the aircrews. By FAA rule, the pilot must have a copy of the airplane performance data on board at all times. Today that is all done electronically.
A teletype message would not have the formatting available from a typewriter. In those day, “word processors” were starting to be available. It was simply a typewriter with a memory capability so that edits could be made without needing to retype the whole document. PC based word processors may not have been available yet. I think it was the early 90s when those came out in the era when DOS commands were necessary. Remember those? CD//PRINT…
Nice try though. Carry on.
Wiltard,
“Mike Flynn, please stop advertising your DSM profile.”
Why do you refuse to say what you mean? Mental defect?
Carry on.
Can you walk home, Mike?
Nah, I’ll call a cab.
Mike Flynn, please do not forget to drink plenty of fluids before getting to bed.
Willard
I understand what you mean but… a look at GHCN daily’s data for Phoenix, AZ tells me that the averages of the 50 hottest days were
– for 2023: 45.7 C
– for 1989: 44.3 C
Given the probably very high increase since 1989 in buildings and sealed areas of all kinds (supermarket parking lots, etc), an increase in highest summer temperatures of about 1.5 C does not seem very dramatic for a 4 M+ mega-city a la Phoenix.
That so many people get so heavily endangered by such temperatures is quite another thing. I wouldn’t like to live in Irak these days, let alone in… Gaza!!!
Binny,
You wrote –
“I understand what you mean . . . “, but of course of course you won’t let anyone else know, will you?
Fine – it’s obvious that only a fanatical GHE cultist can understand what another fanatical GHE cultist “means”.
Ordinary people use words, not mental telepathy!
That’s probably why you refuse to describe the GHE – you can’t actually do it with words!
Carry on.
In Arizona, hot weather can result from a wavy jet stream pulling hot air from the tropics or from a blocking high-pressure system altering the direction of air masses. These are just two of several possible sources of extreme heat.
To understand how hot weather patterns are changing in Arizona, it is essential to study each of these phenomena individually.
A simple above-average temperature reading does not differentiate between these causes.
This is why ‘the averages of the 50 hottest days’ are not particularly meaningful. Only monkeys like Bin-linear think they are.
Mike Flynn, Walter R Hogle, please stop saying stuff.
> an increase in highest summer temperatures of about 1.5 C does not seem very dramatic for a 4 M+ mega-city a la Phoenix.
Even then and there it’s a problem:
https://www.maricopa.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/5820
Source: the AP’s graph.
It can only get worse for those under similar conditions and with less resources. So this ought be so bad for Walter R. Hogle, who is still a kid in a trenchcoat, or for TS, who can afford a heat pump. Even Mr. Asshat should be spared, as long as he drinks plenty of fluids and does not follow Puffman’s advice of drinking alcool during heat waves.
Simpleton Hogle
You behave even dumber and more polemic than the sum of Robertson and Flynnson.
Poor bin-liner still doesn’t realize how much valuable information is lost when averaging.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop confusing averages and rates of change.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Of course, you will be as unhelpful as possible, and refuse to say what you think the difference is, won’t you?
What a trolling idiot you are!
Mike Flynn, please stop eliding the fact that the point isn’t about any specific event, but about the frequency of a type of events.
“Mike Flynn, please stop eliding the fact that the point isnt about any specific event, but about the frequency of a type of events.”
What? What “point” are you babbling about? Are you refusing to say what it is? Or whose it is, or was, or something?
By the way “a type of events” is possibly not what you meant to say, but feel free to refuse to either correct it, or explain why you used that particular construction.
You’re a fool, Willard. No wonder you are a laughing stock!
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb over the distinction between token and type.
“Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb over the distinction between token and type.”
Go on, Wiltard, refuse to explain what you are babbling about.
What I would expect from a SkyDragon crank who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
I hope you don’t wonder why people regard you as an object of derision.
[chortling]
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to look dumb.
“Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb . . .
Go on, Wiltard, refuse to explain what you are babbling about.
What I would expect from a SkyDragon crank who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
I hope you dont wonder why people regard you as an object of derision.
[chortling]
Mike Flynn, you look senile when you’re drunk.
Go home.
swannie…”Sorry, Gordo, the use of a greenhouse as a model of the physics of whats now called the GHE was a poor analogy…”
***
So, you are admitting the GHE is a poor analogy to a real greenhouse. Then why don’t thy call it something else rather than misleading the public and students in schools.
—
“Oxygen and nitrogen do not emit the thermal IR radiation to deep space, which is required to balance the SW energy which arrives from the Sun every day. They do not control the Earths temperature”.
***
Neither does CO2 or any other claimed GHG. They only emit a small fraction of it. The rest is emitted directly from the surface.
In fact, all heat is dissipated from the surface before GHGs absorb the radiation produced at the same time. The real poor analogy is that GHGs have anything to do with heat dissipation from the surface or its subsequent radiation to space.
The real warming effect is produced, in part, by radiation from the surface being far less efficient at dissipating surface heat as solar energy is in heating the surface. The delay in heat removal is the real cause of warming.
You’ve twisted things around backwards. I was simply pointing to the well known fact that a greenhouse is a poor analogy for the science behind the GHE.
Gordo continues:
Gordo’s use of the word “efficiency” is mind boggling. The Sun’s SW radiation at TOA has a greater intensity than the thermal IR leaving the planet, but the ratio of the two isn’t “efficiency”, (unless you are thinking in economic terms). The GHE isn’t about heat “dissipated from the surface”, it’s about what happens within the atmosphere above.
swannie…I was not applying efficiency as you received it. I was talking about the inability of radiation to dissipate surface heat compared to the efficiency of solar energy in heating the surface.
Shula, an expert with radiation, claimed that conduction/convection from the surface is 260 times more efficient dissipating surface heat than radiation. That is, 260 times more heat is removed from the surface via conduction/convection than by radiation.
That explains the warming of the atmosphere far better than the inane GHE. If the surface and atmosphere cannot rid themselves of heat via radiation, as fast as they are heated by solar radiation, then the planet will warm.
Gordon,
You wrote –
“If the surface and atmosphere cannot rid themselves of heat via radiation, as fast as they are heated by solar radiation, then the planet will warm.”
The surface will warm, not the interior, which is far too hot to be warmed by the Sun. And of course, during the day in bright sunlight, the surface warms. And at night, it cools due to radiation from the surface. Almost no convection at night, as the surface can cool much faster than the atmosphere, even leading to radiation frost where air temperatures are above freezing.
Radiation will due the job nicely. Fast enough, obviously.
No GHE apparent or needed.
Gordo keeps barking up the wrong tree. To b sure, convection does move energy from the surface to the atmosphere, but on cold, clear nights, the atmosphere may be warmer than the surface because of the thermal IR lost from the surface to space thru the ‘atmospheric window” wavelengths.
gordo again misuses the term “efficiency” after mentioning Schula and the Piranni vacuum gauge. As the article notes: “The Pirani gauge consists of a metal sensor wire (usually gold plated tungsten or platinum)…”. It should be obvious to anyone who understands thermal IR energy transfer that the sensor wire’s gold coating would result in a very low emissivity. Of course, with this setup, convection would dominate the heat loss from the wire. All that has nothing to do with the GHE.
ES,
You wrote “the thermal IR lost from the surface to space thru the ‘atmospheric window’ wavelengths.”
Actually, all the radiation emitted from the surface is lost to space. That’s why it cools.
I wonder if you could describe the GHE for me? Or you could just refuse, if you think I might laugh at your description. You did write “All that has nothing to do with the GHE.”, so presumably you could describe the GHE if you felt like being helpful.
Not to worry, if you want to refuse, that’s fine by me. I don’t believe that you can describe the mythical GHE anyway – you’re just trying to appear clever.
Carry on.
norman…”You do not understand an atom. It is system composed of protons and electrons in equal number to create an electrical neutral atom (neutrons come in to balance the positive charge repulsion to help generate the strong nuclear force)”.
***
If I did not understand basic atom theory I would never have learned electronics or electrical theory. Your problem, Norman is that you have learned the theory incorrectly by reading textbooks which you have interpreted incorrectly.
It’s more fiction than fact that protons in a nucleus don’t repel each other. Why do you think it is that protons repel each other everywhere but in a nucleus where they are closely packed together? It’s unproved theories like this that make me skeptical of a good amount of atomic theory.
How does a neutron with no charge help prevent the repulsion of protons? No point quoting wiki if you can’t explain it.
“I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.” – Richard Feynman.
Norman wrote – “neutrons come in to balance the positive charge repulsion to help generate the strong nuclear force”
Word salad. Meaningless. Looks like English, but makes no sense at all.
Dimwits like Norman refuse to describe the GHE, because they are averse to the sniggering which rightly greets such silliness.
As always, Flynnson’s discrediting and denigrating blather
” Word salad. Meaningless. Looks like English, but makes no sense at all. ”
Flynnson would never be able to provide any scientific contradiction to Norman’s words and instead hopelessly tries to make an impression of being knowledgeable.
Binny,
And of course, you refuse to say what you think Norman’s word salad means.
You will claim you know, but of course you won’t tell anybody, will you?
You refuse to describe the GHE, except to say that CO2 is not involved!
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
The protons in the nucleus DO have a repelling force but it is countered by the strong nuclear force. You really never did study any Chemistry ever. Chemistry is my area of study.
Read this to expand your mind and don’t just brush it off. Scientist propose ideas and then test them.
https://interestingengineering.com/science/what-is-the-strong-nuclear-force-holding-reality
Norman,
First you wrote “It is system composed of protons and electrons in equal number to create an electrical neutral atom (neutrons come in to balance the positive charge repulsion to help generate the strong nuclear force)”.
Now you write “The protons in the nucleus DO have a repelling force but it is countered by the strong nuclear force”.
You refuse to clarify your initial nonsensical statement, and just replace it with another irrelevant statement. What are you babbling about? Have you changed your mind about “neutrons come in to balance the positive charge repulsion to help generate the strong nuclear force”?
You really have no clue, have you? No wonder you refuse to describe the GHE, just saying “The GHE works like insulation”.
If somebody said you were a useless idiot, I wouldn’t disagree.
Carry on trying to appear intelligent – you’re not doing too well at present, are you?
By the way, Norman, you wrote –
“Chemistry is my area of study.”
Keep studying hard. Maybe one day you will understand what you are talking about.
Good luck. In my opinion, you’ll need it.
Some people, apparently, get stuck mentally at age 12. The age when they mocked and tried to bully the smarter kids, just like Swenson demonstrates so well here.
Norman…what is the strong nuclear force? It’s nothing more than a hypothetical force created by nuclear physicists in an attempt to explain why protons don’t repel each other.
There is now a theory that protons circle a nucleus of their own.
I read an article a while back by a female scientist critiquing nuclear theory. She made a good case for her opinion that much of it is unproved. If you consider how little we actually know about protons and electrons physically, we’ll know even less about the alleged sub-atomic particles and the weak and strong forces.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Some people, apparently, get stuck mentally at age 12. The age when they mocked and tried to bully the smarter kids, just like Swenson demonstrates so well here.”
You also wrote –
neutrons come in to balance the positive charge repulsion to help generate the strong nuclear force.
If you feel “mocked and bullied” you are free to do so. If you believe you are one of “the smarter kids”, i feel sympathy for the teachers at your special school. You say chemistry is your area of study, but maybe you need to learn a little more about nuclear physics before you try teaching.
You wrote “The GHE works like insulation”, but you still refuse to describe the GHE!
Others might join me in mocking you for being so dimwitted, or they may not.
Why should you care? Do you consider yourself sensitive and easily hurt? Do tears flow down your rosy cheeks if people are unkind to you? Get a grip, man. Study your chemistry. Learn about CO2. Listen ti Bindidon, who wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.
I agree. CO2 heats nothing.
Gordon Robertson
It might help in any discussion with you if you had any real science knowledge. It seems you are close to zero.
You have no understanding of the scientific process. In your warped thought process you think scientists just come up with ideas and go with it. You leave out a very important component in real science (you are the type who makes up an idea and goes with it, not what real scientist do. Since this is your nature you assume falsely that science works the same way as your mind does).
Real scientists have been doing many years of research with particle accelerators. Using these massive machines they probe fine structure of reality. They smash atoms with high energy and carefully monitor all the reactions that take place. Based upon what they observe they propose ideas to explain what they observe. They continue testing and reject some ideas that don’t work with observation and keep those that do. They keep theories that match observation until another one comes up that explains what is observed even better. Science continues to advance and gain new information with all the observations done.
Here is just one sample. If you wanted to learn more on the actual experimental studies you could read some journals on nuclear physics at your local library. You might open your eyes and see rigor, experiment and observation going on continually as scientists try to better understand what they cannot see and touch with their senses.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/72
Norman,
You wrote
“Some people, apparently, get stuck mentally at age 12. The age when they mocked and tried to bully the smarter kids, just like Swenson demonstrates so well here.”
You also wrote
“neutrons come in to balance the positive charge repulsion to help generate the strong nuclear force.”
If you feel “mocked and bullied” you are free to do so. If you believe you are one of “the smarter kids”, i feel sympathy for the teachers at your special school. You say chemistry is your area of study, but maybe you need to learn a little more about nuclear physics before you try teaching.
You wrote “The GHE works like insulation”, but you still refuse to describe the GHE!
Others might join me in mocking you for being so dimwitted, or they may not.
Why should you care? Do you consider yourself sensitive and easily hurt? Do tears flow down your rosy cheeks if people are unkind to you? Get a grip, man. Study your chemistry. Learn about CO2. Listen ti Bindidon, who wrote
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
I agree. CO2 heats nothing.
I don’t blame you for refusing to respond. It’s hard to justify nonsensical word salad that just makes you look stupid, isn’t it?
“Globally, all cause excess deaths due to fine particulate and ozone air pollution are estimated at 8.34 million (95% confidence interval 5.63 to 11.19) deaths per year. An estimated 5.13 million (3.63 to 6.32) excess deaths per year globally are attributable to ambient air pollution from fossil fuel use and therefore could potentially be avoided by phasing out fossil fuels.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj-2023-077784
Gee, it seems an alternative to fossil fuels may be desirable.
nate,,,you go to the countries where those deaths are occurring and tell them you are going to eliminate fossil fuels. See how long you last.
Your link leads to a study based on models, not reality.
One of the problems with emissions due to fossil fuels is extreme heat. It becomes difficult to tell if it is heat causing the problem or fossil fuels. However, just like the covid hysteria, extremists will try to blame any death on covid, or fossil fuels.
In North America, and likely in Europe, governments have gone to great lengths to introduce the reduction of harmful emissions. There is nothing we can do about countries like China and India where they can’t be bothered to protect citizens.
I do not think the 75% of the world who live in poverty are worried about that. They want the things we take for granted such as electricity and fresh running water. People in wealthy countries have no right to tell poor people they cannot have fossil fuel power.
You guys might as well be talking about leaded gasoline back in the 1960s, saying we cannot phase it out because there is no alternative that is economically feasible!
After 4530 comments, this month’s blog could use some mental floss:
1/ This must be done in your head only, don’t cheat: Take 1,000. Add 40 to it. Now add another 1,000. Now add 30. Another 1,000. Now add 20. Now add another 1,000. Now add 10. What is the total?
2/ If the number 666 is considered evil, then technically, 25.8069758011 is the root of all evil, no?
The reason climate change boosts all heat waves is because small changes in the average of the distribution of temperatures yields huge changes in extremes.
Nobody seems to do basic statistics in school anymore. Nor do they appear to have the conceptual thinking ability to understand that for every average there are degrees of variance from that average.
Averages don’t kill… extremes do: https://imgur.com/a/Y0RQfEY
ark…”The reason climate change boosts all heat waves is because small changes in the average of the distribution of temperatures yields huge changes in extremes”.
^^^
Several problems with your statement. First, climate is not a cause, it is an effect. Climate is the average of past weather events, it is a statistic that can drive nothing. Secondly, distributions of temperature are mathematical not drivers. In other words, statistics cannot drive heat waves.
Thirdly, there is no evidence statistical events drive heat waves. I doubt that anyone rally knows what drives them specifically. Here is the Vancouver area a couple of years ago we had a heat dome park itself over the Pacific Northwest, covering a 500 mile area north to south. We had never seen one that pronounced before nor have we seen one since.
The Sun and other weather conditions drive heat waves. Weather is largely a product of temperature differences due to peculiarities in the Earth’s motion and polar temperature differences wrt the Tropics. Absolutely nothing to do with trace gases.
What does an average tell you about the source of a heat wave? Heat waves can originate from various phenomena like a wavy jet stream, a blocking high-pressure system, southwesterly winds, etc. Each source brings distinct characteristics, such as whether the heat wave is dry or humid.
To truly understand how heat waves are changing, you need to study each source and its specific traits. An average temperature can’t capture these differences, rendering it meaningless. That’s why your Imgur post is for monkeys.
You don’t even know what a monkey is.
Mr. Asshat, Walter R. Hogle, please stop saying stuff.
Willard,
How many sides does a square have?
A,
You are trying to be an idiot, and succeeding.
You wrote “The reason climate change boosts all heat waves . . . “. Climate change boosts nothing, except maybe your level of mental instability.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations – no more, no less.
You are correct about averages, however. Generally completely pointless, hence beloved of fanatical GHE cultists.
Carry on.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop trying to portray your invalid argument as a truism.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Walter R. Hogle, please stop trying to portray your invalid argument as a truism.”, and of course you are going to refuse to say why, aren’t you?
I don’t blame you – you probably don’t want anyone to snigger at you for being an idiot, do you?
Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring Walter R. Hogle’s twisted idea that because 1 and 3 are odd numbers, their average does not mean anything.
“Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring Walter R. Hogles twisted idea that because 1 and 3 are odd numbers, their average does not mean anything.”
What are you dribbling about, retard?
You can refuse to learn English if you, and just rely on spouting nonsense.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, please stop being dumb.
“Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring Walter R. Hogle’s twisted idea that because 1 and 3 are odd numbers, their average does not mean anything.”
What are you dribbling about, retard?
You can refuse to learn English if you like, and just rely on spouting nonsense.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, please stop being dumber than dumb.
“Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring Walter R. Hogles twisted idea that because 1 and 3 are odd numbers, their average does not mean anything.”
What are you dribbling about, retard?
You can refuse to learn English if you like, and just rely on spouting nonsense.
Carry on.
Gordon Robertson,
Firstly, thank you for posting your retreaded denier drivel.
Secondly, thank you for, again, talking in fact-deficient, obfuscating generalities to try to cover up your lack of understanding.
Thirdly, thank you for once again showing that you’ve been sucked into the illusion of knowledge.
Lagniappe, thank you for, for the umpteenth time, demonstrating that you want others to think that your ignorance is just as good as their knowledge. It isn’t.
walterrh03 aka my very own organ grinder’s monkey,
You’re doing a hell of a job Brownie…
Ark, is that what you call a rebuttal?
LOL
Walter R. Hogle, please stop acting like a lone kid in a trenchcoat.
Of all the online tr0lls I’ve come across, you are one of the worst.
That probably makes you happy too, huh Willard?
Yes, you’re doing a hell of a job Brownie…
Ark doesn’t want to admit that GAT is a hoax. That’s why he is throwing insults.
If you say so.
And, yes, you’re doing a hell of a job Brownie…
Shall we now discuss the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Still waiting for you to supply experimental evidence to support you specular reflection calculations. Until then all you have is numerology.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Still waiting for you to supply experimental evidence to support you specular reflection calculations. Until then all you have is numerology.”
Let’s show the “lost” 130 W/m^2.
Φ=0,47 the solar irradiation accepting factor.
1-Φ = 1-0,47 =0,53
Now, let’s see:
240 W/m^2 *0,53 = 127,3 =~ 130 W/m^2
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Once again, where are the measurements?
It is easy to invent a hypothetical solar insolation accepting factor. It is equally easy to invent formulae.
To show that your hypothesis has any relation to reality you need to test it by experiment.
Now, please explain the planet Mars’ paradox.
For planet Mars the satellite measured Tmean =210 K
And the theoretically calculated Te =210 K
–
How it is possible the average surface temperature
Tmean =210 K to be equal to the uniform surface temperature,
to be equal to the Te =210 K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
—
Entropic man says:
May 29, 2024 at 1:01 PM
Once again, where are the measurements?
It is easy to invent a hypothetical solar insolation accepting factor. It is equally easy to invent formulae.
To show that your hypothesis has any relation to reality you need to test it by experiment.
—
One could ask where is measure of 70% of surface of Earth?
But I thinking maybe, Christos Vournas can calculated it, and tell us what average ocean surface temperature, is.
The planet Mars’ paradox is solved though.
For planet Mars Φ =0,47
and
For planet Mars the rotational warming factor is:
(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ = (150*0,9728*0,18)∕ ⁴ = 2,26495
Now, let’s see:
Ok, Φ*(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ = 0,47 *2,26495 = 1,064
1,064∕ ⁴ = 1,0156
or the final result differs only by 1,56 % !
In the case of planet Mars the Φ and the (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ simply eliminate each other.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
gb…”To show that your hypothesis has any relation to reality you need to test it by experiment”.
***
gb…I think the point Christos is trying to make is that none of it has been verified by experiment. The theoretical +33C warming has never been verified, all of it is based on mathematical hypotheses.
The application of S-B at terrestrial temperatures has never been verified by experiment.
Neither the GHE nor AGW has been verified by experiment. The notion of global warming from a trace gas and the subsequent theory of climate change has never been verified by experiment.
–gbI think the point Christos is trying to make is that none of it has been verified by experiment. The theoretical +33C warming has never been verified, all of it is based on mathematical hypotheses.–
Oh, that true of how much Earth absorbs and emits. Which also applies to Venus.
But generally, Earth suppose to emit, 240 watts on average. And Venus was about 160 watts. But they also discovered Venus does spectrum coming directly from Venus surface [discovered recently] and don’t know if anyone tried to included that, yet.
Christos, Gordon
Any good hypothesis makes predictions which can be tested.
For example the GHE/AGW hypothesis predicts that the frequency distribution of outward longwave radiation to space should follow the normal SB curve except for reductions where GHGs such as CO2 are soaking up radiation. The observed OLR spectrum is as predicted,with notches for CO2, methane and ozone plus a distributed reduction due to CO2 which supports the hypothesis.
Christos’ hypothesis needs similar tests. For example, diffuse reflected light is not polarised. Specular reflection is polarised.
Perhaps Christos could predict the intensity of the polarised and unpolarised outgoing visible light, the albe do
Then check with the satellite data and find what % of the albedo is polarised.
EM,
You wrote –
“For example the GHE/AGW hypothesis predicts that the frequency distribution of outward longwave radiation to space should follow the normal SB curve except for reductions where GHGs such as CO2 are soaking up radiation.”
You say “The GHE is a pile of blankets”.
What is your testable hypothesis for a pile of blankets?
You are talking nonsense, completely denying reality. The surface cools at night – what happened to the blankets?
The world wonders!
Gbaikie
Venus energy budget Figure 6 here.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704
How does the extra spectrum you mention modify this budget?
EM,
I suppose you are going to refuse to say whether you think that a GHE is responsible for the surface temperature of Venus.
May I suggest that if you wrote “The GHE is a stack of blankets.” In respect of Earth, then for Venus, “The GHE is another stack of blankets”!
Saves you all the trouble of babbling about “energy budgets” and all that pseudoscientific nonsense.
You don’t have to thank me, it’s my pleasure to help those less gifted than myself.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that EM described the greenhouse effect while mocking his description of the greenhouse effect.
Christos, you keep bringing up the same theory that ignores the fact that it doesn’t fit the observations!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1669288
You have the Earth abs0rbing 112 W/m2, while the observations by satellite show that it is abs0rbing and emitting ~ 240 W/m^2.
Then your theory is wrong. Sorry.
If you continue to be unable to account for this discrepancy, then you are not doing science, are you.
Thank you, gbaikie, for your response.
” what average ocean surface temperature, is.”
–
The average ocean surface temperature is 288 K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
And the global average land surface temperature?
I like to have average arctic circle area and southern polar circle area.
But something like the South PoleAitken basin on Moon would be a neat factoid, likewise Hellas basin on Mars.
Eman thinks it is much more important to be morally right than factually correct.
Troglodyte, please stop showing how to be factually wrong and morally corrupt.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Troglodyte, please stop showing how to be factually wrong and morally corrupt”.
Of course, you refuse to say what you consider to be factually wrong and morally corrupt. Is that because you don’t know, or are you suffering from a severe mental defect?
Do you wonder why nobody seems to value your opinion? Could it be because you are a complete nitwit?
The world wonders!
Mike Flynn, please stop stepping on your own toes.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Troglodyte, please stop showing how to be factually wrong and morally corrupt”.
Of course, you refuse to say what you consider to be factually wrong and morally corrupt. Is that because you dont know, or are you suffering from a severe mental defect?
Do you wonder why nobody seems to value your opinion? Could it be because you are a complete nitwit?
The world wonders!
Is your response really “Mike Flynn, please stop stepping on your own toes.”, or is that your gibberish generator output?
Mike Flynn, please, mind your toes.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you’re merely contradicting.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Troglodyte, please stop showing how to be factually wrong and morally corrupt”.
Of course, you refuse to say what you consider to be factually wrong and morally corrupt. Is that because you dont know, or are you suffering from a severe mental defect?
Do you wonder why nobody seems to value your opinion? Could it be because you are a complete nitwit?
The world wonders!
Is your response really “Mike Flynn, please stop stepping on your own toes.”, or is that your gibberish generator output?
“Mike Flynn, please, mind your toes.”
“Mike Flynn, please stop denying that youre merely contradicting.”
Not the evidence of a working brain.
[sniggering at loser]
Mike Flynn, please stop vomiting on your keyboard.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Troglodyte, please stop showing how to be factually wrong and morally corrupt”.
Of course, you refuse to say what you consider to be factually wrong and morally corrupt. Is that because you dont know, or are you suffering from a severe mental defect?
Do you wonder why nobody seems to value your opinion? Could it be because you are a complete nitwit?
The world wonders!
Is your response really “Mike Flynn, please stop stepping on your own toes.”, or is that your gibberish generator output?
“Mike Flynn, please, mind your toes.”
“Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you’re merely contradicting.”
Not the evidence of a working brain.
[sniggering at loser]
Mike Flynn, please stop vomiting the same vomit on your keyboard.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Troglodyte, please stop showing how to be factually wrong and morally corrupt”.
Of course, you refuse to say what you consider to be factually wrong and morally corrupt. Is that because you dont know, or are you suffering from a severe mental defect?
Do you wonder why nobody seems to value your opinion? Could it be because you are a complete nitwit?
The world wonders!
Is your response really “Mike Flynn, please stop stepping on your own toes”, or is that your gibberish generator output?
“Mike Flynn, please, mind your toes.”
“Mike Flynn, please stop denying that youre merely contradicting.”
Not the evidence of a working brain.
[sniggering at loser]
stephen p anderson says:
May 29, 2024 at 4:17 PM
“Eman thinks it is much more important to be morally right than factually correct. ”
It is called projection, Stephen. You take your own faults and copy/paste them onto your opponent.
EM,
You wrote –
“It is called projection, Stephen. You take your own faults and copy/paste them onto your opponent.”
Maybe if you could come with something better than “The GHE is a stack of blankets.”, your opinions might be valued more highly.
Oh well, you could always refuse to describe the GHE at all.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying Troglodyte’s projection.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
New Delhi records highest-ever temperature of 52.3C as north India swelters
Brutal weather forces schools to close in several cities and raises the risk of heatstroke for people working outdoors.
https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2024/5/29/photos-north-india-swelters-as-new-delhi-records-highest-ever-temperature-of-49-9c
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling. You are just not very good at it. You need more practice.
Mike Flynn,
Here’s your coffee.
Willard, please stop trolling. You are just not very good at it. You need more practice.
On the other hand, maybe you would be better off just using your gibberish generator. Give it a try.
Slow down, Mike.
Finish your coffee.
Willard, please stop trolling. . You are just not very good at it. You need more practice.
On the other hand, maybe you would be better off just using your gibberish generator. Give it a try.
Not helping is it?
Mike, Mike,
Please stop projecting, and finish your coffee.
Willard, please stop trolling. . You are just not very good at it. You need more practice.
On the other hand, maybe you would be better off just using your gibberish generator. Give it a try.
Not helping is it?
Another beer, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling. . You are just not very good at it. You need more practice.
On the other hand, maybe you would be better off just using your gibberish generator. Give it a try.
Not helping is it?
You keep talking to yourself, Mike.
The bar is closed to you.
Hey Willtard – When will roasted pigeons start flying into our mouth ???
Eben,
Unlikely to happen to Willtard – his mouth is permanently occupied by the foot he put in it.
I do rather like his description of the GHE though, “not cooling, slower cooling.”
Admirably brief, if completely worthless.
Eboy, please stop trespassing.
“Eboy, please stop trespassing.”
Still refusing to say what you mean? Trying to appear relevant?
Not succeeding that well, Willard. Oh dear, maybe you should dial up the obscurity setting on your gibberish generator. That might terrify him, do you think?
[laughing at dimwittd SkyDragon crank]
How are you this morning, Mike.
Did you sleep well?
“How are you this morning, Mike.
Did you sleep well?”
More idiocy from Wiltard. Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike, Mike,
The bar just opened. It might be 12:38 down under, it’s still a bit early.
You’d save money if you made your own coffee.
Yet more retarded idiocy.
You seem fixated on alcohol and dogs – do you think I am a Muslim, and you are trying to be offensive?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Alright, Mike. Calm down.
Here’s your beer.
Yet more retarded idiocy.
You seem fixated on alcohol and dogs do you think I am a Muslim, and you are trying to be
offensive? You’ll have to do better than that!
Willard, please stop trolling.
You drank that beer in record time, Mike!
Another one?
Yet more retarded idiocy.
You seem fixated on alcohol and dogs do you think I am a Muslim, and you are trying to be
offensive? Youll have to do better than that!
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re on fire, Mike!
Have another one.
Yet more retarded idiocy.
You seem fixated on alcohol and dogs do you think I am a Muslim, and you are trying to be
offensive? Youll have to do better than that! You’re such a fool, you can’t even get yourself banned!
Willard, please stop trolling.
So once again you drank too much too fast, Mike.
Settle down, then go home and take a nap.
Sensor error never comes into question.
https://www.barrons.com/news/india-weather-bureau-says-record-temperature-reading-could-be-sensor-error-5f69cd67
Richard, please stop confusing 52.3 and 52.9.
You mean there IS a sensor error?
“Mungeshpur reported 52.9 degrees Celsius (127.2 Fahrenheit) as an outlier compared to other stations”
“The India Meteorological Department (IMD), which reported ‘severe heatwave conditions’ recorded the temperature in the New Delhi suburb of Mungeshpur on Wednesday afternoon, smashing the previous national record in the desert of Rajasthan by more than one degree Celsius.”
“”Mungeshpur reported 52.9 degrees Celsius (127.2 Fahrenheit) as an outlier compared to other stations,” the India Meteorological Department (IMD) said in a statement, referring to a station in a Delhi suburb.”
Richard, please stop forgetting to state what was the temperature that has been beaten.
You decide which India Meteorological Department (IMD) report to believe.
Which state is Mungeshpur in?
Weird that a when a sensor error is suspected and being investigated that RLH says “Sensor error never comes into question.”
Nate, I was quoting whet Willard said. Do you accept his version and which India Meteorological Department (IMD) report do you consider accurate?
Richard, please stop galloping like Gish would.
Willard please answer https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1670121
Nope, he never said that.
“Nope, he never said that.”
He quoted one of the IMD statements. I quoted the other.
Richard, please stop playing dumb.
“He quoted one of the IMD statements. I quoted the other.”
So he didnt say that.
You tried to claim something never happens, by showing an example of it happening!
Willard cannot answer the question.
“So he didnt say that.”
IMD said 2 different things. Do you not get that?
Gordon Roberston wrote:
“In North America, and likely in Europe, governments have gone to great lengths to introduce the reduction of harmful emissions. There is nothing we can do about countries like China and India where they cant be bothered to protect citizens.”
Gordon,
That’s what I’ve often questioned about activism towards reducing emissions. These activists never address China or India.
I’ve noticed some discussions about climate change also bring up issues of inequity among what are claimed to be marginalized populations. For example, I remember reading an article about Native American communities facing disproportionate impacts from sea level rise, which the article linked to systemic treatment:
It seems to me that climate activists are more focused on promoting a leftist political agenda. If they truly cared about reducing CO2 emissions, they would be protesting in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square.
I’d love to see what would happen to Greta and her group of climate activists if they threw soup at that painting of Mao Zedong over there.
gb…re Venus. Till 1979, all the calculated temperatures for Venus were way off. They had predicted a greenhouse effect based on calculations but when the Pioneer probes reached the planet and did actual measurements, they found the surface temperature to be around 450C. That is far too hot to support a greenhouse theory.
In fact, Velikovsky, using deductive reasoning, estimated the Venus surface to be in excess of 800F (423C). He was far closer than anything predicted by S-B and the likes.
The current GHE hysteria here on Earth is based on Carl Sagan’s GHE theory for Venus. James Hansen believed in Sagan’s theories, not realizing Sagan was a big-mouthed egotist. So, here we are, saddled with the opinion of an ijit (Sagan).
Carl Sagan seemed to deny that the Earth’s surface was initially molten, and cooled from that state. He certainly thought that the Sun must have been much dimmer to account for the presence of liquid water on the surface early in the Hadean era. He convinced himself (and others) that if the Sun had the same output as today, it would have heated the Earth to a far higher temperature!
He co-authored a paper “Earth and Mars: Evolution of Atmospheres and Surface Temperatures” – which is complete nonsense. He “calculated” that four billion years or so ago, the surface temperature was 235 K – even though the geologic record shows otherwise.
He figures we’re all doomed – he writes “Earth will then resemble contemporary Venus, but with an atmospheric pressure of 300 bars of steam.” Oh dear!
No problem to Carl, facts are irrelevant – ignore them. After all, could a smart fellow like Carl be wrong?
Yes. He fooled himself, creating a non-existent problem – the Faint Sun paradox. Definitely not the brightest light in the room.
Swenson,
It’s called the young faint Sun paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
What a pile of nonsense.
Ther was a time when all (or almost all) earth’s water was in the atmosphere, along with lots of so2 it would have appeared much like Venus, only the sulfuric acid cloud layer would have been much thicker than what Venus has now.
The surface, receiving almost no solar radiation, would have been far hotter than it is now, perhaps even molten..
When the atmosphere cooled enough for rain to reach the surface, the rate at which the surface cooled would have increased dramatically..
Some time later, water would not be instantly vaporized by touching the surface and would begin to pool.
The temp of the surface at this point would be just shy of 100 C and still no solar input (all of it being absorbed much higher in the atmosphere..
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In November 1974, at the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association held at the University of Notre Dame, Michael W. Friedlander, professor of physics at Washington University in St. Louis, confronted Velikovsky in the symposium “Velikovsky and the Politics of Science” with examples of his “substandard scholarship” involving the “distortion of the published scientific literature in quotations that he used to support his theses”. For example, contrary to Velikovsky, R.A. Lyttleton did not write “the terrestrial planets, Venus included, must [emphasis added] have originated from the giant planets” Rather, Lyttleton wrote “it is even possible” As Friedlander recounts, “When I gave each example, [Velikovsky’s] response was ‘Where did I write that?’; when I showed a photo copy of the quoted pages, he simply switched to a different topic.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision
Looks like our Sky Dragon cranks did not invent that technique!
That is a tactic often employed by SkyDragon cranks like bobdroege and others of his ilk.
For example, if one is stupid enough to assume that the mythical GHE is supposed to result in some particular outcome, then someone like bobdroege will immediately complain “I didnt say that!”, which is true. You and the rest of the GHE cultists refuse to say anything that can be subjected to critical scrutiny.
Describe the GHE? “I refuse!” Even say what the GHE is supposed to do? “I refuse!”
And so it goes. Do you wonder why people laugh at your attempts to avoid facing reality?
You are a loser – trying to blame your intellectual deficit on others.
Keep losing – it suits you.
Mike Flynn, please stop regurgitating the Maypo Bob spoon feeds you with, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668522
“Mike Flynn, please stop regurgitating the Maypo Bob spoon feeds you with, e.g.:”
Oooooooh! How masterful and mature is that?
Idiot.
[laughing at desperate loser]
Another coffee, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are setting a bad example for more competent trolls.
Here you go:
*Tosses over a coffee*.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are setting a bad example for more competent trolls.
.
Please stop ranting, Mike, and I’ll get you another beer.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are setting a bad example for more competent trolls.
Please stop drooling on the counter, Mike.
I have read a couple of Velikovsky’s books and he is far more interesting than Darwin, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, or any other alarmist. Of course wee willy can’t read and that puts him at a disadvantage.
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” – Shakespeare.
Trying to sort the things from the dreams requires experience.
Some things, phlogiston, caloric, N-rays – turn out to be dreams. Some dreams eventually turn into things.
Keeps life interesting.
Mr. Asshat, Mike Flynn, please stop saying stuff.
Willard is a monkey.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop dehumanizing me in my own thread.
walterrh03 is an organ grinder’s monkey.
Why doesn’t Walter R. Hogle tell Sky Dragon cranks like Mr. Asshat, Mike Flynn, or Puffman that they trolling?
The mind boggles.
That is a tactic often employed by SkyDragon cranks like bobdroege and others of his ilk.
For example, if one is stupid enough to assume that the mythical GHE is supposed to result in some particular outcome, then someone like bobdroege will immediately complain “I didnt say that!”, which is true. You and the rest of the GHE cultists refuse to say anything that can be subjected to critical scrutiny.
Describe the GHE? I refuse! Even say what the GHE is supposed to do? I refuse!
And so it goes. Do you wonder why people laugh at your attempts to avoid facing reality?
You are a loser trying to blame your intellectual deficit on others.
Keep losing it suits you.
You can always refuse to say what you mean, and just provide a meaningless and irrelevant link, if you prefer. You still lose.
Mike Flynn, please stop losing your footing in the threads, and please regurgitating the Maypo Bob spoon feeds you with, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668522
“Mike Flynn, please stop losing your footing in the threads, and please regurgitating the Maypo Bob spoon feeds you with, e.g.:”
Oooooooh! How masterful and mature is that?
Idiot.
[laughing at desperate loser]
Mike Flynn, please stop losing your footing in the threads, and please stop regurgitating the Maypo Bob spoon feeds you with, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1669917
“Mike Flynn, please stop losing your footing in the threads, and please regurgitating the Maypo Bob spoon feeds you with, e.g.”
Oooooooh! H ow masterful and mature is that?
Idiot.
[laughing at desperate loser]
Mike Flynn, please stop losing your footing in the threads, and please stop regurgitating the Maypo Bob spoon feeds you with, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1669923
PM
“Mike Flynn, please stop losing your footing in the threads, and please regurgitating the Maypo Bob spoon feeds you with, e.g.” [irrelevant link]
Oooooooh! H ow masterful and mature is that?
Idiot..
[laughing at desperate loser]
Mike Flynn, please stop losing your footing in the threads, and please regurgitating the Maypo Bob spoon feeds you with, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665580
Swenson,
Calling me out in a thread is bad behavior.
Misrepresenting what I post is also bad behavior.
I can only assume you were raised by donkeys.
Elon Musks Starship Ark Aimed At Helping Humanity Survive Nuclear War
Kevin Holden Platt
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinholdenplatt/2024/05/28/elon-musks-starship-ark-aimed-at-helping-humanity-survive-nuclear-war/?sh=41e1160c1f5e
“SpaceX is racing to conduct the next test flight of its incredibly advanced Starship – the Titan-size space ark designed to shuttle humans to a terraformed Mars – even as the specter of nuclear war spreads its shadows across the Earth.
After Moscows ambassador to Washington personally warned him that use of the SpaceX satellite system by Ukraines democratic resistance to Russias invasion could spark the Kremlin to respond with tactical nuclear weapons, Elon Musk has been stepping up tests of the Starship spacecraft, as if he is trying to outpace an atomic time bomb.”
…
“In one of his final interviews with the BBC, the world-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking warned: We face a number of threats to our survival from nuclear war, catastrophic global warming, and genetically engineered viruses.
…
We can warm up Mars and we can densify the atmosphere, he predicted during the spellbinding Starbase talk. There would be a liquid ocean on about 40 percent of the surface so we could make it an Earth-like planet long-term.
Ocean?
I think you just need a lot of lake, start with couple, get over 1000.
Anyhow with the couple, it’s Christmas. Around the lake, you got snow. And once get dozens, you making larger “bubble” of higher water vapor, regional {and lots of snow on the ground within much bigger area.
But if have an ocean, it should increase the global temperature.
But don’t have no cold air- it’s close enough to vacuum, that it has no temperature.
We humans would not have to worry about a nuclear war if we’d get over our petty egos and dependence on cultural bs.
Yes gordon, your petty ego is what caused you to go nuclear over being constructively criticized.
The SkyDragon cranks have lost it. Ah well, that’s what losers do, isn’t it?
After being reduced to describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” (Willard), and “The GHE is a stack of blankets” (Entropic Man), Bindidon went further, and wrote “Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form. CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
Now, the main tactic is to try to refuse saying anything relating to the GHE.
Some pose endless idiotic gotchas about irrelevant subjects, some babble mindless ad-homs, and some post random weather news All trying to appear intelligent, for no good reason – they still refuse to address the mythical GHE.
All quite humorous – the twisting and turning of the fanatical GHE cultists never ceases to amaze. In particular, Willard’s latest attempts to get himself banned are laughably bizarre. He’s too inept to even achieve that.
I look forward to more of the same. Nothing wrong with a good laugh from time to time.
Mike Flynn, please stop accusing Team Science of being cranks – the Sky Dragon cranks are those who like you deny the greenhouse effect.
“Sky Dragon cranks” make up the GHE cult.
The name comes from the book describing the hoax.
Puffman, please stop conflating a slayer like me and a crank like you.
No one would confuse me with an uneducated child like you, silly willy.
You are the essence of the GHE cult — incompetent, ignorant, and immature.
Puffman, please stop talking like you did not have myriads of sock puppets banned from Roy’s already.
I also remember BIn-liner saying that we all lack the scientific competence to discuss the impact of CO2.
You would think he would also direct that towards the AGW enthusiasts, not just the skeptics. He shows his true colors, instead.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop whatbouting your irrelevant Climateball stories.
Simpleton Hogle is once more discrediting on the basis of what he himelf intentionally misrepresents:
” You would think he would also direct that towards the AGW enthusiasts, not just the skeptics. He shows his true colors, instead. ”
I just wrote something like ‘we ALL lack the scientific competence to discuss the impact of CO2′.
By the way, I respect skeptics, but not people who distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and lie: those I unequivocally call the pseudo-skeptics.
Simpleton Hogle increasingly does his very best to belong to the second category.
Yes, walterrh03, you lack the scientific competence…
But your comments are entertaining, in an organ grinder’s monkey kind of way.
Why don’t you tell Arky and Entropic Man that they also lack the scientific competence you speak of?
Simpleton Hogle
I repeat
” I just wrote something like we ALL lack the scientific competence to discuss the impact of CO2′. ”
YOU were the one who tried to misrepresent what I wrote.
*
– Do YOU, Simpleton Hogle, contradict Robertson, Clint R, DREMT, Flynnson, the Hunter boy when they post their nonsense about Moon’s lack of spin?
– Do YOU, Simpleton Hogle, contradict Robertson when he rants against Einstein’s relativity results or even tries to deny the existence of time?
– And above all: Do YOU, Simpleton Hogle, contradict the professional Roy Spencer, when he uses exactly the same average and anomaly concepts as those you discredit and denigrate when I layman use them?
You are such a coward, Simpleton Hogle.
Binny,
You did write –
“Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.
CO2 might become a problem who knows.”, didn’t you?
But you refuse to describe the GHE, so how can you say what effect it has, and what causes it?
It’s all fine to abuse people, but your attempts might be ignored if you just look like an ignorant fanatical GHE cultist to others.
Keep refusing to describe the GHE, and your opinion will be regarded as highly as any other idiot who also refuses to say what they are talking about.
Carry on.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Once again, where are the measurements?
It is easy to invent a hypothetical solar insolation accepting factor. It is equally easy to invent formulae.
To show that your hypothesis has any relation to reality you need to test it by experiment.”
–
The measurements are the planets and moons satellite measured temperatures. The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon has been discovered by comparing the satellite measured temperatures.
It is not “a hypothetical solar insolation accepting factor.” By “accepting” means how much energy a spherical shape body may “stop”.
A spherical shape body may stop a flow of energy. Because of spherical shape a sphere may stop Φ(1-a)S of total incident energy.
Φ varies from 0,47 to 1. The smoother the surface is the closer to 0,47 the Φ is.
Thus, a smooth surface sphere with Albedo a = 0
should “absorb” 0,47*S.
A sphere with rough surface (Φ = 1) and a = 0 should “absorb” a 100% S.
And a sphere with Albedo a = 1 should not “absorb” EM energy, regardless the values of Φ.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, You don’t don’t seem to understand the concept of Bond Albedo.
“The Bond albedo (also called spheric albedo, planetary albedo, and bolometric albedo), named after the American astronomer George Phillips Bond (18251865), who originally proposed it, is the fraction of power in the total electromagnetic radiation incident on an astronomical body that is scattered back out into space.
Because the Bond albedo accounts for all of the light scattered from a body at all wavelengths and all phase angles, it is a necessary quantity for determining how much energy a body absorbs. “
Wikipedia.
There is no need to account for ‘smooth’ or ‘rough’, since this is already included in the albedo.
Folkerts, you don’t seem to understand the concept of “Bond albedo”. You unhesitatingly swallow wiki stuff that originates in astronomy, aka astrology. It’s based on anti-science. When things violate the laws of physics, those things need to be thrown in the trash heap of false science.
Christos is trying to explain there are considerations that make the concept of “albedo” more accurate. You need to try to learn some science, instead of blindly following cult teachings.
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
“is the fraction of power in the total electromagnetic radiation incident on an astronomical body that is scattered back out into space.
Because the Bond albedo accounts for all of the light scattered from a body at all wavelengths and all phase angles, it is a necessary quantity for determining how much energy a body absorbs. ”
–
–
“it is a necessary quantity for determining how much energy a body absorbs.”
Albedo doesn’t account for the entire fraction of electromagnetic radiation incident on an astronomical body that is scattered back out into space.
The measured by satellites planetary Albedo accounts only on the (isotropical-like part of the scattered diffuse reflection), which can be seen by the satellite sensors, since it falls upon them.
But Albedo doesn’t account on the (directional-like part of the diffuse reflection) which escapes the satellite sensors orientation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” … stuff that originates in astronomy, aka astrology. ”
Yes: Clint R as well belongs since ‘evah’ to the pseudo-skeptics, the people who distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and lie.
Clint R doesn’t have a clue of what astronomy (and by the way, even astrology) actually are.
He never and never would ever visit an observatory!
But not because he would fear of ‘visiting evil’, oh no.
On the contrary, he fears that this visit could be the beginning of his realization of how simplistic his 360-degree, ‘ball-on-a-string’-based view of the world around him actually is.
Vournas
” But Albedo doesnt account on the (directional-like part of the diffuse reflection) which escapes the satellite sensors orientation. ”
Once again, you post an allegation which was many times contradicted by several posters on the blog; but you never were able to give a scientific explanation for what was contradicted.
You simply endlessly, endlessly reply the same stuff: exactly like people like Clint R, Robertson, Flynnson also do, against all evidence.
Where is your SCIENTIFIC proof that specular reflection is not accounted for in the FINAL albedo calculations, Vournas?
Your Φ is no more than your own invention, and sounds exactly like Clint R’s ball-on-a-string, or Robertson’s denegation of time’s existence.
Bindidon,
“Your Φ is no more than your own invention,”
–
But,
Reflectance tends to increase with a decreasing solar elevation angle.
Continental areas generally have higher albedo values than ocean areas.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Where is your SCIENTIFIC proof that specular reflection is not accounted for in the FINAL albedo calculations?
You are simply not able to provide for this proof.
Bindi joins silly willy, vying for worthless tr0ll of the blog.
None of the children can come up with any real science.
1. Where is their viable model of “orbiting without spin”?
2. Where is their viable description/definition of the bogus GHE?
They’ve got NOTHING.
Puffman, silly sock puppet, please stop saying stuff.
Clint interjects: “Christos is trying to explain there are considerations that make the concept of albedo more accurate.”
No. I am explaining why Christos’ understanding is incomplete and inaccurate. That makes your understanding here doubly incomplete doubly inaccurate.
For details, see:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1670282
Bindidon,
“Vournas
Where is your SCIENTIFIC proof that specular reflection is not accounted for in the FINAL albedo calculations?
You are simply not able to provide for this proof.”
–
–
NASA Technical Memorandum 104596
An Earth Albedo Model
A Mathematical Model for the Radiant
Energy Input to an Orbiting Spacecraft
Due to the Diffuse Reflectance of Solar
Radiation From the Earth Below
Thomas W. Flatley
Wendy A. Moore
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
1994
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940020024/downloads/19940020024.pdf
“Albedo
Solar radiation arriving at the Earth’s surface is generally considered to be partially absorbed, partially specularly reflected and partially diffusely reflected.
Local surface characterisics and cloud cover conditions determine the relative importance of these phenomena.
The energy which is absorbed is eventually re-radiated into space at infrared wavelengths. Solar cells are insensitive to this radiation.
With specular reflection (as commonly occurs with mirrored surfaces) some or all of the incoming solar rays are reflected with the angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence. Since a spacecraft would receive very little energy from even
an entire Earth which was specularly reflecting this type of reflection is ignored here.
Here, we consider the sunlit potion of the Earth to be a uniform, diffuse reflector and will use the word “albedo” in a limited sense, i.e. the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total
energy incident on the surface.”
–
–
“This incoming solar flux is partially absorbed and partially reflected. The
amount of light reflected is proportional to the incident light by an albedo
constant, ALB, which depends on the Earth’s surface characteristics. (See Appendix II.) This model assumes that the albedo constant does not vary over the Earth’s surface, neglecting the variation of diffuse reflectance with geographical features. A good estimate of the Earth’s annual average albedo constant
is 0.3 ”
–
–
“the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total
energy incident on the surface.”
–
–
“A good estimate of the Earth’s annual average albedo constant
is 0.3 ”
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
What you manifestly don’t understand is that the text you just posted is the proof for the meaningless yet incorrect use of your Φ factor.
But exactly like Robertson denies the existence of time or the lunar spin deniers deny the lunar spin, you will endlessly continue to post your Φ manipulation.
Good continuation!
Christos supplies the proof Binny asked for and Binny replies typically with ad hom and insults.
How do you spell loser?
Mr. Asshat, please stop lying about Christos’ Humpty Dumpty trick.
” … replies typically with ad hom and insults. ”
Says Robertson, the perverse liar and absolutely disgusting guy who calls others ‘cheating SÔB’, ‘asshole’ and more recently, ‘Nazi alarmists’.
To that sheer amount of ad homs and insults there can be only one reaction:
Piss off my comments, Robertson.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Piss off my comments, Robertson.”
Why do you allow yourself to be annoyed? If you don’t value someone’s opinion, don’t take notice of it. No need to get upset – might be good for a laugh!
I’m still waiting for someone to describe the GHE – I don’t bother getting annoyed at all the GHE believers refusing to describe the GHE. I find it a cause for amusement, not anger.
However, there is nothing you can do to Robertson or anybody else. You are completely powerless in that regard, which I also find amusing.
To each his own.
Mike Flynn, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Christos, this is a paper specifically about light arriving at a specific type of wide angle detector. They want to correct specifically for the addition of reflected earth light added to direct sunlight.
“Coarse Sun Sensors are often used on spacecraft as part of Attitude
Determination Systems. They function essentially as Direction Cosine = sensors, with their output approximately proportional to the cosine of the angle between the “boresight” of the sensor and a vector from the spacecraft to the sun. Their field of view is approximately hemispherical.”
They even highlight this: “… [we] will use the word “albedo” in a limited sense”. This is NOT total bond albedo, but rather a limited sense of albedo for this detector for this use.
And they highlight this again in the conclusion. “This simplified albedo model was developed for use in spacecraft control system simulations, specifically, for modeling Coarse Sun Sensors.” (Emphasis added)
So, yes, they skip specular reflection in THESE calculations because specular reflection is not important for THESE sensors for THIS purpose.
–Entropic man says:
May 30, 2024 at 1:55 AM
Gbaikie
Venus energy budget Figure 6 here.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704
How does the extra spectrum you mention modify this budget?–
What talking about, was a Parker Solar probe [accidental discovery]. It was launched: “August 12, 2018: Launch – 3:31 a.m. EDT (7:31 UTC)”
and it was few years after that.
That paper says: “First published: 14 November 2015”
“This surprising observation sent the WISPR team back to the lab to measure the instruments sensitivity to infrared light. If WISPR can indeed pick up near-infrared wavelengths of light, the unforeseen capability would provide new opportunities to study dust around the Sun and in the inner solar system. If it cant pick up extra infrared wavelengths, then these images showing signatures of features on Venus surface may have revealed a previously unknown window through the Venusian atmosphere.
Either way, Vourlidas said, some exciting science opportunities await us. ”
https://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Show-Article.php?articleID=160
From:
https://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/index.php#News-Archive
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Extreme heat in Mexico, Central America and parts of the U.S. South has left millions of people in sweltering temperatures, strained energy grids and resulted in iconic Howler monkeys in Mexico dropping dead from trees.
[…]
The Mexican Weather Service forecasts another heat wave for June but it is expected to be shorter and not as severe as this one.
In Guatemala, the heat, coupled with forest fires, prompted authorities to take the unusual step of banning outdoor activities in the capital’s schools due to poor air quality.
Nearby nations including Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Dominican Republic and Haiti are also experiencing abnormally warm temperatures due to this area of high pressure.
https://www.abc4.com/news/top-stories/ap-top-headlines/ap-heat-dome-leads-to-sweltering-temperatures-in-mexico-central-america-and-us-south/
Heat waves have nothing to do with the GHE or AGW. The longest string of heatwaves in the US, by far, was in the 1930s. I don’t that Mexico escaped those heat waves.
The worst heat wave in North American history…1936.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave
Mr. Asshat, please stop saying stuff, and drink plenty of fluids.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good afternoon, Mike.
Feeling better today?
Willard, please stop trolling.
We need to preserve your liver and your sanity, Mike –
How about a mocktail?
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are being idiotic.
No mocktail, Mike?
No worries.
Safe travel.
–Astonomers find another record-setting most distant galaxy
May 30, 2024 9:42 am Robert Zimmerman
The uncertainty of science: Using the Webb Space Telescope, astonomers have identified another record-setting most distant galaxy, believed to exist only 300 million years after the Big Bang and once again far more massive and developed than expected that early in the universe.–
https://behindtheblack.com/
“All the early galaxies that Webb has found so far have been far more massive and developed than cosmologists had predicted. The expectation had been that there wouldnt have been enough time after the Big Bang for such galaxies to develop. Yet they have, suggesting something is not right with our theories about the beginning of the universe.”
The better our observation tools, the better we can observe, from the almost infinitely far down to the almost infinitely small.
And the better we observe, the more often we have to rethink our theories.
‘Und das ist gut so’, as say the Krauts around me.
There are no tools that can even come close to accuracy when observing the very large scale, like the universe, or the microscopic, like atomic structure. That’s why we have such hokey theories of the universe, like the Big Bang and black holes, and quantum theory for the microscopic.
An example are the ijits who think Einstein’s thought experiments have replaced the the observations of Newton. They claim Newton does not apply at the atomic level which is bs. The problem is the lack of instrumentation to observe and measure at the atomic level. That applies even more so to Einstein’s nonsense.
This discovery does not support th Big Bang, it casts doubt on it. The farther we see into the universe, the less likely we know the size of it and a centre.
Besides, the theory that the Universe is expanding from a centre is based on Doppler light shift in stars. It’s a pretty hokey theory, at best. More desperation from theorists than real science.
Astronomers measure the red and blue shifts in the spectrum of stars, and they have found way more red shifted stars than blue shifted stars.
And the farther away the star, the more likely it is to be red shifted.
The theory is based on evidence.
Gbaikie
Thank you. That’s an interesting update.
I doubt it would significantly change the total OLR, but it changes the OLR spectrum.
There is a cult of ignorance binding all deniers together. Whether it’s Gordon Robertson’s meandering word salads about his misunderstanding of physics, or walterrh03’s baseless admonitions of violations of the Central Limit Theorem, or Christos Vournas’ Earth without atmosphere incantations, the strain of antiscience is a constant thread winding through all their posts, rooted in the erroneous belief that their ignorance is just as good as our knowledge.
Your proselytizing on behalf of the alarmist pseudo-science does not rebut any science I have offered. If you have anything to offer to rebut my science, let’s hear it. Thus far, I have heard nothing from you or other alarmists but ad homs and insults.
See here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1669911
And here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1669920
For starters
This is a good example too: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665196
And I’ll repeat this here:
I have “scientifically” rebutted all your “points” to such a degree that you invariably end up moving the goalposts, belittling me and calling me names, and/or abruptly terminating the discussion without explicitly acknowledging your errors. Everyone here is aware of your Modus Operandi, yet you persist, why?
A,
You wrote –
“I have “scientifically” rebutted all your “points”.
Anyone who uses the word scientifically as you did (even putting quotes around to indicate you really meant something else), is using the word incorrectly.
You refuse to describe the GHE scientifically, because you are terrified that someone will criticise your description as not reflecting reality!
Who would value the opinions of such as you, who refuses to describe a supposed phenomena such as the GHE?
Science is about the scientific method, not bizarre fantasies about things which cannot even be described!
Carry on dreaming.
Ark, any scientist or engineer will tell you that in real-world experiments, samples must be homogeneous. Any change in environmental parameters, observing practices, measuring instruments, or observation locations can distort the results.
In climate science, the measurements taken over the period of rapid warming do not, at all, meet these requirements. Meeting these standards is impractical, which inevitably limits our understanding.
This is why NOAA and other agencies attempt to correct for several well-known biases in their time series data.
My position is not anti-science in any way.
“Any change in environmental parameters, observing practices, measuring instruments, or observation locations can distort the results.”
*WILL* distort the results!
What does this mean: “samples must be homogeneous“
B.2.15
repeatability (of results of measurements)
closeness of the agreement between the results of successive measurements of the same measurand carried out under the same conditions of measurement
NOTE 1
These conditions are called repeatability conditions.
NOTE 2
the
the
the
the
repetition over a short period of time.
Repeatability conditions include:
same measurement procedure
same observer
same measuring instrument, used under the same conditions same location
From page 35 of JCGM 100:2008
Pro-tip from a real engineer:
When sampling the real world you never get ideal conditions. You must control for all those factors.
same measurement procedure
same observer
same measuring instrument, used under the same conditions
the same location
So, homogeneity means repeatability?
“When sampling the real world you never get ideal conditions. You must control for all those factors.”
Exactly.
You can’t!
In a desert, the amount and thermal properties of sand will change due to sandstorms and floods.
To me homogeneity refers to the uniformity of properties throughout a material or system.
“In a desert, the amount and thermal properties of sand will change due to sandstorms and floods.”
So, you’re saying that we know this but don’t know how to account for these factors? Show me!
Pro-tip # 2: If it was easy anybody could do it.
Anyway, it’s obvious you’ve never been tasked with taking real measurements of real world materials or systems.
It is easy to be dubious about matters outside of your wheelhouse. It takes years of education and experience to become proficient at something; some say 10,000 hours.
“So, homogeneity means repeatability?”
Oooooooooh! A gotcha!
Display your knowledge – tell everyone the answer. Or refuse to be helpful, and look like an idiot.
Suit yourself.
“Pro-tip # 2: If it was easy anybody could do it.”
It’s obviously easy to become a “climate scientist”, isn’t it? You don’t even need to be a scientist! Gavin Schmidt, for example.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop eliding your own unwarranted inferences.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ark, the assumption is that when collecting a large number of samples, variability smooths out over time. However, if the parameters of variability are constantly changing due to this type of environmental phenomena, then how does it smooth out?
Let’s revisit my list:
same measuring instrument, 𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦
walterrh03,
Half the time I don’t know what it is you’re trying to ask.
This video might address some of your issues. It’s only 1 minute long. Can your mind not wander for 1 minute?
Trend and variation: https://youtu.be/e0vj-0imOLw
Walter R. Hogle, please stop acting as if bgdwx hasn’t chastised you multiple times already on this topic, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668691
Ark, I watched your video, and it seems you are the one confused. You appear to think one-dimensionally, conflating real-world variability with statistical variability.
I speak trendologist. Let me illustrate my point with a simple example using graphs:
#1) https://imgur.com/uqQATuS
This first link shows the conventional climate signal for a region, representing the ideal data you aim to obtain from your samples over time. One key point to understand is that the true signal is never fully known. You simply assume that the samples collected over time accurately represent the true signal from beginning to end.
#2: https://imgur.com/PJUGLfV
This second link shows the time series data from a station we’ll call Station #1. During that year, catastrophic flooding inundated the region, undermining the material supporting a large boulder. As a result, the boulder fell, exposing the previously shaded thermometer to direct sunlight. The blue arrow marks when the flooding occurred, and you can see a step-up change in the data following this event.
#3: https://imgur.com/zURsBwH
This third link shows the time series data from a station we’ll call Station #2, located near a lake. During that year, a landslide caused large rocks to fall into the lake, raising the water levels. Since bodies of water moderate the surrounding air temperature, the increased lake levels enhanced the lake’s heat capacity, resulting in a stronger moderating effect on the surrounding air temperature. This effect is visible in the time series data following the blue arrow, which marks when the landslide occurred.
#4: https://imgur.com/VsZMRJQ
This final link shows the averaged time series data from both Station #1 and Station #2. Compare this to the conventional climate signal shown in link #1. The events described in links #2 and #3, when averaged together, distort the overall signal.
Main takeaway: For your time series to accurately reflect the signal you are trying to track, environmental parameters must remain consistent from start to finish.
However, nature’s inherent variability prevents this, making it impossible to smooth out these fluctuations and determine the true rate of change. Without knowing the rate of change, studying climate becomes challenging, as significant climatic events occurring at specific points in time may go unnoticed.
Dr. Roy Spencer,
Please don’t approve my comment from just 10 minutes or so ago.
Ark,
My reply can’t get through here, so this google drive share link will have to do:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/177RUrop6iXycOP24gYbYMeh2aRIhwo8vrgyHwG-C4IE/edit?usp=sharing
Bdgwx never chastised me on anything.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop falling back on pure denial.
Bdgwx thinks that concrete has the exact same warming effect on a hot, summer day as a cold, rainy day. Apparently, so do you.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop putting straw into minds with silly probes.
Unbelievable.
Whatever.
Goodbye.
Walter, you presume that when an unusual change causes a blip in data from a weather station, that nobody pays attention nor addresses the problems with the data.
When in reality, such changes are noticed and station data is removed or corrected.
So this is really grasping at straws.
walter: Bdgwx thinks that concrete has the exact same warming effect on a hot, summer day as a cold, rainy day.
No I don’t.
There very well are some true deniers depending on how you define that, but on your side there is a long history of hype and misinformation punctuated by science that is highly speculative at best. The constant hype and personal attacks such as yours are the hallmark of climate change claims at every level. That is not science.
Making absolute conclusions based on weak theory is not science. Claiming that climate models are accurately calibrated by controversial data is junk science at best. Finally, computer games do not make valid predictions of the future. There is much to criticize in the various climate change claims that vary from being speculative to being outright absurd.
TS, please stop forgetting that “But CAGW” is the central square of the Contrarian Bingo, and that to whine about alarmism and uncertainty at the same time are not compatible.
Willard,
Your description of the GHE, “not cooling, slower cooling”, rather sums up idiots like you.
Go on, refuse to say what you really meant.
Mike Flynn, please stop defeating TS’ appeals to incredulity by denying your own description of the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Willard,
Your description of the GHE, “not cooling, slower cooling”, rather sums up idiot like you.
Go on, refuse to say what you really meant.
You could be like the other idiots, and claim somebody else described the GHE!
Mike Flynn, please stop repeating something I just refuted –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
You’re making TS’ silence toward you even more obvious.
Willard,
Your description of the GHE, “not cooling, slower cooling”, rather sums up idiot like you.
Go on, refuse to say what you really meant.
You could be like the other idiots, and claim somebody else described the GHE!
Your call, idiot.
You guys should get a room.
Tim S,
“There very well are some true deniers depending on how you define that”
I define denier as someone who rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.
Yes, consensus is not part of the scientific method, but rather a consequence of it. Even in the most esoteric scientific areas consensus always prevails.
The remainder of your comment seems to be a consequence of the fact that you only ever post items from News outlets. Try reading the scientific literature instead. Free Textbooks are available everywhere, for now… Nvidia denies pirate e-book sites are “shadow libraries” to shut down lawsuit
Arkady, I can not tell if you are making a joke, or trying to be serious. Whether you realize it or not, you newest comment provides more evidence to prove my statement about using hype and making absolute conclusions based on weak science and weak data with a high level of uncertainty.
Carry on!
TS, please stop sounding like a broken record by using your confirmation bias to bypass TYSON’s point about consensus in science, which he could improve by appealing directly to the fact that knowledge is first and foremost intersubjective.
Well Tim S, you are just going to have to give me an example of what you mean by
“using hype and making absolute conclusions based on weak science and weak data with a high level of uncertainty”
that doesn’t come from a news outlet but rather a scientific publication.
Can you do that?
Here Tim S quotes CBS News: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1667364
Here he could be quoting any one of the thousands of News outlet that carried this story: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668428
The invitation to set your strawman on fire is rejected. Knowledgeable people understand the concern about using weak and speculative science to claim a factual conclusion based on a consensus. I think 97% of scientists could agree on that point.
Carry on!
So, you have no evidence or examples. Only words. Got it.
For the sake of completeness, here is a good summary of present-day consensus.
Climate change – evidence and causes: https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
Feel free to refute (with data) any of them.
Really Tim? Do we really need another ‘we can’t possibly know anything about anything’ sort of rant from you?
These are so vague and non-specific that they can be safely ignored.
walter…”I also remember BIn-liner saying that we all lack the scientific competence to discuss the impact of CO2″.
***
Walter…don’t know if you were here at the time Binny got miffed and announced his departure from the blog. Shortly after he left, he re=appeared using his girlfriend nym.
That’s the character Binny exudes, a lamer who lives in a sci-fi existence. Nothing is sacred to him, not even his girl friend’s reputation.
And Robertson never will stop misrepresenting, discrediting, denigrating and lying.
No wonder that Simpleton Hogle names him a ‘researcher’.
Mr. Asshat, please stop grooming our kid in a trenchcoat.
Bindidon, Willard, please stop trolling.
One of the first interactions I had with Binny was about Arctic sea ice during the summer. He challenged the notion of using September 2012 as a benchmark, but I reminded him that the minimum is always a very important metric to track. I was very polite, but he responded aggressively.
His reaction reminded me of a chimpanzee. They are very aggressive when confronted.
“reminded me of a chimpanzee.”
Which, FYI, are not monkeys.
Simpleton Hogle
” I was very polite, but he responded aggressively. ”
No, you weren’t ‘very polite’, but superficial, opinionated, arrogant and condescending.
And conversely, I wasn’t aggressive but firmly contradicted you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588096
*
You, Simpleton Hogle, are one of those people who think they are always right, no matter what they write, and who, like old elementary school teachers, simply cannot stand being contradicted.
This is why you call anyone who disagrees with you a ‘monkey’.
Thanks for your courageous ‘chimpanzee’ insult, you perfectly show how you really behave, and what you really are.
I was referring to this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1554752
Walter R. Hogle, please stop skipping over “he has openly shown that he may not possess the highest level of intellectual acumen.”
He was the one who was initially aggressive, Willard.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop trying to hide the aggravating smarm you displayed right from the start, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1554592
Simpleton Hogle
” He was the one who was initially aggressive, Willard. ”
Now, Hogle, you are becoming 100% dishonest and, on top of that, you are not behaving like a grown man but like an effeminate spinster.
Concerning the comment you referred to
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1554752
I respond in the same way as above.
I wasnt aggressive AT ALL but firmly contradicted you.
You, Simpleton Hogle, are one of those people who think they are always right, no matter what they write, and who, like old elementary school teachers, simply cannot stand being contradicted.
And that’s the reason why you discredit everyone contradicting you as being ‘aggressive’.
And that’s finally also the reason why you deserve this tough reply, and will deserve such replies each time you discredit me just because you are unable to engage a valuable technical contradiction.
As SpaceX Completes Second Starship WDR, FAA Closes Safety Investigation Into Flight 3
written by Adrian Beil May 30, 2024
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/05/starship-flight4-faa/
“SpaceX is clearing the final milestones before launching the Starship vehicle for the fourth time. The FAA has completed its safety investigation into Flight 3 of Starship and has deemed it non-dangerous for the public. Additionally, the company successfully completed the second wet dress rehearsal (WDR) of the full stack consisting of Booster 11 and Ship 29, which went smoothly, according to the company.”
So, next Wednesday. Weather guess at:
https://tinyurl.com/56tevztm
Chance of rain and wind at about 20 mph
Fear, not, we shall go to the Moon.
Late, but C’mon man!
Earlier, Bindidon wrote –
“Where is your SCIENTIFIC proof that specular reflection is not accounted for in the FINAL albedo calculations?”
As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Proof is for fields like mathematics. Science is about disproof.
Christos speculates. Fanatical GHE cultists speculate, some thinking that CO2 controls the world’s temperature.
You speculate, writing “Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.
CO2 might become a problem who knows.”, and of course you refuse to describe the GHE!
What, your powers of speculation don’t extend that far?
The GHE appears to be a myth – nobody can even describe it in any way that reflects reality. Certainly, no consistent description exists amongst GHE supporters – even you disavow the influence of CO2 to any significant extent.
You are obviously just trying to be annoying, because people disagree with your blind faith, gullibility, and ignorance – belief in something you don’t even believe in yourself!
ark….”Gordon Robertson,
Every citizen needs to have a crisp, qualitative understanding of these concepts.
1/Radiation is the only mechanism by which infrared heat emitted by the Earth system can pass to outer space. Other forms of heat transfer, such as conduction or convection, are not applicable in the vacuum of space.
***
True. However, heat is transported vertically within the atmosphere by conduction/convection and dissipated as altitude increases. That means less heat has to be dissipated via radiation. Also, radiation is less efficient at dissipating heat than conduction/convection therefore the surface is heated faster by solar radiation than it can be removed. That’s the real cause of warming.
Remember, heat is the KE of atoms/molecules. If the number of molecules per unit volume decreases, the KE, hence the heat, reduces automatically.
——
“2/Adding GHGs to the atmosphere effectively reduces the efficiency of infrared heat transfer to space.
***
You have not explained how. Quantum theory a la Bohr tells us that heat is lost the moment radiation is produced. That’s the idea behind electron transitions downward, a loss of KE, and KE is heat. Therefore as an electron move to a lower orbit, the energy loss takes place via EM(IR). Therefore, there is no heat in radiation to be dissipated further.
You can scratch that theory re GHGs affected hat dissipation at the surface.
________
Lagniappe:
“Moist air is less dense than dry air due to the lower molecular weight of water vapor compared to dry air constituents like nitrogen and oxygen”.
***
Lagniappe obviously does not understand basic chemistry. If you have a limited volume containing air, and you add water vapour molecules, you increase the density ( and air pressure). Density is mass per unit volume. If you add mass to a fixed volume the density must increase.
The only way his theory can be true is if the added WV displaced air molecules. Ho likely is that in the atmosphere? In the Tropics where WV is maximum, if the WV displaces 3% of air molecules, where do they go?
Point to note. If the WV being added is significantly warmer than the air, then it will increase the temperature of the air and that could reduce density. However, that is no different than the solid surface being heated by solar energy and it in turn heating air molecules so they become less dense and rise.
Over the Tropical ocean, descending air that replaces heated and rising air could be cooler than the WV being created at the same time. That is not as likely over solid land.
Gordon,
You wrote –
“In the Tropics where WV is maximum, if the WV displaces 3% of air molecules, where do they go?”
Either sideways or upwards.
The result can be cumulonimbus clouds punching through the tropopause. “Powerful cumulonimbus clouds with bright white overshooting tops that punch through the tropopause are especially easy to track on visible satellite images” – from Satellite Meteorology course.
The highest verified cumulonimbus cloud tops of which Im aware were in excess of 23,000 m.
Shows the awesome power of “WV balloons”.
Ain’t nature grand?
Good point. Clouds are formed from WV and you don’t see clouds normally floating just above the water. The WV being less dense, likely moves through the air on its own and condenses to form clouds. Before it gets to such an altitude, however, I don’t think it is displacing air molecules but mingling with them, That increases the density of air since the volume remains constant.
ark…”When sampling the real world you never get ideal conditions. You must control for all those factors”.
***
Tell that to climate modelers. Besides, real engineers would never support an inane theory like the GHE or AGW. In the UK, it was engineers who forced the Royal Society to rescind their alarmist statements re climate change.
ark…you sure you’re not a locomotive engineer, or a sanitary engineer? I am neither, my field is applied science. I actually studied math, physics and engineering at an accredited university.
“ I actually studied math, physics and engineering at an accredited university.”
However, there is no evidence that you made it past the first year.
A,
There is no evidence that you are not just another fanatical GHE cultist, both ignorant and gullible.
“forced the Royal Society to rescind their alarmist statements re climate change.”
This Royal Society?
Yes Ark, we know what the cult believes. But, do you they have any science? For example, how does a 15μ photon warm a 288K surface?
Believes ain’t science.
A,
That would be the Royal Society whose motto is “Take nobody’s word for it? Well, NULLIUS IN VERBA actually, but who uses Latin?
In other words, speculation without experimental support remains speculation.
You arent being gullible enough to believe what somebody from the Royal Society says, just because they claim to be authoritative, are you? Maybe nobody at the Royal Society has raised their eyes to read their motto recently – it’s inscribed in quite large letters.
I know you, like the Royal Society, refuse to describe the GHE, so nobody really knows what you are talking about. Yes, the climate changes. No external influences needed, as the atmosphere behaves chaotically. If external influences affect such a system, their future impact is quite unpredictable – but don’t take my word for it.
I might be wrong.
Climate science keeps contradicting itself
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/30/met-office-warns-extremely-wet-summerafter-warning-droughts-would-become-more-frequent/
— As global temperatures rise, there is a risk drought will become more frequent in the UK. Data available here.
Winters across the UK are projected to get wetter, while summers are expected to become drier. However, it is the distribution of this rainfall that will determine future UK drought risk.
Today: prepare for at least 50 days of summer rain!
Ironically, it has just been reported by news site LBC here that the Met Office now has warned the government to prepare for at least 50 days of rain in the next three months, leading to fears over further flooding in the UK and dashing any hopes of a warm British summer. —
–Hours later, the Met Office tried to backpedal, telling tyla.com here that it has had to come forward to shut down reports that the UK is reportedly set for 50 days of rain this summer and: It is not possible to forecast a specific number of days of rain for the whole of summer.
When looking at forecasts beyond five days into the future, the chaotic nature of the atmosphere starts to come into play small events currently over the Atlantic can have potentially significant impacts on our weather in the UK in several days or weeks time, the Met Office told Tyla.–
Yeah, maybe it’s right in 5 days, But normally 2 or 3 is more likely.
Anyhow hurricane season. I got 10% chance of cyclone formation:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
The Met office is as corrupt as NOAA and GISS. Alarmists all the way.
binny…”like Robertson denies the existence of time or the lunar spin deniers deny the lunar spin…”
***
The first one is easy and it is a proof, not a denial. There is no way to locate or measure a phenomenon called time. Time as we know it is an invention of the human mind based on the rotational period of the Earth. There is no time element in that period, it is simply a regular rotation wrt the stars.
However, we human used only one star, the Sun, forgetting that as the Earth revolves about the Sun, it moves each rotation. Therefore, the Sun is seen later each day. Astronomers solve that by using the stars in general as the point of reference thus the solar day has a different length than the sidereal day. That alone prove that time has no existence outside the human mind.
The absence of lunar spin is a no-brainer. Any body that moves with a curvilinear motion, keeping one side pointed at its external axis cannot spin about an internal axis. That inner face will change its orientation wrt the stars by 360 degrees without spinning about an internal axis, but the less educated like Binny are far too obtuse to get that.
Mr. Asshat, please stop denying that “there is no way to locate or measure a phenomenon called time” is pure denial.
Show me how to locate or measure time.
Mr. Asshat, please stop conflating a proof with a sammich request.
Willard, please stop trolling.
tim f…”The Bond albedo (also called spheric albedo, planetary albedo, and bolometric albedo), named after the American astronomer George Phillips Bond (18251865), who originally proposed it, is the fraction of power in the total electromagnetic radiation incident on an astronomical body that is scattered back out into space”.
***
Tim…albedo does not tell us a lot about heat absorbed. I don’t think albedo is as much about scattering as it is reflection. However, not all frequencies of solar energy absorbed are reflected.
White as in snow and ice likely have the highest albedos but both still absorb solar energy. Since snow and ice are reflecting light and that snow or ice dos not melt, it is due to air temperature preventing melting. How does air temperature warm other than by direct absorp-tion or convection?
On the other hand, how about green jungles? They reflect green but absorb all other frequencies. What does albedo tell us about warming, as in the amount of heat created by solar energy?
Many desert folk in the Mid-East wear white to reflect solar energy. But what good does that do them when they are warmed by ambient air molecules? Many of them wear black and don’t seem any the worse for wear.
Is it possible that albedo is over-rated?
Grand Solar Minimum – First Forecast Cycle 26
https://youtu.be/syNQphUv-Rk
Seems to think cycle 25 max will be stronger than 24 max. So imagining something like within range of NOAA experimental forecast?
If Cycle 25 Max happens to be stronger than NOAA experimental forecast, then you not going to have Grand solar Minimum any time soon.
And people will be living on Mars.
Despite the plans – Nobody is going to Mars
https://youtu.be/dAX2H0hpOc4
For more than 3 decades, NASA plan was to land humans on Mars in order to explore Mars.
Many people claim that Mars is most habitable planet, but it hasn’t been proven to be the most habitable other than Earth.
Mars might be, more habitable than Earth.
And I tend to think, Earth would be more habitable if we had ocean settlements.
Anyhow, we going to the lunar polar region to determine if the guess that the Moon might have mineable water, is correct.
Mars also need to have mineable water, or it’s not a habitable planet. Or Mercury might have mineable water, if it does, and Mars doesn’t, Mercury could be a more habitable planet.
But once cheap water can be gotten from space rock and/or dwarf planets like Ceres, then all planets and our Moon are habitable.
If you have to get electricity from solar panels, Earth surface is not habitable. Venus surface is likewise not useful to get solar energy, but living in sky of Venus would allow making electrical power from solar panels. Living in sky of Earth, is not very easy, and doesn’t allow the use of solar panels.
Other than outer planets, Earth is the worst.
clint…”Yes gordon, your petty ego is what caused you to go nuclear over being constructively criticized”.
***
I am awaiting constructive criticism from you, rather I get this…
1)Heat is not energy, it is a transfer of energy. When I ask what energy is being transfer, you go strangely quiet.
2)Electrical current flows positive to negative. When I point out to you that current is defined as the measure of charges passing a certain point in a given time, measured in coulombs, and that the electron is the only particle capable of carrying such a charge, you fail to reply.
You don’t get it that conventional current flow, positive to negative, is not based on the electron but on a mysterious positive test charge. Electrical engineering text books readily admit that and that electrons flow in the opposite direction, negative to positive.At no point does any textbook prove that a positive test charge exists.
3)You rant that flux is not energy but you cannot define what it is. It is clearly an attempt to quantify energy like electromagnetic energy or magnetic energy. The use of the word to describe heat is dubious. It is clear that heat is transferred in a solid by electrons, which also transfers electrical charge, but no one knows how.
4)You readily acknowledge that higher frequency EM is emitted by transitioning electons but when it comes to IR, you thunk some other magical phenomenon exists in molecules to absorb and emit IR.
5)Even though Clausius define entropy as the sum of instantaneous transfers of heat, and presented it mathematically as….
S = integral dq/T, you insist that entropy is a measure of disorder.
As we say in Scotland, ‘yer a big sullie laddy’. A big mick.
gordon, you’re misrepresenting me, again.
You can’t provide any evidence that I said any of that.
Seek therapy.
Now you are denyig your stoopidity.
No, I am saying you make up nonsense because you’ve got NOTHING. You’re a cult-of-one, aka a “crackpot”.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Cycle 34 is gonna be wild:
https://tinyurl.com/cycle-34-is-gonna-be-wild
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Coffee?
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re an idiot.
Here you go –
*Puts a coffee in front of Mike Flynn*.
Not sure I’m going to serve you any alcohol, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are being idiotc.
Perhaps you should go get some fresh air today, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are being your usual idiotic and immature self.
Good morning, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Already leaving, Mike?
It takes years of education and experience to become proficient at something; some say 10,000 hours”.
***
Heck I learned to breath a few second after coming out of my mom and became proficient in breathing in no time at all. You have to distinguish between innate intelligence that grows a child from 2 cells and keeps him/her alive through seriously complicated processes, and the artificial intelligence we learn as part of a university curriculum.
I have heard it takes 10,000 hours to master the piano but my aunt mastered the ability to play and accompany singers in far less time. And she did it by trial and error.
It is the height of snobbery to think someone needs a degree of any kind to learn science and apply it. Most of what I learned in electrical engineering studies turned out to be superfluous. I understand the extra material I learned since once learned it lurks in the back of the mind till needed. Being aware of the extra material is handy and all it takes to retrieve it is judicious study for a few hours.
I recall a good buddy of mine who went on to get his P.Eng and set up a successful business. I called him one day to run some theory past him and he replied…’How the h*** do you expect me to remember that crap’? That sums it up, I doubt that we recall accurately 90% of what we were taught.
It’s not the same with a piano. That’s more like riding a bike, once learned the body retains a muscle memory.
Mr. Asshat, please stop promoting what should look like a myth even to you, if only by considering that you spent at least 10K hours in Roy’s comment section since 2013:
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/8/23/20828597/the-10000-hour-rule-debunked
Don’t be silly, Willard.
gordon, you NEVER made it through electrical engineering.
You’re living in fantasy.
Seek professional therapy.
clint…until you can scientifically answer the points I mde in a recent post to you, you have no business commenting on the education level of anyone else.
That applies particularly to someone who thinks electrical current flows positive to negative and who thinks heat is not energy, but a means of energy transport. You lack the education required to enter university.
False accusations don’t help you, gordon. You should have learned that by now, but you can’t learn.
So quit clogging this blog.
Gordon has been getting more (negative) attention here for his crank claims lately than Clint has for his absurd claims.
By the usual measure, Gordon is being a more effective tr0ll on this blog, and thus Clint is jealous of Gordon and is trying to push him out of ‘his’ territory.
Its similar to when pimps or drug dealers take up residence on the same block.
Child Nate, you’ve got NOTHING, as usual.
Puffman, silly sock puppet, hush.
Thank you, Nate, for your response,
“Christos, you keep bringing up the same theory that ignores the fact that it doesnt fit the observations!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1669288
You have the Earth abs0rbing 112 W/m2, while the observations by satellite show that it is abs0rbing and emitting ~ 240 W/m^2.
Then your theory is wrong. Sorry.
If you continue to be unable to account for this discrepancy, then you are not doing science, are you.”
–
–
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940020024/downloads/19940020024.pdf
the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total
energy incident on the surface.
A good estimate of the Earths annual average albedo constant
is 0.3
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
All these different values should tell us that the ASR is nonsense. As is the OLR. Which then makes the EEI even worse — it attempts to subtract nonsense from nonsense!
And trying to claim Bond albedo of 30% is anywhere close to accurate is also nonsense.
A lot of this crap is easily debunked, so should be discarded. But, cult beliefs don’t have to be consistent with science….
“A lot of this crap is easily debunked”
Clint makes such claims all the time, but NEVER supports them with actual evidence, links, nothing at all.
So his claims can be safely ignored.
Child Nate, how is the 30% measured?
You don’t know. You can’t say. You’ll link to a bunch of nonsense you don’t understand, but you can’t say where the 30% comes from.
You’re just a child of the cult.
You don’t know? Then it must be impossible. Is that how you arrive at your conclusion?
The input and reflected SW radiation is measured by CERES satellites. Not that difficult.
Albedo is reflected/input.
The history of albedo measurements.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014RG000449
“Estimates of Earth’s albedo have remained largely unchanged from the value of 0.30 deduced from earliest measurement first from the Explorer-7 satellite observations in 1959 [Kandel and Viollier, 2010]. This value was later confirmed from the Nimbus satellite measurements by Vonder Haar and Suomi [1971] and Jacobowitz et al. [1984]. This value is also only slightly different from the current estimate of 0.29 from CERES observations [Wielicki et al., 1996] described later. While these satellite-based values have changed little over time, the confidence level of the estimates has greatly increased as both accuracy of instruments and algorithms to derive albedo improved. The accuracy is estimated to be 2% for the ERBE shortwave scanner instruments and 1% for the CERES SW instruments [Wieliki et al., 2006; Loeb et al., 2009]. The estimated stability of the observed reflected flux by CERES instruments is 0.3 W m−2 per decade [Loeb et al., 2007].”
How is it measured, child?
You’re not telling me anything. You’re just hiding behind CERES “bunch of nonsense”.
How do you measure your fantasy “30% albedo”?
Puffman, please stop trying to sound smug by not doing the reading.
Child Nate showed up to drop his childish slur, then ran for the door when his nonsense was exposed.
Happens all the time….
“Youre not telling me anything. Youre just hiding behind CERES bunch of nonsense”
Im simply showing you the direct evidence that it has been measured many times by satellite, by different scientists, over the last 60 years.
So you reject it without any science rationale for doing so.
What kind evidence would you accept?
Do you expect me to build my own satellite and measure it myself?
How is it measured.
As I already told you, the input and reflected SW radiation is measured by CERES satellites.
Why would that be not possible?
Read the paper and check the references, if you want more details.
Thank you, Nate, for your response.
The history of albedo measurements.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014RG000449
I have checked the article for the word “specular”, but didn’t find even a single time mentioned the word “specular” in the article.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The CERES satellite scans the Earth from limb to limb, meaning they look at ALL light scattered or reflected by the Earth from all angles.
“One6.6-s scan cycle consists of a scan from
space beyond the earth limb (at 18) across the earth
to space on the opposite side (162), then a quick scan
to a brief pause at the internal calibration sources
(194), then back to space (162), and a scan back
across the earth to space on the opposite side (18).
Instrument pointing accuracy is about 0.25.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/77/5/1520-0477_1996_077_0853_catere_2_0_co_2.xml
So does not matter the cause of the reflected light, they measure ALL of it.
Child Nate got caught again. He can’t even begin to describe the nonsense he blindly believes in. I’ll have to do it for the poor child, but he won’t understand it.
The cult believes satellites measure incoming solar and compare it to the reflected from the Earth. Here are some of the many reasons that’s nonsense:
The satellites are in polar orbits that are Sun-synchronous. That means the satellites NEVER are directly between Sun and Earth. So when they measure solar, they are NOT measuring the actual solar reading Earth. They have to make guesses, estimates, and assumptions to arrive at a value. When they measure the reflected from Earth, they are NOT measuring the reflection coincident with their guessed, estimated, assumed value for the flux reaching Earth! They come up with two guessed, estimated, assumed values that don’t even coincide!
And they don’t even attempt to state the error range for all their guesses, estimates, and assumptions. They just expect the cult children to swallow whatever they spew.
That ain’t science.
Puffman, silly sock puppet, please stop denying something we can read right above your comment.
Silly willy, as I pointed out above, you are the essence of the GHE cult — incompetent, ignorant, and immature.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
Nate,
From your link –
“It is also shown how the ability of present-day models of climate in simulating the statistical properties of the energy reflected from Earth varies depending upon the metric used. Models fail to reproduce the observed annual cycle in all components of the albedo with any realism . . . “.
There is more, pointing out that current climate models do not even agree with the reality inferred from limited satellite data.
All this is irrelevant really, as the IPCC stated that it not possible to predict future climate states, anyway.
I assume you have a reason for refusing to describe the mythical GHE, and I assume the reason that you refuse to give this reason is that you are averse to the general laughter which would come your way!
Why are you concerned about estimates of the Earth’s albedo, which is nothing more than a scientific curiosity with little to no practical use? You refuse to describe the GHE, so why the interest in something as useless as the Earth’s albedo? Do you suffer from some obsessive disorder?
I await some cogent response, but I would be won’t be holding my breath while I wait.
Carry on.
Puffman, please stop denying that the “essence” of your comments are one of a silly sock puppet who got banned multiple times.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are just blathering about sock puppets being banned – completely pointless and irrelevant.
Mike Flynn, please stop being so pointless and irrelevant.
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
Clint,
Notice how I linked to an actual published source to support my claims.
So for a change, find us a link to an actual source that agrees with your complaints about satellite measurement of albedo.
Otherwise it can be safely ignored.
Christos,
“A good estimate of the Earths annual average albedo constant
is 0.3”
Using that, the average solar flux input to Earth is 1360/4 =340 W/m^2.
With albedo = 0.3, the abs0rbed solar is (1-0.3)*340 = 238 W/m^2, which agrees with satellite observations.
Not sure why you think this helps explain your claim that the solar input is 112 W/m^2.
Thank you, Nate, for your response.
“Not sure why you think this helps explain your claim that the solar input is 112 W/m^2.”
“With albedo = 0.3, the abs0rbed solar is (1-0.3)*340 = 238 W/m^2, which agrees with satellite observations.”
–
A planet reflects diffusely and specularly. It was thought, that Earth’s Albedo a =0,3 includes both, the diffuse and the specular reflection from Earth’s surface.
Now we know that the a =0,3 accounts only for the diffuse reflection.
Thus the Earth’s specular reflection has not been accounted in the planet radiative energy budget,
Energy in = Energy out.
Therefore the “Energy in” part is always being overestimated.
–
–
We are not justified to perform the backwards analysis:
We do not estimate the planet “Energy in” when multiplying 240W/m^2 by 4, to obtain 960 W/m^2 and then
deriving the Albedo a =0,3.
–
–
Albedo is a measured global average annual diffuse reflection portion of the incident solar flux of 1360 W/m^2.
As I have shown, there is also a strong specular reflection, which is ignored.
Thus, the total energy in = energy out = 448 W/m^2
When “averaging” it gives 112 W/m^2.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It was thought;
Albedo is reflected/input.
Now we know:
Albedo is (diffusely reflected) /input.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Now we know that the a =0,3 accounts only for the diffuse reflection.”
No WE don’t know that. We could only know that if you showed us measurements that agree with you.
See above for a review paper of the albedo measurements. By satellite, it has been found to be ~ 0.3 for the last 60 years.
“As I have shown, there is also a strong specular reflection, which is ignored.”
You have not shown us that it has been ignored in all the measurements.
This is just you saying stuff, not evidence.
” it gives 112 W/m^2″
Which would result in a huge energy imbalance, and the Earth freezing into an ice-ball, because currently the measured outgoing LW radiation is 238 W/m^2.
NASA’s Memorandum says the Albedo is the planet surface diffuse reflection /solar flux ratio.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940020024/downloads/19940020024.pdf
Do you think there is not specular reflection from the Earth’s surface.
Anyone living in solar countries can confirm that there is a strongest specular reflection from the Earth’s surface.
Maybe for someone living in a mostly cloudy area it is difficult to concieve how strong the Earth’s surface specular reflection is.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“So does not matter the cause of the reflected light, they measure ALL of it.”
Because they measure light coming from the Earth at ALL angles. See above.
If there is specularly reflected light, they will capture it.
Nate,
“Because they measure light coming from the Earth at ALL angles. See above.
If there is specularly reflected light, they will capture it.”
NASA’s Memorandum page 1:
“This report presents a mathematical model for the Coarse Sun Sensor output due to radiation originating from the sunlit portion of the Earth within the sensor field of view.
Albedo
Solar radiation arriving at the Earth’s surface is generally considered to be partially absorbed, partially specularly reflected and partially diffusely reflected.
Local surface characterisics and cloud cover conditions determine the relative importance of these phenomena.
The energy which is absorbed is eventually re-radiated into space at infrared wavelengths. Solar cells are insensitive to this radiation.
With specular reflection (as commonly occurs with mirrored surfaces) some or all of the incoming solar rays are reflected with the angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence.
Since a spacecraft would receive very little energy from even
an entire Earth which was specularly reflecting this type of reflection is ignored here.
Here, we consider the sunlit potion of the Earth to be a uniform, diffuse reflector and will use the word “albedo” in a limited sense, i.e. the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total
energy incident on the surface”
“Sensor output due to radiation originating from the sunlit portion of the Earth within the sensor field of view.”
Sensor doesn’t capture light coming from all angles.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Here, we consider the sunlit potion of the Earth to be a uniform, diffuse reflector and will use the word albedo in a limited sense, i.e. the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total
energy incident on the surface”
–
<b"a uniform, diffuse reflector"
And that is good for the diffuse reflection measurements, but it leaves out of measurements the planet surface strong the specular-like, the directionally oriented and concentrated diffuse reflection, which resemblance the specular.
Because the reflection from sphere is not uniform!
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas,
Where is this “planet surface strong the specular-like, the directionally oriented and concentrated diffuse reflection, which resemblance the specular?”
Can you point to it on a map?
Is it in the room with you right now?
A,
You ask “Is it in the room with you right now?” Look in a mirror. Or anything shiny – someone’s eyeball, perhaps. Anything you can see a reflection off – water, glass, shiny metal, even diffuse surfaces like paint, if the viewing angle is small enough.
Do you have a reason for asking, or are you just trying to make Christos look stupid?
That’s hardly a mark of intelligence, you know.
Describing the GHE, however . . .
Christos, see my previous comment about that paper you keep referring to. It does NOT say what you think it says about albedo.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1670282
Tim,
You wrote –
“Christos, see my previous comment about that paper you keep referring to. It does NOT say what you think it says about albedo.”
And you’re sure as Hell not going to help out by telling him what you think it means, are you?
You simply refuse to say anything, in case somebody might find something wrong with it. Just like the idiotic Phil Jones, who refused to let people examine his work.
Here’s all you could come up with about the role of CO2 – “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”
Completely useless, but that’s what GHE cultists like you thrive on! Vague, meaningless, statements – so you can claim that you never really said anything at all!
Go on, refuse to describe the GHE – claim it’s your intellectual property, and the Chinese or Russians might steal it!
[laughing at refusenik]
Mike Flynn, please stop asking to be spoon fed your morning Maypo.
“And youre sure as Hell not going to help out by telling him what you think it means, are you?”
I *did* tell him.
In the link I just posted.
In comment you just replied to.
No Tim,
Giving your opinion about a paper has no value.
Providing a link to your unsupported assertion is not what I would call being helpful.
Saying silly things like “It does NOT say what you think it says about albedo.” doesn’t help. It’s just you saying that you believe your opinion has more value than his.
All the opinions in the world (plus $5) will buy a $5 cup of coffee. Or forget the opinions totally – same value.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you had a brain fart.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You did have a brain fart, Mike.
That’s fine. You drink too much tho.
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
Swenson humorously makes the contradictory statements:
“And youre sure as Hell not going to help out by telling him what you think it means, are you?”
and
“Giving your opinion about a paper has no value.”
I.e. ‘give us your opinion, but don’t give us your opinion’ 🙂
If you want to actually be helpful and contribute something, read my analysis (not ‘opinion’) of the paper, and tell us specific things you agree with or disagree with. Is the paper truly trying to measure bond albedo but missing specular reflection as Christos has concluded? Or is it actually about guidance systems and getting a rough approximation of earthshine to add as a correction to direct sunshine?
Tim,
No, you give an unsupported opinion. That is why it has no value.
You wrote –
“If you want to actually be helpful and contribute something, read my analysis (not ‘opinion’) of the paper, and tell us specific things you agree with or disagree with.”
I agree with what Christos has quoted.
The title of the paper refers to diffuse reflection. Specular reflection is intentionally ignored, for stated reasons. I’m not sure why you think your opinions about what the authors wrote is to be preferred to what the authors wrote, based on your past opinions.
I assume you want to “discuss” a GHE which you refuse to describe. That’s your idea of a “contribution”, is it?
Carry on, Tim.
Christos,
The CERES satellite scans the Earth from limb to limb, meaning they look at ALL light scattered or reflected by the Earth from all angles.
Do you presume that when they detect specularly reflected light, that they reject it and don’t include it in the measurements?
Nothing is mentioned in the paper about doing that.
The fact is that the teams measuring albedo and abs0rbed solar have loads of expertise in this subject, and upon reading their paper one has to be impressed with the technical efforts put in to measure with the highest precision and accuracy possible. And they have built on 60 y of previous Earth observing satellites.
So your suggestion that they, and all previous researchers, have made a very basic error by neglecting a significant amount of specularly reflected light, is just not believable.
Nor do you have evidence.
Nor does it make ANY sense that the abs0rbed solar is less than half of the emitted LW radiation.
“Im not sure why you think your opinions about what the authors wrote is to be preferred to what the authors wrote, based on your past opinions.”
I quoted the authors exactly. That is not “opinion”.
“Specular reflection is intentionally ignored, for stated reasons. ”
Yes … the stated reasons I gave.
If you disagree with anything specific I said, then quote it and explain what you think is wrong. Here is the link to make it easy for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1670282
It seems Christos will not really ever address the disagreements with observations that have been pointed out with his theory.
Yet will undoubtedly continue to promote this debunked idea. He is not doing science, which has to respond to valid criticisms.
Gordon Robertson:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1670201
“heat is transported vertically within the atmosphere by conduction/convection and dissipated as altitude increases. That means less heat has to be dissipated via radiation.”
Your description does not match reality because in it the Earth’s surface heat never leaves the system, it is simply transported from one location to another.
It is true that the oceans αbsorb some 90% of the heat imbalance.
Where you fail is by not acknowledging that the only mode of heat exchange to space is via radiation.
No convection since that means Earth would have lost its atmosphere long ago.
No conduction because there is nothing to conduct with in space.
I repeat, the only mode of heat transfer that works in a vacuum is radiation.
“You have not explained how. ”
Here’s how (for the umpteenth time):
The CO2 molecule is set to bend and vibrate by collisions with other molecules.
The vibrating bent mode has an electric dipole moment.
The vibrating symmetric stretch mode has no electric dipole moment.
The vibrating asymmetric stretch mode has an electric dipole moment.
So, in your pet theory “the CO2 bonding electrons have an angular frequency more conducive to IR absor.p.tion.”
I ask you for the <b?third time:
1/ Which “bonding electrons” would that be? Since there are 4 pairs of electrons being shared, and only one photon is being αbsorbed,
2/ how is the selection made?
3/ or, are you saying that each CO2 molecule αbsorbs one photon for each electron being shared? That would be contrary to evidence.
[Grodon Robertson at 5:29 PM] ark…you sure you’re not a locomotive engineer, or a sanitary engineer? I am neither, my field is applied science. I actually studied math, physics and engineering at an accredited university.
[Gordon Robertson at 8:02 PM] It is the height of snobbery to think someone needs a degree of any kind to learn science and apply it. Most of what I learned in electrical engineering studies turned out to be superfluous.
Totally normal.
Arkady,
It should be easy for you to describe the GHE in some reasonably scientific fashion, then, but you refuse to do so.
Why is this? Why do you prefer to spend your time trying to make other people look stupid? It might make you feel good, but it is not advancing the fanatical GHE cultist cause.
I suppose you even refuse to say whether you agree with Bindidon saying “Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.
CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
It makes it difficult for any potential cult member to find out what he is supposed to believe in, which makes GHE cultism very similar to a religion with an invisible mysterious God, with the power to strike down unbelievers.
If you can’t even describe the GHE, you can hardly blame others for laughing at your gullibility and ignorance, can you?
Off you go now, refuse away!
ark…have you no sense of humour? I laugh at the accusations I am not an engineer, I was only kidding you.
As an engineering student I joined in with other engineers as we belittled engineers.
We are, we are, we are, we are, we are the Engineers,
We can, we can, we can, we can demolish forty beers.
Drink rum, drink rum, drink rum, drink rum, drink rum and follow us,
For we don’t give a damn for any old damn man, who don’t give a damn for us.
Roy – thanks for putting this together. Awesome as always!
Thank you, Arkady, for yur response.
“Where is this planet surface strong the specular-like, the directionally oriented and concentrated diffuse reflection, which resemblance the specular?
Can you point to it on a map?”
–
Arkady, it is a spherical planet Earth we live on. If it was flat, it would be easy to point it to you.
Why do you think you could see it on the map?
Christos
“Why do you think you could see it on the map? ”
Optics.
The only surface smooth e Moon the orbitalnough to produce specular reflection is water. The critical angle of reflection is 48 degrees.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/Lesson-3/The-Critical-Angle
Specular reflection will only occur when the Sun is no more than 42 degrees above the horizon.The reflected rays will emerge at a minimum angle of 96 degrees to the incoming sunlight. Effectively specular reflection only occurs in daylight when the local time is before 9.00am and after 3.00pm and the reflected rays head outwards from the Earth’s orbit.
No satellite positioned over the sunlit hemisphere of the Earth will detect specular reflection because none of it reflects that way.
Only satellites orbiting over the night side of the Earth will be able to detect specular reflection. Even then they must be in a position to point their instruments towards the morning o r evening daylight surface.
Finally they would need to have polarizing filters to distinguish unpolarised diffuse reflection from polarised specular reflection.
“Can you point to it on a map?
Yes.
A satellite will see a glint, a spot of specular reflected sunlight from a point on Earth’s surface where the Sun and the satellite are at the same angle (less than 42 degrees) above the horizon and in opposite directions.
Sorry, Entropic Man, but some of your analysis here is flawed.
“The critical angle of reflection is 48 degrees.”
The critical angle deals with light STARTING in the water and heading out INTO air. Light with an incident angle IN WATER of 48 degrees or more will have total internal reflection. But sunlight does not start in the water, so this is immaterial here.
“Specular reflection will only occur when the Sun is no more than 42 degrees above the horizon.”
No. Specular reflection is about 2% for light coming straight in (eg, even looking straight at a glass window, you can still see a faint reflection). This value remains small up to about 45 degrees, and then increases at an accelerating rate to 100% at 90 degrees. Your general conclusion that you want glancing light is correct, but 42 degrees is not some magical number.
See eg https://scubageek.com/articles/wwwatw for details.
(Also, since the open ocean is rarely smooth, specular reflection is often greatly reduced from predictions of a smooth sphere.)
IIRC light paths are symmetrical end over end.
The critical angle is the same whether the light is crossing from air to water or water to air.
I’m brainstorming, looking for testable differces between the way light behaves in Christos’ version of reality and ours.
So far conventional science is winning.
There is not a PURE specular reflection in the real world. The PURE specular reflection is a theoretical abstraction.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
As I said above, conventional physics suggests that most of the specular radiation leaving the Earth moves outwards from the Sun.
To detect that specular radiation would require satellites above the night side of the Earth, but not in the Earth’s shadow. Their light sensors would need to be pointed across the terminator towards the dayside. They would also need polarizing filters to distinguish the specular reflection from the diffuse reflection.
Would you agree? If not, could you describe how you would expect the specular reflection to be distributed and how you would measure its intensity.
“The critical angle is the same whether the light is crossing from air to water or water to air.”
Sort of, but probably not the way you are thinking.
Light in air approaching at 89.9 degrees refracts to 48.6 degrees in water.
Light in water approaching at 48.6 degrees refract to 89.9 degrees in air.
48.6 is the critical angle, but incident light beyond 48.6 degrees only totally reflected if that light is in the water and not refracts into the air. Light below 48.6 degrees in air partially reflects and partially refracts into the water.
Tim
You can see the effect while swimming.
Below the surface looking up you can see above the surface, with everything from horizon to zenith compressed into a circle centred able you with a radius of about 45 degrees.
Outside that circle you see only a reflection of the bottom of the pool.
Looking down from above you see the same. Looking vertically downward you see the bottom of the pool and everything below the surface compressed into that 45 degree circle. Outside the circle you only see light reflected off the water surface from above.
IIRC this is known as the circle of total reflection.
In the current context this gives me a way of estimating how the specular reflection is distributed; something that Christos has failed to describe.
“Looking down from above you see the same. ”
No!
* If you look at the pool from BELOW at a 50 degree angle you CANNOT see into the air.
* If you look at the pool from ABOVE at a 50 degree angle you CAN see into the water.
It is NOT the same!
The interface becomes gradually more reflective as you lower the angle in the AIR toward 90 degrees.
The interface becomes gradually more reflective as you lower the angle in the WATER toward 48.6 degrees. Beyond 48.6 degrees, the interface is totally reflective
Gbaikie
You might find this interesting.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2024/05/31/gliese-12-b/
It’s a lot homework.
As general thing, if planet doesn’t spin or is tidally locked to it’s star. It’s going to be cold.
Mercury is quasi tidally locked to our sun. Or instead of always having one side facing the sun, one side in darkness, it spends a long time in darkness and the long night makes it cold.
It’s like the Moon, but with much longer days and nights, and like the Moon, it’s polar regions are cold. And might have trillion tons frozen ice.
So most of Moon [or underground} is cold, and don’t know how cold Mercury underground is, but no reason it should be warm.
Anyhow, no one thinks there is life on Mercury {or the Moon} but for spacefaring civilization, Mercury could be habitable.
Anyhow if we were a spacefaring civilization, there not much sense to to terraforming it, but if water was cheap to import, you might add a lot water to it {why not?]
The easiest way to add water, is to hit it, with a space rock.
Not not easy if people were living there, and didn’t want to be impacted.
Anyhow, this planet could just “naturally” have a lot rocks hitting it, and adding water to it.
We have frostline way out in main asteriod belt, this star would have much closer frostline.
Not sure what is orbital velocity.
With Earth the average velocity a space rock hits is about 20 km/sec.
And impactors have shaped our existence- so in terms “life existing” on this Earth like planet near small star, I would want to know the average impact velocity- and is there a lot rocks, impacting in say last billion years.
I wanted to look up star, but got distracted:
Weve found the nearest, transiting, temperate, Earth-size world located to date, Masayuki Kuzuhara, a project assistant professor at the Astrobiology Center in Tokyo, said in a statement. Although we dont yet know whether it possesses an atmosphere, weve been thinking of it as an exo-Venus, with similar size and energy received from its star as our planetary neighbor in the solar system.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/05/28/nasa-exoplanet-discovery/73882055007/
I said if Venus is at Earth distance, it’s colder than Earth.
And what would Venus be like if it was tidal locked?
Venus has very long day, but it rotates slowly and it’s winds go 50 times more speed than it rotates. [And 50 x zero is zero]
Part of why I think at Earth distance it would be cold, is it should lower global wind speed. And rather further out, being tidally locked could also slow/stop the global wind.
But article also bring up other matters:
“The planet orbits a so-called cool red dwarf star called Gliese 12, according to NASA. Gliese 12 is only about 27% of the suns size, with about 60% of the suns surface temperature, NASA said.”
So: “The temperature at the surface of the Sun is about 10,000 Fahrenheit (5,600 Celsius).” times .6 = 6000 F or 3360 C
And:
“Under the assumption that the planet has no atmosphere, NASA astronomers believe it has a surface temperature of around 107 degrees Fahrenheit.” 107 F = 41.6667 C
Earth land surfaces get hotter than 41 C, and Moon heats to about 120 C.
So that like moving Venus further from Sun than Earth distance- quite cold, but sunlit side may or may not have frozen CO2, but likely all of it freezes out on the darkside.
“The distance separating Gliese 12 and Gliese 12 b is just 7% of the distance between Earth and the sun, NASA said. The planet receives 1.6 times more energy from its star than Earth does from the sun.”
It it get more sunlight, but source of sunlight is not hot like the Sun is.
In terms of Venus, it get nearly twice as much sunlight. Or gets twice as much UV light, X-ray light, blue light and twice as much Near Infared,
Gliese will give you lots of red and near infrared – more of this lower energy sunlight than Venus gets. And this sun will look bigger than at Earth or Venus, and maybe bigger than at Mercury distance.
It’s the sun stoopid
https://youtu.be/1BPYKZmZ8dM
For the record, Climate Change is not a binary question. There is some effect from increasing CO2 due to fossil burning. The magnitude of that warming effect in the lower atmosphere and the follow-on effect on climate cannot be quantified by any mathematical equation or computer simulation. Statements that there is no effect are just as wrong as extreme claims that are routinely stated in the media as fact.
Extreme weather events and variability in the weather are not evidence of climate change. It is actually the opposite. It is very rare for any area of the world to have weather patterns that do not change in some way from year to year.
Agreed. I’d add there is also some effect from the heat generated when producing CO2.
This heat is measured by thermometers close to the surface over land, but the outcomes on the chaotic atmosphere are unpredictable.
TS, again, please stop confusing concepts with questions.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are just babbling nonsense.
Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are making no sense at all. Refusing to describe the GHE is not winning you any respect.
Mike Flynn, please stop blabbering.
tim…the problem as I see it is the hysterical implication behind climate change. At first, it was called global warming, but when people began easily punching holes in the theory they switched to an innocuous and lame theory.
Climate is average weather over a longer term. The phrase ‘climate change’ is the climate version of global warming, implying a global climate. Of course, there is no such thing but alarmists using the term infer that the planet has a global climate and it is changing due to trace gases in the atmosphere.
In the parlance of climate they use a term called continental climate. That does not imply that continents have the same climate. National Geographic defines one as follows…
“Areas with continental climates have colder winters, longer-lasting snow, and shorter growing seasons. They are the transition zones between mild and polar climates. Continental climates experience extreme seasonal changes”.
What does that tell you exactly? Nothing. Nada.
There are thousand of micro-climates on Earth and not a shred of evidence that any of them are changing significantly. Therefore, the term climate change is a lie aimed at deceiving the public.
My area of Canada in the Vancouver area is now called a ‘moderate oceanic climate’. At on time we had a rain forest climate which implied we have rain forests, which we do, and that it rains a lot, which is also true. So, why have they changed it to mild oceanic climate?
The use of continental climate and oceanic climate is obviously an attempt to generalize toward a global climate. However, in our case, it quickly falls apart. 150 miles NE of us is a pure desert climate complete with sage brush and cactii. It is so similar to regions in the US which have desert climates that Hollywood found it cheaper to film westerns here. Alberta, a lot farther inland has similar drought stricken areas as is central BC.
So, what causes such variations….rain!!! Or the lack thereof. Rain is weather and the amount that falls in a region determines the climate as far as the distinction between a rain forest and a desert.
But there are other factors that determine the rainfall. Clouds tend to drop their water loads on one side of a mountain range, leaving the other side much drier. In the case of our desert, there are several mountain ranges in the way of clouds from the Pacific, and by the time the last range is broached, there is no water left.
That leaves the desert areas dependent on summer thunderclouds and a pitiful amount of winter snow. Drought has been the story in much of the province of BC and now they are blaming it on climate change when no climate has changed.
In the words of Will Happer, it is a scam. He said he’d settle for hoax but that implies an intentional ruse and I fear that alarmists lack the intelligence to pull of such a hoax. So, I’ll stick with scam.
Tim S, you can believe CO2 can warm the surface, but beliefs ain’t science.
Do you also believe ice cubes can boil water? GHE believers do….
Clint R
Does repeating your endless lie about GHE make you feel superior in some way.
You have been properly educated countless times about the ice cubes.
Adding ice cubes will warm an object (if there is no other heat source, say deep space) up to a point. The flux of each ice cube adds energy to the object heated by the ice cubes. You can keep adding ice cubes and heating the object until it is surrounded. At that point this is as warm the object will get. You will not be able to add any more ice cubes at this point.
I am astounded you can’t understand these very basic and simple concepts and in your frustration you lash out at all who attempt to educate you in your very limited thought process.
Sad state Clint R. Wish a light would go off in your head and you could start to think and add positive contribution to this blog. It won’t happen. You enjoy annoying people. With such a goal no intelligent discussion iw possible.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Why are you obsessed with Mike Flynn? Does using my name make you feel all warm and tingly Does using it twice in a row excite you even more?
Your trolling attempts generate more amusement than annoyance, I surmise. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Does repeating your endless lie about GHE make you feel superior in some way.”
Is this the GHE which you refuse to describe, or some other GHE which someone else refuses to describe?
It’s difficult to lie about something that can’t be described, isn’t it?
There is no GHE, you idiot! If there was, you would describe it.
But you refuse to even try. So sad, too bad.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you have been fed spoonful of descriptions of the greenhouse effect.
Willard,
Are you one of those idiots who refuse to describe the GHE? The sort of idiot who refuses to even say what the GHE is supposed to do?
I guess you must be.
Carry on.
Mike,
You’re just a guy sitting in a bar alone, ranting.
Cheers.
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
I know you do, Mike, for every day you come to my bar, getting yourself drunk out of anger, unfit to make Nature lift a finger to support your crankiness.
If you say so, Willard. Others might disagree.
Norman, your use of the “L word”, and false accusations, mean you know you’re wrong. I don’t have to use such childish tactics, because I’m right. So, I’m not necessarily “superior”, just more mature.
Ice cubes can NOT warm an object above the temperature of the ice. In terms of radiative physics, ice cubes can only warm an object to the point the object has the same WDL temperature.
For example, ice at 270K has a WDL photon of 10.7μ. So that ice can never warm an object so that its peak emission photon is “hotter” than 10.7μ, or a temperature of 270K.
That’s just one of the reasons why your cult is wrong. A CO2 15μ photon can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
Now, prove me right again with more of your childish antics.
Clint,
The WDL calculates the peak wavelength of a blackbody, it doesn’t mean all the radiation is that wavelength, it emits a spectrum, not one wavelength.
It’s about the behavior of gases in the atmosphere, not just the emission of the surface.
Clint, let me clarify one of the things you said.
For example, ice at 270K has a WDL peak intensity photon of 10.7μ. So that ice by itselfcan never warm an object so that its peak emission photon is “hotter” than 10.7μ, or a temperature of 270K.
It is about the SPECTRUM and PEAK BLACKBODY WAVELENGTH, not about individual wavelengths. Perhaps you thought this was so obvious that it was necessary to add those details
Exactly Folkerts, it was so obvious I didn’t need to “clog the blog”. But maybe your effort helped poor bob….
Clint, You say it is obvious, but then your next claim is “A CO2 15μ photon can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.”.
15μ is not the WDL max intensity wavelength. It is a frequency determined by quantum mechanics.
* The strongest line from CO2 at -100 C is … around 15 um
* The strongest line from CO2 at -50 C is … around 15 um
* The strongest line from CO2 at 0 C is … around 15 um
* The strongest line from CO2 at 50 C is … around 15 um
* The strongest line from CO2 at 100 C is … around 15 um
The 15 um number does NOT tell us that “CO2 is -80 C” or that “15 um photons cannot heat things above -80 C” or any of the similar claims you made. 15 um photons from a CO2 laser can raise surfaces FAR above -80 C; far above 288 K.
As usual Folkerts, you’ve twisted yourself in knots.
1. CO2’s 15μ photon does not change its energy based on CO2 temperature. It’s always the same energy.
2. There are NO CO2 lasers in the sky. You don’t understand any of this. You’re desperately grasping at straws, throwing nonsense against the wall, and misrepresenting me — just like a cultist, huh?
If you understood thermodynamics and radiative physics, you would know that “A CO2 15μ photon can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.”
Tim
You wrote (no doubt in a fit of madness) –
“The 15 um number does NOT tell us that “CO2 is -80 C” or that “15 um photons cannot heat things above -80 C” or any of the similar . . .”.
Burbling about “strongest lines” won’t help.
The fact remains that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, the surface cools every night, and you refuse to describe the mythical GHE. Pretending that you understand quantum mechanics (you don’t), won’t help either. Neither CO2, H2O, nor anything else has prevented the Earth from cooling.
You still seem to think that CO2 radiates different frequencies to say, oxygen, nitrogen or gold, at the same temperature. Below excitation, of course.
You are either ignorant, confused (possibly thinking about spectroscopy or spectrometry), or stupid. In my opinion, of course. Others may think differently.
Swenson,
“Neither CO2, H2O, nor anything else has prevented the Earth from cooling.”
Well, something has, the Earth’s surface is no longer cooling, see the graph at the top of this page.
As usual, Clint, you have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, but not enough to understand.
Back to ice, since is it simpler for you to understand (and harder for you to go astray).
Consider two experiments.
Experiment 1) I surround an object with ice at 273 K emitting 315 W/m^2. The object will be at 273 K. Now add 100 W/m^2 of sunlight to the object (eg through a few small holes in the ice). That is a total of 415 W/m^2, warming the object to 292.5 K.
Experiment 2) I shine 100 W/m^2 of sunlight on an object. The object will be at 205 K. Now I surround hte object with ice emitting 315 W/m^2 (leaving a few small holes for the sunlight). That is a total of 415 W/m^2, warming the object to 292.5 K.
Both will reach the same temperature of 292.5 K.
Yes, in Experiment 2, the addition of radiation from the ice (in conjunction with the radiation from the sunlight), raises the temperature of the object from below 0 C to above 0 C! Those “cold”, long wavelength photons from the ice got absorbed and raised the temperature of the object!
The worst is when they claim that worsening extreme weather events are due to AGW, but the fact is that the most severe extreme weather occurs when large temperature gradients form.
This means that a warmer, milder world should actually result in less extreme weather.
Walter, please pontificating on stuff you really have not thought through.
Willard, please stop trolling.
How would you know whether Im pontificating?
Walter R. Hogle, please stop asking for a sammich right after having said stuff.
You think a monkey has tentacles?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, Walter R. Hogle, please stop goading.
OK, Willard. Happy now?
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
It’s the Carlson stoopid
https://tinyurl.com/the-carlson-stoopid
Willard, please stop trolling.
Already here, Mike?
It’s not even 11:30 am!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Why are you obsessed with Mike Flynn? Does using my name make you feel all warm and tingly inside?
Your trolling attempts generate more amusement than annoyance, I surmise. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Mike, Mike,
You already know that I won’t serve you alcohol this early.
You know that this isn’t a restaurant, right?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Why are you obsessed with Mike Flynn? Does using my name make you feel all warm and tingly inside? Does using it twice make you want to thrust your hands down the front of your trousers?
Your trolling attempts generate more amusement than annoyance, I surmise. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
[chortling]
Fine, Mike. You’re the client after all.
Here’s a cold one. Try not to get drunk before supper.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Why are you obsessed with Mike Flynn? Does using my name make you feel all warm and tingly inside? Does using it twice make you want to thrust your hands down the front of your trousers?
Your trolling attempts generate more amusement than annoyance, I surmise. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
[chortling]
Already finished, Mike?
Have another one.
If you say so, Willard.
*Moves a beer in front of his favorite client.*
Willard, please stop trolling.
This is my bar, Mike.
You can always leave, right after you pay your tab.
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
Good night, Mike.
OK Willard. I don’t blame you.
[what a donkey]
Start walking, Mike.
OK, Willard.
[chortling]
No, not the ditch again, Mike.
ark…”Your description does not match reality because in it the Earths surface heat never leaves the system, it is simply transported from one location to another”.
***
Heat can only be transported by convection, which is the bulk movement of atoms/molecules that contain heat. Conduction is the process by which heat is removed from the surface by bazillions of air molecules. Then convection takes over. The heat transferred to the surface air molecules causing them to become excited, causing the air to rise. As a parcel of air rises, it takes heat with it as air molecules and atoms.
Near the surface, the heated air parcel is under pressure at STP but as it rises into ever-decreasing pressure levels it must expand. As it expands, the pressure drops and so does the temperature. Of course, temperature is a measure of heat, therefore as the parcel rises, the heat is lost.
_____
“It is true that the oceans αbsorb some 90% of the heat imbalance.
Where you fail is by not acknowledging that the only mode of heat exchange to space is via radiation”.
***
That is not a heat exchange, it is a movement of an entirely different form of energy than heat. That energy, EM, was created as surface heat was lost. The heat loss via convection has nothing to do with that radiative heat loss.
—–
“No convection since that means Earth would have lost its atmosphere long ago.
No conduction because there is nothing to conduct with in space.
I repeat, the only mode of heat transfer that works in a vacuum is radiation”.
***
No heat is transferred through a vacuum. The EM moving through the vacuum is not heat nor does it represent heat from a surface since that heat was lost when the EM was created.
This is an example of conservation of energy where one form of energy is converted to another and the energy is conserved, albeit as a different form of energy. The 1st law describes such a conservation between heat and work, two energies which have nothing physically in common, just like heat and EM..
You need to be clear that heat and EM are two diametrically different forms of energy. EM leaving a surface is not heat and calling it thermal energy is completely wrong-headed. That notion came from the 19th century when it was believed that heat moved through air or a vacuum as heat rays.
———-
“The CO2 molecule is set to bend and vibrate by collisions with other molecules”.
***
You are claiming that IR emission is due to CO2 molecules colliding. Why does that not apply to all air molecules? O2 has a linear bond as does N2. Why don’t they radiate in the IR band? In fact, O2 radiates in the microwave band, just below the IR band. If CO2 can radiate energy to space, why can’t O2, which is a lot more abundant than CO2.
The fact that CO2 and O2 have linear bonds suggest radiation and absorp-tion of EM has more to do with the bonds themselves than with collisions.
—
“The vibrating bent mode has an electric dipole moment”.
***
The reason it has a dipole is that the O-atoms are more electronegative than the C atom and attract the orbiting bonding electrons to the O-atoms making that end of the bond more negative and the C-end less negative. That creates a dipole which is less negative on one end hence more positive with respect to it.
Again…the dipole action is about bonding electrons.
—-
“The vibrating symmetric stretch mode has no electric dipole moment.
The vibrating asymmetric stretch mode has an electric dipole moment”.
***
They are both dipoles, I don’t think a momentum applies to either and the use of that word is ill-conceived. A moment is a torque about an axis not a linear vibration.
—
I ask you for the <b?third time:
"1/ Which bonding electrons would that be? Since there are 4 pairs of electrons being shared, and only one photon is being αbsorbed,"
***
any one of them is capable of absorbing and emitting IR. Why you have described only one photon is the question. That is a basic problem with photon theory, thinking of them ss small missiles hurtling through space. EM is known to act as a wave, not discrete particles. The energy may begin life as discrete energy quanta but quanta of different frequencies somehow join to form a wavefront.
—-
"2/ how is the selection made?"
***
Ask God.
—-
"3/ or, are you saying that each CO2 molecule αbsorbs one photon for each electron being shared? That would be contrary to evidence".
***
What evidence? No one has ever seen a photon or measured anything equivalent. If you have CO2 in a jar and you shine an IR light on the gas, is it a stream of photons bombarding the gas, or what? No one has that answer.
On the other hand,if you send a stream of electrons through a fluorescent tube, they don't seem to have a problem finding enough gas molecule to light a room.
Mr. Asshat, please stop denying that the only thing that humans can directly see are photons.
Gordon,
“If you have CO2 in a jar and you shine an IR light on the gas, is it a stream of photons bombarding the gas, or what? No one has that answer.”
What. If the “what” comes from something hotter than the CO2, the gas will get hotter.
If you find “what” a bit wishy-washy, you can call it photons, and most people will know what you mean. Nobody knows what a photon is, really.
The double slit experiment shows that if you count the photons (“what” if you prefer), they act like particles. If you don’t, wave motion interference is observed. You can do the same thing with electrons.
Subject hydrogen atoms to suitably energetic what”, and you can create a beam of protons. Same result. Count them, no interference pattern, like particles. Don’t count them, and you get wave behaviour.
Still no GHE. Everybody refuses to even describe it!
swenson…good point. I was presuming the photons were coming from a hotter source and I should have indicated that.
I still don’t agree that electrons act like waves, even though a stream of them going through a single slit creates a diffraction pattern on a target. Physicist David Bohm theorized the diffraction pattern was due to a ‘quantum potential’ in the slit causing them to spread out in a pattern.
I don’t know what he meant by quantum potential but I think he was referring to an interaction between the electron stream and electron charge fields in the slit material.
Gordon,
“I still dont agree that electrons act like waves”
You don’t have to. Wave-like behaviour (interference patterns) is observed in the double slit experiment – but only if the photons are not counted going through the slits.
Richard Feynman stated that the double-slit experiment “has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery” and that nobody can give you a deeper explanation of this phenomenon than I have given; that is, a description of it.”
Wave/particle duality can be observed. Nobody understands it, but there it is.
Chaos is even weirder, in In my opinion, anyway, which is worth what you just paid for it.
Have fun.
Gordon Robertson,
Kids say the darndest things, but so do adults when they don’t have any education, no? “Ask God“?
Can you say Dunning-Kryger?
A,
Of course, all you can do is try to be gratuitously offensive. You have no intention of being helpful, have you?
Mind you, anybody inept enough to to write “Can you say Dunning-Kryger?” is not somebody who would engender much respect.
I can say “Dunning-Kryger”. What of it? Am I going to be struck by lightning, or are you going to look like an idiot?
The world wonders!
ark…the reason I can tell your scientific acumen is limited is the way you zeroed in on two words, ‘ask God’ while ignoring the more difficult points.
Newton would have had no difficulty with asking God, but you apparently have issues with it. I presume you are trying to discredit my rebuttal to your post by inferring that I have religious issues. However. I believe nothing. That does not mean I have to discredit the notion of God, who was good enough for Newton and good enough for me.
I have no problem discrediting a dumb theory like evolution and regarding life as a creation of an intelligent source. I just don’t ruminate as to what or who the intelligent source may be. In fact, I don’t know.
Gordon Robertson,
No, I did not ignore any of your “points.”
In reply to my post here, you came back with this. Which I summarize as follows:
“Heat can only be transported by convection”
“That is not a heat exchange… an entirely different form of energy than heat.”
“No heat is transferred through a vacuum.”
“radiation and absorp-tion of EM has more to do with the bonds themselves than with collisions”
“the dipole action is about bonding electrons”
“A moment is a torque about an axis not a linear vibration.”
“any one of them is capable of absorbing and emitting IR”
“Ask God.”
“No one has ever seen a photon”
To which I replied something to the effect that Kids say the darndest things, but so do adults when they don’t have any education.
I don’t see any point in continuing this discussion with you. You’re an unserious person.
“I dont see any point in continuing this discussion with you.”
No doubt he agrees.
Have you come up with any excuses for refusing to describe the mythical GHE? I can describe a unicorn, and that’s mythical. How hard can it be for you to describe a mythical GHE?
Maybe you could dictate the description to someone who could write it down for you?
Carry on.
“Maybe you could dictate the description to someone who could write it down for you?”
Sure, but first, answer me this. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer shits little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?
A,
You wrote –
“Sure, but first, answer me this . . .”.
That’s the best excuse you can give for refusing to describe the mythical GHE?
Really?
Swenson can’t answer that, he doesn’t know his shit.
He can’t even recognize a description of the greenhouse effect when spoon-fed to him.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In a fireplace, heat transfer occurs by all three methods: conduction, convection, and radiation. Radiation is responsible for most of the heat transferred into the room. Heat transfer also occurs through conduction into the room, but at a much slower rate. Heat transfer by convection also occurs through cold air entering the room around windows and hot air leaving the room by rising up the chimney.
https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/introductorygeneralphysics2phys1207/chapter/14-4-heat-transfer-methods/
You could place a metal shield in front of the fireplace, blocking IR, while leaving room behind it for air to circulate. I predict that the room would warm just as well via convection.
This is a perfect example of a textbook spreading propaganda. They make fireplaces today with glass on the front and glass should block IR. Those fireplace warm the room just as well through convection.
Mr. Asshat, please stop saying stuff.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you believe Gordon to be wrong, be helpful, and tell him why – if you can, of course.
Refusing to help people is the mark of the mean-spirited individual.
Gordon Robertson
With the glass and fireplace. Glass is a really good absorber of IR but it also emits IR. The glass will get hot and start to emit IR so I do not think your manipulative term “spreading propaganda” is valid in any way. You really are a true science denier. You know very little real science and think it is all bogus and fake and no one in the field does any experiments or observations. How little real science you know is fascinating. You make up a lot of unsupported ideas and when posters correct you, you double down and ignore all the evidence in favor of your made up unsupported opinions.
Nate is correct about you and Clint R. Neither of you has any real science background. You state a bunch of your made up opinions. You both reject all evidence showing how poor your thoughts are and now you battle each other to see whose made up reality is the better one. All the while rejecting real science and observation.
Mike Flynn, please stop acting like you agreed with Mr. Asshat’s contention that heat can only be transported by convection.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you believe Gordon to be wrong, be helpful, and tell him why if you can, of course.
Refusing to help people is the mark of the mean-spirited individual
Norman,
Why do you refuse to describe the GHE?
Ignorance or inability?
How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that you have been fed spoonful of descriptions of the greenhouse effect.
Willard,
Are you one of those idiots who refuse to describe the GHE? The sort of idiot who refuses to even say what the GHE is supposed to do?
I guess you must be.
Carry on.
Mike,
That you can act like a sociopath isn’t a reason to act like one.
If you say so, Willard. Others may disagree.
Otters may understand that, in that context, the concept of “reason” has a moral component, Mike.
Finish your beer. Time for a scotch.
If you say so, Willard. Others may disagree.
The DSM is the DSM, Mike. Sociopaths don’t justify their actions. They brag about not having to do so.
Just like you.
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
Nite nite, Mike.
Whatever you say, Willard.
[sniggers while humouring idiot]
Try not to sleep in the ditch tonight, Mike.
Walk straight home.
OK, Willard.
[snigger]
Looks like you didn’t, Mike.
If you say so, Willard. If you say so.
Since you’re here, Mike, want to come in?
Dust yourself off, I’ll make you some coffee.
Whatever you say, Willard.
Here you go, Mike.
Two creams and two sugars, the old fart special.
nate…”and thus Clint is jealous of Gordon and is trying to push him out of his territory”.
***
By gum, Nate, I think you might be onto something.
Keep proving me right children.
I can take it.
Stop the machines! Prepare to die!
https://youtu.be/oQIXjapicIs
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In order for a vibration to ab.sorb infrared radiation and become excited, the molecule must change its dipole moment during the vibration. Homonuclear diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 do not have dipole moments. If the molecule undergoes a stretching motion as shown in Figure 4.1.1, where the spheres represent the two nuclei, there is no change in the dipole moment during the vibrational motion, therefore N2 and O2 do not ab.sorb infrared radiation.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Analytical_Chemistry/Molecular_and_Atomic_Spectroscopy_(Wenzel)/4%3A_Infrared_Spectroscopy/4.1%3A_Introduction_to_Infrared_Spectroscopy
Willard, you are being gullible again.
A vibration absorbs infrared?
Your reference is obviously wrong. Both oxygen and nitrogen (and all matter in the universe) absorb and emit it. That’s why even oxygen and nitrogen have a temperature – they are emitting IR.
You really enjoy looking ignorant, don’t you? Why is that?
[laughing quietly]
Mike Flynn, please stop being mean spirited by playing dumb.
Willard, you are being gullible again.
A vibration absorbs infrared?
Your reference is obviously wrong. Both oxygen and nitrogen (and all matter in the universe) absorb and emit it. Thats why even oxygen and nitrogen have a temperature they are emitting IR.
You really enjoy looking ignorant, dont you? Why is that?
[laughing quietly]
Mike,
Beer?
Willard, you are being gullible again.
A vibration absorbs infrared?
Your reference is obviously wrong. Both oxygen and nitrogen (and all matter in the universe) absorb and emit it. Thats why even oxygen and nitrogen have a temperature they are emitting IR.
You really enjoy looking ignorant, dont you? Why is that?
[laughing quietly]
Beer?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here’s your beer, Mike.
Don’t think that all I gave you is beer.
If you say so, Willard.
Beer does not hold in space all by itself, Mike.
There must be a container.
If you say so Willard, if you say so.
Language is a social art, Mike, and there’s nothing antisocial pricks like you can do about it.
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
It may have taken you a month of intense training, Mike, but at least now you now learned how to stay in an improv.
Once again, Flynnson diverts, misrepresents and distorts everything.
No, Flynnson: neither O2 let alone N2 do absorb / emit anything in the IR region relevant to Earth’s emissions (inside of 5 – 40 micron wavelength, more exactly between 8 and 12 micron).
N2 is absent in the region, and O2’s intensity is 10^9 times lower than H2O’s.
You are perfectly aware of that but continue lying in order to discredit and denigrate people.
Any psychiatrist would describe you as mentally deranged.
Bindidon,
You refuse to describe the GHE, but at least you say that the role of CO2 in the mythical GHE is irrelevant anyway.
As you say “Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.
CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
Maybe you are simply confused. Air has a temperature. In other words, it is emitting IR radiation. The wavelengths of the IR are proportional to the temperature of the emitter – air in this case.
Removing both CO2 and H2O from a sample of air change its temperature not one whit.
As to H2O, (you dismiss CO2), the hottest places on Earth have the least H2O in the air – places like Death Valley or the Lut Desert, for example. You don’t want to believe it, but the air is heated by the Sun, and cools rapidly in the absence of sunlight.
You seem to be gullible and ignorant enough to reject reality. Is that why you refuse to describe the GHE? You can always accuse me of lying, but refuse to tell anybody about what! The usual gutless GHE cultist tactics. No GHE – not one you are prepared to describe, anyway.
Carry on refusing to accept reality.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“It may have taken you a month of intense training, Mike, but at least now you now learned how to stay in an improv.”
OK. Whatever you say.
[laughter ensued]
Still here, Mike?
You were hiding under the counter!
Silly you.
Swenson,
“Your reference is obviously wrong. Both oxygen and nitrogen (and all matter in the universe) absorb and emit it. Thats why even oxygen and nitrogen have a temperature they are emitting IR.”
Oxygen and Nitrogen only emit and absorb IR when they are liquid or solid, as gases they are transparent to IR.
They have a temperature because they have kinetic energy because the molecules are moving. That’s what temperature is, average kinetic energy of the molecules.
” As to H2O, (you dismiss CO2), the hottest places on Earth have the least H2O in the air places like Death Valley or the Lut Desert, for example. You dont want to believe it, but the air is heated by the Sun, and cools rapidly in the absence of sunlight. ”
Again, Flynnson’s completely irrelevant stuff parroting CO2IsLife’s utter nonsense.
Except geniuses a la Flynnson and CO2IsLife, no one on Earth would be dumb enough to observe H2O’s effect in deserts or in Antarctica.
This effect of course is best observed and measured where H2O is abundant: above the oceans in the Tropics, for example.
But Flynnson diverts, misrepresents and distorts everything, especially by trying to discredit 99.99% of something with 0.01% showing its inverse.
*
And no, Flynnson: I don’t dismiss CO2 whenever it is useful to mention it.
Binny,
You wrote –
“This effect of course is best observed and measured where H2O is abundant: above the oceans in the Tropics, for example.”
Well, that’s saying nothing at all, isn’t it? What effect are you talking about? Are you agreeing that abundant H20 in the atmosphere results in cooler temperatures? Or maybe you believe that the hottest places on Earth are not also the driest?
Maximum temperatures over the tropical oceans you talk about are considerably lower than those over land, but you refuse to use actual temperatures, preferring to talk about some mysterious effect which you refuse to describe, but which apparently results in lower temperatures over tropical oceans!
As to your newfound respect for CO2, previously you wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
It’s obvious that decreasing the amount of H2O between the Sun and a thermometer (eg Death Valley) results in higher, not lower, temperatures. You agree that this is the case for CO2 as well, as you wrote previously.
So what is this “effect” which ” is best observed and measured where H2O is abundant: above the oceans in the Tropics, for example.” Are you going to refuse to describe it? What is it supposed to do?
You sound confused.
Here’s a wild idea, Mike –
What don’t you go bite Binny’s ankle in another thread.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Heres a wild idea, Mike
What dont you go bite Binnys ankle in another thread.”
I agree, it’s a wild idea. Suggested by an idiot who wrote “What don’t you go . . . “.
Wild and semi-literate. A good combination for a fanatical GHE cultist, I suppose!
[laughing at deranged nutter]
Mike, Mike,
You definitely are in my subthread right now.
If you want to bray, you’ll have to buy something.
Beer?
OK, ThreadMaster, whatever you say.
[he lives in a fantasy world]
Perfect, Mike. There you go –
*A beer glides in front of the silliest sock puppet in the history of Climateball.*
OK, Willard.
Last call, Mike.
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
“So, yes, they skip specular reflection in THESE calculations because specular reflection is not important for THESE sensors for THIS purpose.”
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940020024/downloads/19940020024.pdf
Yes, “THESE calculations because specular reflection is not important for THESE sensors for THIS purpose.”
But also they say Albedo is a = 0.3
And they say Albedo is the ratio of diffuse reflection.
Also they say the specular reflection is very little.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Since a spacecraft would receive very little energy from even
an entire Earth which was specularly reflecting this type of reflection is ignored here.
Here, we consider the sunlit potion of the Earth to be a uniform, diffuse reflector and will use the word albedo in a limited sense, i.e. the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total
energy incident on the surface
(emphasis added)
–
Reflection from a surface is not uniform, it is always directional.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Moon’s surface scatters solar light. We know that the solar lit side of the Moon, because of surface’s sphericity, is not uniformly illuminated.
The surface is illuminated at the highest intensity at the lunar local noon hour. Every other point on the lunar surface, the closer it is to the terminator, the less intensively it is illuminated.
Yet we observe Moon from Earth as a uniformly illuminated celestial body.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, Addressing a few of your points (out of order):
“Also they say the specular reflection is very little.”
Correct — specular reflection from earth to this detector is fairly small. So they just ignore the difference between diffuse reflection and specular reflection and treat everything as diffuse reflection to simplify their calculations. It is good enough for their wide angle detector.
(They also treat everything as uniform diffuse reflection, ignoring differences between land and water and clouds. Again this just simplifies the calculations and is good enough for their purposes.)
“But also they say Albedo is a = 0.3”
Yes.
“And they say Albedo is the ratio of diffuse reflection.”
No. They know albedo is the ratio of diffuse AND specular reflection. But since they already chose to lump it all together and call it diffuse reflection to simplify the calculations, they use 0.3 for diffuse reflection.
“Reflection from a surface is not uniform, it is always directional.”
“Yet we observe Moon from Earth as a uniformly illuminated celestial body.”
Try this. Hold a piece of white paper in sunlight. move yourself and the paper to various angles in the sunlight. The paper stays basically the same shade of white. It does not turn black as you look from an angle.
Many surfaces exhibit “Lambertian reflectance” where the diffuse reflection is the same in all directions. The rough surface of paper, wood or the moon all are very close to this idea.
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
“Many surfaces exhibit Lambertian reflectance where the diffuse reflection is the same in all directions. The rough surface of paper, wood or the moon all are very close to this idea.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lambert6.gif
It looks like, but it isn’t.
–
Sorry, it is getting very late in Anthes, Greece now,
!2:20 PM June 2.
Shall we continue tomorrow.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim,
“So they just ignore the difference between diffuse reflection and specular reflection and treat everything as diffuse reflection to simplify their calculations.”
Very scientific? Is that the action of fools or frauds? Are you really implying that a proper calculation (difficult though it may be), would produce a different answer?
Then you go with a silly “experiment”, and say “The paper stays basically the same shade of white.” Basically? What does that even mean – basically?
If you lower your viewing angle sufficiently, you can see reflections from normal white paper – try it. Whenever the sun, for example, is low in the sky, it will appear as a reflected image from many apparently diffuse surfaces.
However, this really is just a diversion away from the fact that you refuse to describe the GHE in any meaningful way, and refuse to say why.
Why should anybody value your opinion about anything at all?
Mike Flynn,
Good morning.
If you say so, Willard.
Nothing in your reply addresses Tim’s points, Mike.
“Very scientific? ”
Yes! It is VERY scientific to ignore small effects when small effects don’t matter. If you were any sort of engineer or scientist you would know this.
The detector can give a quite good, quite simple approximation for the angle to the sun when the earth is not in the field of view. All they want is a good approximation when the earth IS in the field of view. For this, approximating the earth as a uniform, diffuse reflector with albedo 0.3 is more than sufficient.
“What does that even mean basically?”
It means exactly what you stated. There are often slight variations from perfectly diffuse scattering — like slightly more forward scattering from paper. But you can still see strong diffuse scattering at other angles, so approximating paper as uniform diffuse reflection is still quite good. Good enough for a first order improvement in the operation of the sensor to tell the orientation to the sun.
And anyone can play that game. You claim “If you lower your viewing angle sufficiently … “. What does that even mean — sufficiently? So next time before you get pedantic and self-righteous, remember a) this is just a blog and b) you are just as guilty as everyone else.
“Nothing in your reply addresses Tims points, Mike.”
If you say so, Willard. If you say so.
Tim, you wrote –
“It is VERY scientific to ignore small effects when small effects dont matter.” Are you stupid, or just pretending.
The problem is that people like fanatical GHE cultists decide what matters, and what doesn’t. In this instance, you have decided something doesn’t matter, because it suits you! On the other hand, you might think that increasing the amount of CO2 from 350 ppm to 400 ppm is a big deal, for some reason beyond the ken of mere mortals.
You go on –
“For this, approximating the earth as a uniform, diffuse reflector with albedo 0.3 is more than sufficient.” Sufficient for what? You see, the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and the surface does so every night. No amount of albedo estimation, or GHE fantasy can change the facts.
Keep refusing to describe the mythical GHE in meaningful terms, and keep coming up with excuses to justify your refusal. I’ll keep having a laugh at your expense (whether you mind or not).
By the way, when I use “sufficiently” , I mean sufficiently. Lowering your angle of view to a point where you are getting specular reflection from a diffuse surface requires that you lower lower your view sufficiently. If you don’t, you won’t see the effect.
Go off and learn play your “silly games” better. When you have improved sufficiently, play with Willard. You can play with each other to your heart’s content, but the mythical GHE will remain undescribed, won’t it?
No GHE, is there?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“The problem is that [those from Team Science] decide what matters, and what does’t.”
Christos decided to insist on speculating on specular reflection.
If you could reflect from time to time, that would be spectacular.
Cheers.
OK, Willard.
[humours troll]
“In this instance, you have decided something doesnt matter, because it suits you!”
No, I have carefully read the manuscript Christos provided and concluded their approximation of the earth as a uniform, diffuse reflector is “fit for purpose.”
So read the manuscript and tell us why this approximation is NOT “fit for purpose”. Use quotes and/or equations from the paper. Otherwise, you are the one choosing positions ‘because they suit you’ rather than based on science.
Good morning from Athens.
Tim,
“Many surfaces exhibit Lambertian reflectance where the diffuse reflection is the same in all directions. The rough surface of paper, wood or the moon all are very close to this idea.”
–
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lambert6.gif
It looks like, but it isnt.
There are surfaces that exhibit almost “Lambertian reflectance”, Moon doesn’t. But there are celestial bodies, which exhibit the almost “Lambertian reflectance”.
There are surfaces with “Not Lambertian reflectance” and surfaces with “Lambertian reflectance”.
When solar energy hits surface’s matter, the solar energy partly gets reflected-scattered.
1). The one-touch scattering is when the reflected solar energy is subjected to only one single reflection and then escapes from the surface. Because surface is smooth enough not to stop the reflected solar energy to leave.
Those surfaces exhibit the “Not Lambertian reflectance”.
2). The multi-touch scattering is when the reflected solar energy is subjected to multiple-times reflections in the surface’s “folds” and only then, the not absorbed solar energy escapes from the surface.
Those surfaces exhibit the almost “Lambertian reflectance”.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is not a 100% “Lambertian reflection”.
–
Planets and moons which exhibit the “not Lambertian reflection” have along with the diffuse reflection, also a strong specular-like reflection. So they have Φ = 0,47 (the solar irradiation accepting factor).
Those planets and moons are:
Mercury
Earth
Moon
Mars
Europa
Ganymede
All other planets and moons exhibit the almost “Lambertian reflection”. This includes the 4 gaseous planets and Venus and Titan, which also exhibit “Lambertian reflection”.
So for all of them the Φ = 1.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
The details of Lambertian reflection are interesting but first we should resolve the original issues around the paper you referenced.
The paper is NOT about Bond albedo. For their purpose (orienting the satellite using wide-angle light sensors), treating the earth as a uniform diffuse reflector is sufficient. Trying to draw any conclusions about Bond albedo or the actual diffuse vs specular reflection of the earth from this this paper is a bad misreading of the paper.
Bond albedo DOES include all reflections — diffuse and specular. There is no need for a factor of 0.47 to ‘correct’ for specular reflection. OTHER detectors on OTHER satellites attempt to measure Bond Albedo. You need to find papers about actual Bond Albedo measurements and critique THOSE papers!
Yes, Tim, the paper is not about Bond Albedo. I presented the paper to demonstrate that specular reflection in Bond Albedo is considered so much insignificant, that the definition of Bond Albedo is limited to the diffusely reflected ratio.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I presented the paper to demonstrate that specular reflection in Bond Albedo is considered so much insignificant, that the definition of Bond Albedo is limited to the diffusely reflected ratio.”
No!
The definition of Bold albedo DOES include both. In this SPECIAL CASE, it is SUFFICIENT to lump the specular reflection in with the diffuse reflection for the purpose of simplifying the calculations of total light received by the sensor. But both are part of the total Bond albedo.
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
“both are part of the total Bond albedo.”
(the specular and diffuse)
–
Moon’s Albedo a =0,11
Moon’s Te =270K, and emits 301 W/m^2
–
Yet Moon’s average surface temperature is T =220K.
The measured average surface temperature is 50C smaller than the theoretically calculated.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The measured average surface temperature is 50C smaller than the theoretically calculated.”
You are going off on a new tangent. But this is not correct. The “theoretically calculated” Te temperature to which you refer is for a black body with a uniform temperature. But the moon not uniform temperature. The moon’s more accurate “theoretically predicted” temperature including the temperature gradient will be much cooler than 270 K. Somewhere around 220 K in fact. 🙂
“The measured average surface temperature is 50C smaller than the theoretically calculated.”
You are going off on a new tangent. But this is not correct.
The “theoretically calculated” Te temperature to which you refer is for a black body with a uniform temperature. But the moon not uniform temperature. The moon’s more accurate “theoretically predicted” temperature including the temperature gradient will be much cooler than 270 K. Somewhere around 220 K in fact. 🙂
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
“The moons more accurate theoretically predicted temperature including the temperature gradient will be much cooler than 270 K. Somewhere around 220 K in fact. ”
Tim, please explain, what the ( ) is?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I don’t know what you want. I do not see “()” in what I wrote or in what you copied.
There are some quotation marks that came out strangely. But that is all I see that is odd.
Tim, at the end of your comment, “Somewhere around 220 K in fact. δΥ,
(δΥ,) what does it mean?
δΫTM ?
When we watch ourselves in the mirror, we observe ourselves in the diffuse reflected light.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, occasionally characters like curly quotes will not display properly. This can also happen when cutting and pasting from other sources. The symbol has no meaning here.
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
Albedo (/lˈbiːdoʊ/ al-BEE-doh; from Latin albedo ‘whiteness’) is the fraction of sunlight that is diffusely reflected by a body.
–
Sample albedos
Surface Typical
albedo
Fresh asphalt 0.04[6]
Open ocean 0.06[7]
Worn asphalt 0.12[6]
Conifer forest,
summer 0.08,[8] 0.09 to 0.15[9]
Deciduous forest 0.15 to 0.18[9]
Bare soil 0.17[10]
Green grass 0.25[10]
Desert sand 0.40[11]
New concrete 0.55[10]
Ocean ice 0.50 to 0.70[10]
Fresh snow 0.80[10]
Aluminum 0.85[12][13]
Christo, it does seem like the word “Albedo” is not always used consistently. Some places specifically say “diffuse” and some don’t, for example.
But “Bond Albedo” in astronomy is pretty clearly meant to be ALL reflections at ALL angles and ALL wavelengths. Ie the total energy not absorbed by the planet. This is the only logical choice since this number is used to determine the heating effect of the absorbed sunlight.
Tim,
“”Bond Albedo” in astronomy is pretty clearly meant to be ALL reflections at ALL angles and ALL wavelengths. Ie the total energy not absorbed by the planet. This is the only logical choice since this number is used to determine the heating effect of the absorbed sunlight.”
–
I agree.
The sample albedos are diffuse reflections.
–
” Because light specularly reflected from water does not usually reach the viewer, water is usually considered to have a very low albedo in spite of its high reflectivity at high angles of incident light.”
“Specular reflection from a body of water is calculated by the Fresnel equations.[6] Fresnel reflection is directional and therefore does not contribute significantly to albedo which primarily diffuses reflection.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflectance#Hemispherical_reflectance
Our comment:
The planet solar irradiated area from normal point to the terminator of 90o is gradually increasing in dimensions. The further away on the globe’s surface from the point of ZENITH INCIDENCE ANGLE to the larger angles of incidence the more extend in dimensions the spherical zones’ areas are.
So the larger angles of incidence are accompanied with much larger areas times the much higher the specular reflection portion outgoing to space from them.
Consequently the Φ = 0,47 and the specular reflection of the “waterworld” sphere is expected to be very much comparable.
Please visit to check the step-by-step calculations I have done which are based on the Fresnel’s Graph.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444383819/448587170
Christos, you have some serious problems in your calculations. This is not really the place for it but here are a few things.
1) the most significant is that you want the radius of the zones, r.i, not the height of each zone, h.i. This causes you to vastly overestimate your final answer.
The zones from 0 degrees to 45 degrees include 50% of the total cross section @ ~2% reflectivity.
The zones from 45 degrees to 60 degrees include 25% of the total cross section @ ~5% reflectivity.
The zones from 60 degrees to 90 degrees include 25% of the total cross section @ ~30% reflectivity.
The weighted average is close to 10% specular reflection, not 43%
2) You have an error in the reflectivity numbers in your table. at 67.5 degrees you switch from the correct average reflectivity to the higher S-polarized reflectivity. This inflates your result.
3) the oceans are not smooth water. The surface has waves and foam and algae. All of these will reduce specular reflection.
The total specular reflection will be considerably less than 10%. Not anything close to 40%
Thank you, Tim.
I’ll look it over again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim, I checked it again.
Surface area of spherical zone: A = 2*π*r*h
where r is the radius of sphere, and h is the height of zone.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Surface area of spherical zone: A = 2*π*r*h”
Yes, but sunlight does not fall perpendicular to the zone. The farther from zero degrees, the more obliquely the sunlight falls. So you don’t multiple each zone by S, but instead multiply by S*cos(theta). You need a WEIGHTED average for each zone, not your simple average.
Thank you, Tim,
“You need a WEIGHTED average for each zone, not your simple average.”
I’ll look it over again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim, what I calculated, it was almost four years ago… I know it is symplistic, maybe a good mathematitian could calculate it properly.
I think, for those good in mathematics it is a simple task to perform.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Solar wind
speed: 337.1 km/sec
density: 2.55 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 01 Jun 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 135
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 179 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.32×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.1% Low
7 numbered spots. The numbered spot nearest to going to farside, faded well before, getting there.
That small spot, has grown quite big, it’s the 3rd largest spot on nearside- the two x-flare spots being much bigger. And 3697 is largest. And still couple days before 3697 is directly facing Earth.
No spots coming from farside, and +3 days before any spot goes to farside.
Oh, 3699, appeared out of nowhere, is roughly facing Earth, and arguable as big as “that small spot, which I called 3rd biggest. 3699 sudden appearance, means to me, it could fade fast, or keep on growing fast- who knows, maybe become 2nd largest spot, by tomorrow.
So May sunspot number was 171.7 and
Blue line was Nov 127.8
{significant upward bump, which helps the NOAA experimental forecast
not be disproven, yet. But it does not invalid NOAA earlier prediction of cycle, yet. Or the helpfulness of latest forecast hasn’t yet proven it’s value, yet.}
What it means to me, is I have to wait, longer, then I wanted to wait. It seem that June has to be about 150 to be more helpful- and cause me to wait longer. And I would say it seems to me, 150 or more on June will mean Valentina Zharkova can be disproven within 6 months.
Though a steep rise, which flatten, bumps up, then crashes, was always my view of what was predicted by her many years ago.
The potential of her being precisely accurate is spooky.
Link:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
I would say, that if we are in Solar Grand Minimum, no one knows what the effects will be. Or we know roughly what the effects Solar Grand Maximum are because we have some technology to measure it, a little bit, or it occurred during what some might call the Space Age.
I am quite certain, a solar grand minimum which predicted to be relatively short, can’t effect global climate by much.
But people call global weather, global climate and there seems possibility that solar grand minimum could effect [in “a harmful way”} Earth’s global weather. And global weather could more important than global climate changing.
So, global climate change, would be something effecting Arctic sea ice. The ice free arctic ocean, has been long predicted as example of climate change- and keep on saying in few decades this could happen.
The world would be better, if they was ice free polar sea ice in summer in arctic. But cargo cult thinks this leads to ice free polar sea ice in the winter- which is a huge global climate change. Which I think would be wonderful, but is large change.
I don’t think a solar grand minimum is going to make ice burgs a significant threat to Atlantic shipping, which is something one could call global cooling- it might cause increase [or decrease] in polar sea ice of the kind/sort which we have had.
But my interest is relate to cosmic rays effecting space travel to Mars. Right now, there isn’t problem.
Don’t worry, the GSM still can happen at any time.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view
But… maybe the Campi Flegrei near Napoli, IT rush suddenly out and we then would experience a climate for several decades that is much colder than any GSM could ever produce.
Solar wind
speed: 332.1 km/sec
density: 1.20 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 194
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 188 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.48×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.2% Low
“X-FLARE AFTER X-FLARE AFTER X-FLARE: Exploding like popcorn, sunspot AR3664 (a.k.a. AR3697) produced three X-flares on May 31st and June 1st. The third, a long-duration X1-class event, hurled a halo CME almost directly toward Earth.
Official forecast models are not yet available for the incoming CME. However, we can make a good guess for the ETA: June 4th. The impact could produce strong G3-class geomagnetic storms.
Sunspot AR3664 has been decaying for days. What makes it so active? This magnetic map provides the answer:…”
Other than 3697 getting closer to directly facing Earth, there a lot other interesting stuff.
9 numbered sunspot, a moderately large spot coming from farside [not numbered yet], No spot going to farside within 2 days.
3700 appeared and it’s quite large [considering just popped into existence] it closer to going to farside than 3699 which yesterday popped into existence, and it didn’t grow much nor fade. Anyhow 3700 is about 4 to 5 days from going to farside,
Another spot 3701 appeared and somewhat close to 3597 {more towards Equator and following 3597.
Tomorrow has good chance to be well over 200 sunspot and next few days will have 3597 directly facing Earth {a swarm of small “angry” spots]. All the spot are clusters of small spots, though one coming from farside looks like a larger spot, in terms of single spot- than any single spot on nearside.
Solar wind
speed: 295.5 km/sec
density: 4.33 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 186
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 180 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.56×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.4% Low
9 numbered spots, 3702 came from farside, and 2693 faded. small/tiny spot is coming from farside and spot appeared on nearside which hasn’t been numbered yet. Nothing going to farside within a day, though 3690 may fade before getting to farside {if it does fade, then it’s about 3 days before any spot goes to farside}.
Solar wind
speed: 405.5 km/sec
density: 2.57 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 208
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 186 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.71×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.1% Low
11 numbered spots. No spots going to farside.
No spots coming from farside, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 454.4 km/sec
density: 3.47 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 224
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 192 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.95×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.1% Low
12 numbered spots
The film was brought up here several times, pulled.
https://apnews.com/article/2000-mules-film-apology-f1c2de96f17e72241761b4e6deaee5cb
“Publisher of ‘2000 Mules’ apologizes to Georgia man falsely accused of ballot fraud in the film”
richard…you can’t win them all. 2000 mules was pretty well dead on.
Mr. Asshat, you got the first part right – that political hit job is pretty much dead.
In terms of hurricanes, Atlantic has nothing becoming a storm:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
My side {pacific} still has 10% chance of Cyclonic formation:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
In terms weather for 5th of June, Starship test launch. The forcast hasn’t changed {it still could change] so 20 mph wind and small chance of rain- not particularly good for a test launch.
Dodgers, are leading their div, but I am not watching any baseball:
https://tinyurl.com/yc6cvbmv
Still nothing on Atlantic side, my side has increased to 20% chance:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Starship planned for 6th, winds are forecasted to be 15 mph.
Bin Wigly on climate seance
https://youtu.be/E263Jj3PBBo?t=615
GSM worldwide acknowledged researcher Dachshund Eben
https://i.postimg.cc/nzXW5S0g/Dachshund-Eben-in-June-2024.jpg
on the way to the Heartland ‘Grand Solar Minimum Soon?’ Conference
Scott’s making an argument against his idea that we living in a Slim.
Otherwise their no reason that AI can’t replace him.
The point I get from his talk is that alarmist climate science is corrupt, just as the covid narrative was corrupt. Will Happer called alarmist climate science a scam and I have heard the same from scientists re covid.
Another point made in the video is that vested interests maintain the scams and that is just as obvious. Here in Canada, I had a discussion with a bigwig at CBC Canada, the national new network supported by the government. I tried to talk him into talking to Roy Spencer and John Christy at UAH to get an alternative view. He told me point blank that he was not interested, that CBC only reports on the popular view with matters like climate, namely the IPCC.
The CBC has a show called The Nature of Things, once hosted by uber-alarmist David Suzuki. Even though he has been gone for some time, he still holds sway at CBC. If they dare to step outside their mandate of alarmist climate science he goes into a rage.
Japanese billionaire cancels private flight around the moon on SpaceX’s giant Starship
https://www.space.com/japanese-billionaire-cancels-spacex-starship-moon-dearmoon-flight
–“I signed the contract in 2018 based on the assumption that dearMoon would launch by the end of 2023,” Maezawa said in a statement on X (formerly Twitter). “It’s a developmental project so it is what it is, but it is still uncertain as to when Starship can launch.”–
This is true. But might have better understanding after the 4th test flight.
He is quite old and depending on his future health, he might keep it cancelled, or get another deal {maybe a better deal].
The Starship design isn’t to go around the moon or to land on the Moon- it’s designed for Mars.
New Glenn is more designed to go around the Moon. New Glenn has been even furthered delayed, but could get test launch this year. And it’s possible, New Glenn rocket could fly him around the Moon, sooner. And total price might even be less. Blue Origin contract comes after SpaceX. Plus there other possibilities. By the end of this year, one have more certainty about possible options [or by middle of 2025}.
Can’t do nine crew, without Starship. But with smaller crew, could be, that you get to fly around the Moon, quicker.
Being first would be better.
Of course might do something like be the first person to fly around Venus, could be more exciting- but would need to something like a Starship.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
One of Heritage’s leading funders is Harlan Crow. They also have a journalism fellowship named after the son of Countess Guardabassi, heir to a New England textile fortune, wife of an Italian fascist, and leading funder of American neo-Nazis and antisemites in the 1950s and 60s.
https://bsky.app/profile/sethcotlar.bsky.social/post/3kttho4jpxc2a
Have you checked the criminal element that funds desmogblog? Does Harlan Crow have a criminal record?
Funny how wee willy uses desmogblog as an authority figure then goes after people who are married to Italian fascists?
Mr. Asshat, please stop whatabouting like a silly Climateball rookie.
Yes, Wee Willy. Threaten him with banning if he does not obey!
[idiot]
Why would I ban Mr. Asshat, Mike?
The bar is open!
“Why would I ban Mr. Asshat, Mike?”
You can’t. You’re dreaming, as usual.
Carry on.
Mike,
The great thing about being a regular when the bar’s turned deep is it only takes a raised eyebrow and a couple of nods, and two bottles of Holsten Pils had been passed over people’s heads to you.
Want one?
Whatever you say, Willard.
[he’s strange, isn’t he?]
As long as you pay for it, Mike.
OK, Willard, if you say so.
[delusional dimwit]
Perfect, Mike.
“Perfect”.
OK, Willard, if you say so.
Already finished, Mike?
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
Have another one, Mike.
OK Willard, whatever you say.
[he’s a strange one]
A thirsty client is a good client, Mike.
Have another one.
OK, Willard.
One last for the road, Mike.
Bumbling bobdroege doesn’t like my reality, so he substitutes his own. He wrote –
“Oxygen and Nitrogen only emit and absorb IR when they are liquid or solid, as gases they are transparent to IR.”
Not according to every rational physicist in the world. For example NASA at least gets it right – “But that’s not the biggest challenge everything that has heat emits infrared light. That means that the atmosphere, the telescope, and even the infrared detectors themselves all emit infrared light.”
Now braindead bobby refuses to believe that people like Dr Spencer work on establishing the temperature of atmospheric gases by measuring the various amounts of radiation they emit (and yes, any wavelengths greater than the visible are by definition infrared).
So bobdroege boasts about his ignorance.
All matter above absolute zero emits infrared radiation, whether bumbling Bobby believes it or not. Not the brightest light in the room, is bobdroege.
Not everyone agrees that nitrogen cannot emit IR…
https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/10/scientists-oxygen-nitrogen-radiatively-important-greenhouse-gases-with-ir-absorp.tion-temps-similar-to-co2/
“Hpfner and colleagues also suggest N2 reduces outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) by 4.6 W/m compared to CO2s 5.1 W/m when assesing their solo absorp.tion capacity. This would appear to be a rather minor difference”.
That should be Hopfner, not Hpfner.
Swenson,
Nope, infrared is not all wavelengths longer than visible light.
“Infrared (IR; sometimes called infrared light) is electromagnetic radiation (EMR) with wavelengths longer than that of visible light but shorter than microwaves.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
That’s what I was referring to what saying N2 and O2 do not emit infrared.
And some bozos in the clown car have found sources that claim there is a small amount of infrared emitted by N2, but that is not a single N2 molecule doing that, it’s a complicated interacting involving more than one N2 molecule.
https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/ASD/lines1.pl?spectra=n2&limits_type=0&low_w=700&upp_w=&unit=1&submit=Retrieve+Data&de=0&format=0&line_out=0&en_unit=0&output=0&bibrefs=1&page_size=15&show_obs_wl=1&show_calc_wl=1&unc_out=1&order_out=0&max_low_enrg=&show_av=2&max_upp_enrg=&tsb_value=0&min_str=&A_out=0&intens_out=on&max_str=&allowed_out=1&forbid_out=1&min_accur=&min_intens=&conf_out=on&term_out=on&enrg_out=on&J_out=on
OK, there are a few lines in the far infrared, but most are microwave. And they are high temperature effects, not what is normally found in the atmosphere.
At the temperatures found in the Earth’s atmosphere, N2 still does not absorb or emit infrared.
And N2 in your living room does not interfere with your remote control for you TV.
Bumbling bobby,
“At the temperatures found in the Earths atmosphere, N2 still does not absorb or emit infrared.”
Yes it does, like all matter. The wavelengths are dependent on temperature.
Your fantasies are not fact, and you are dimly aware of this. This explains why you refuse to describe the mythical GHE, for fear of the laughter which would ensue!
If you have an alternative reason for your refusal, feel free to state it.
Swenson,
“Yes it does, like all matter. The wavelengths are dependent on temperature.”
Nope, physical laws say different.
“https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Anoka-Ramsey_Community_College/Introduction_to_Chemistry/10%3A_Electrons_in_Atoms/10.03%3A_Emission_Spectra#:~:text=Every%20atom%20has%20its%20own%20characteristic%20spectrum%3B%20no,is%20the%20plural%20form%20of%20spectrum%29%20are%20alike.
“Every atom has its own characteristic spectrum; no two emission spectra (spectra is the plural form of spectrum) are alike”
The spectra are dependent on the matter doing the absorbing and emitting.
Swenson,
Wherever you find a statement like this:
“All matter above absolute zero emits infrared radiation,”
Please continue to read your source, it will explain it further, it’s not as simple as you think it is.
wee willy is trying, very trying.
“In order for a vibration to ab.sorb infrared radiation and become excited, the molecule must change its dipole moment during the vibration. Homonuclear diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 do not have dipole moments”.
***
First, we turn to an alternative source…
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Atomic_and_Molecular_Properties/Dipole_Moments
“Dipole moments occur when there is a separation of charge. They can occur between two ions in an ionic bond or between atoms in a covalent bond; dipole moments arise from differences in electronegativity. The larger the difference in electronegativity, the larger the dipole moment. The distance between the charge separation is also a deciding factor in the size of the dipole moment. The dipole moment is a measure of the polarity of the molecule”.
***
I have been trying to tell anyone who will listen that dipoles are the product of electronegativity. However, the word ‘moment’ is being used incorrectly. A moment, in physics, is a twisting motion about an axis caused by a force acting on a body at a distance from the axis. A moment is essentially a torque.
The only way a moment would apply is if the CO2 linear molecule dipoles rock about the axis trough the three atoms.
Be that as it may, there is no twisting force involved in the stretching mode. As the article states, if one atom in a molecule is more electronegative than another, it tends to attract bonding electrons to it, establish a charge that is more negative one end of the bond, leaving the other end relatively less negative, hence more positive. That is what the dipole is about, a difference in electron charge.
If you have two similar atoms forming a bond, like N-N or O-O, there will be no dipole since the electron charge will be the same on either end of the bond. Therefore, the CO2, N-N and O-O bonds are similar except for the dipole charge. That is insufficient to explain why those atoms with a dipole charge will absorb IR and those without will not. In fact, it is known that N2 does absorb some IR.
We need a better explanation for why CO2 absorbs significantly more IR than an N-N or O-O bond and I think it will be found in the bond properties. However, those pushing the CO2 dipole action need to end the denial that even though an N-N bond absorbs less IR than a CO2 bond, the sheer abundance of N2 molecules as opposed to the number of CO2 molecules amplifies the effect of N2.
The fact that N-N bonds will absorb some IR is evidence that it is not about dipole action, but about other bond properties.
> That is insufficient
Mr. Asshat, please stop the pure denial:
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/media/images/co2_absorb_emit_infrared_anim_320x240.gif
Wasted Wee Willy,
Pretty coloured graphic – although meaningless. What is the minimum quantum of energy required to instigate one cycle of that resonant frequency?
Refusing to say? Don’t know? Are you particularly stupid?
Questions, questions! Pity you have no answers, eh?
Mike Flynn,
Since you’re our in-house chemical engineer, perhaps you could lecture us on the meaninglessness of your comments?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
OK, Willard.
Whatever you say.
[he’s playing with himself again]
Childish and amateur rendition, typical of alarmists posers at UCAR.
All I can see are three balls touching each other and rotating about an undefined axis based on some meaningless inference. There is no reason which an axis through the three balls should rotate as shown.
Where are the electrons in their atomic orbits which absorb and emit the IR? Better get an unbiased source that deals in real science rather than kindergarten cartoons.
BTW…kindergarten translates as children’s garden. Apparently Germans look after children by putting them out in the garden. Either that or they grow children in gardens.
Mr. Asshat, please stop relying on pure denial, sammich request, and saying stuff.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop relying on pure denial, sammich request, and saying stuff.”
Very mature Im sure, Willard. Only joking, juvenile and quite pathetic.
Try harder.
Mike Flynn, please stop denying that cranks have anything else than these three steps.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop relying on pure denial, sammich request, and saying stuff.”
Very mature Im sure, Willard. Only joking, juvenile and quite pathetic.
Try harder.
Mike Flynn, please stop spitting your drink.
“Mike Flynn, please stop spitting your drink.”
Rather juvenile, don’t you think?
As long as you pay for that drink, Mike, you can be as juvenile as you want.
Gordon,
Read your source better
It clearly states that CO2 has no net dipole moment.
Except in the bending modes of molecular vibration, there is a dipole moment for the bending modes.
walter…”This means that a warmer, milder world should actually result in less extreme weather”.
***
Allow me to repeat your words of wisdom…’This means that a warmer, milder world should actually result in less extreme weather’.
Svante Arrhenius hoped so. He wrote “We may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates . . . “.
Unfortunately, his speculation about CO2 warming were wrong. However, by creating lots and lots of CO2 and H2O by burning lots and lots of fossil. fuel, we can grow more food, whilst enjoying personal anthropogenic climate control using air conditioning, ducted heating, and so on.
What’s not to like?
Mr. Asshat, please stop saying stuff that you could refute using your own front load washer.
Why are you still refusing to describe the GHE, Willard?
Can’t get past “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Oh dear.
Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting.
Mike Flynn,
Silly sock puppet –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Cheers.
OK, Willard. If you say so.
Maybe you could try posting the same irrelevant link over and over?
That might convince people you are a genius! What do you think?
Mike Flynn, please stop conceding that your silly sammich request is irrelevant.
wee willy…you are a hideous orangutan.
OK, Willard.
[humouring idiot]
Mr. Asshat, please stop dehumanizing, more so while refusing to consider that adding energy to a system may not stabilise it.
The energy was taken from the atmosphere after the Sun and atmosphere provided energy to grow plant life. Then it was buried in the ground where it turned to fossil fuels, All we have done is recylce what was there. How can that be harmful?
“Mr. Asshat, please stop dehumanizing, more so while refusing to consider that adding energy to a system may not stabilise it.”
Or that adding energy to a system may not destabilise it, either!
You really have a way of saying nothing at all, trying to appear clever.
Are you still refusing to describe the mythical GHE? Maybe you could claim it is “not cooling, slower cooling”!
You are an idiot..
Mr. Asshat, please stop trying to squirrel your way out of your pickle. Your mission, if you wish to continue white knighting Walter R. Hogle, is to provide an argument as to why a system stabilizes as soon as one adds energy to it.
Your mission? Have you added MissionAssigner to your ThreadMaster duries? You live in a richly bizarre fantasy world, don’t you?
Your mission is to appear rational. Mission impossible, in all likelihood.
Keep the humour coming.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb and help Mr. Asshat shield Walter R. Hogle’s elementary blunder.
Your mission? Have you added MissionAssigner to your ThreadMaster duries? You live in a richly bizarre fantasy world, dont you?
Your mission is to appear rational. Mission impossible, in all likelihood.
Keep the humour coming.
Mike Flynn, please stop displaying your utter lack of culture:
https://youtu.be/wwpXUn2dF5c?si=fEmSqwq3oDPS3XcD
Your mission? Have you added MissionAssigner to your ThreadMaster duries? You live in a richly bizarre fantasy world, don’t you?
Your mission is to appear rational. Mission impossible, in all likelihood.
Keep the humour coming.
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb.
Thanks, Gordon.
Shout it from the rooftops.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop being a dumb brat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq6T5BojXc8
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Allow me to repeat your words of wisdomThis means that a warmer, milder world should actually result in less extreme weather.”
Weather is chaos driven by thermal energy.
Think about other chaotic systems, like a pot of water heated on a stove. As it gets warmer, more chaotic fluid dynamics occurs.
Similarly on a warmer Earth, with greater amounts of water vapor available to drive storm activity, we can expect more chaotic atmospheric dynamics.
With the warmer Gulf of Mexico we have been getting more violent storms in the Great Plains. With the warmer tropical Atlantic we expect stronger hurricanes.
Innovative Engineering Shields NASAs OSIRIS-APEX During Close Encounter With the Sun
https://scitechdaily.com/innovative-engineering-shields-nasas-osiris-apex-during-close-encounter-with-the-sun/
Linked from https://instapundit.com/
Glenn says: “WHY NOT JUST GO AT NIGHT?”
Anyhow, I didn’t know much about it’s trajectory.
–OSIRIS-APEX, a NASA spacecraft, successfully navigated its closest approach to the Sun, exceeding design expectations and demonstrating robust engineering by protecting its sensitive components. Innovative techniques like repositioning solar arrays for protection allowed it to emerge unscathed, with subsequent tests revealing unexpected improvements in onboard instruments like cameras and spectrometers. However, engineers remain cautious as the spacecraft must complete additional challenging perihelions to reach its target, asteroid Apophis.–
…
“The second OSIRIS-APEX perihelion is scheduled for September 1, 2024. The spacecraft will be 46.5 million miles away from the Sun, which is roughly half the distance between Earth and the Sun, and well inside the orbit of Venus.”
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
This is analogous to what happens in a radio antenna which charges positive on one end and negative on the other. And the polarity oscillates.
Similarly to the radio antenna, molecular dipolar oscillation emits radiation.
The amplitude of oscillation is quantized, and decreases by one quantum with emission of a photon.
In N2 and O2 molecules, with two identical atoms, there is no charge separation, no dipole, and no radiation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1277564
This is what you get appealing to the authority of idiots, Willard.
In the real universe, all matter emits IR. All matter absorbs IR.
You can refuse to specify any matter which does not both absorb and emit IR, just like you can refuse to describe the mythical GHE.
That will make you look really intelligent, won’t it? Only joking, you look like an idiot.
Carry on dreaming.
[derisive laughter at idiot.]
There is absolutely no comparison between a radio antenna and an electron bond dipole. One could claim a slight comparison since both involve electrons, but that’s where it ends.
For one, the dipole in a molecule does not change polarity, it is permanently polarized according to the most electronegative atom. A better comparison, but still lacking, is the comparison to the voltage drop across a resistor in a direct current circuit. The only change is due to the emission and absorp-tion of EM, which causes the bond length to change with intensity.
Remember, two atoms in close proximity have two forces acting. One is a repulsion due to the positive charges in the nucleus and an attractive force due to orbiting electrons attracting the positive nucleus charges. That sets up a slight vibration on its own. If the electrons gain energy by absorbing EM,or being heated, the vibration is affected. However, with a molecule like N2 or O2, the attractive forces are supplied by the bonding electrons only.
An antenna requires a high frequency alternating current. If the current frequency is 1 Mhz, the polarity will change 1 million times per second but that polarity change is due to the current changing direction 1 million times per second. No such current runs in a molecular dipole.
From your link…”There are both positive and negative charges that are separated in a CO2 molecule. This is a dipole”.
***
There are no positive charges, the charges are all negative (charges on electrons) but of a lesser and greater degree. In electronics, a potential that is less negative is stated as being relatively positive. However, the relatively is not stated but understood.
So, if I have a direct current circuit with a resistor in series, the end connected to the negative terminal is marked (-) and the other end is marked (+). If you have two or more resistors in series, the same applies. If you have a diode or a transistor, the junctions are marked in the same manner. With conventional current the polarities are the same, except current runs in a strange direction.
“In N2 and O2 molecules, with two identical atoms, there is no charge separation, no dipole, and no radiation”.
***
There is always radiation, there is nothing to prevent it. There is a charge separation but no dipole. Each atom at either end of an N2 or O2 molecule has an equal charge hence cannot form a dipole.
That won’t prevent N2 or O2 from radiating or absorbing.
bobdroege came up with a novel idea. He said that oxygen and nitrogen can absorb and emit IR while they are in a liquid or solid state, but not as gases.
Good old bobdroege, he’s worked it all out! Turned conventional physics on its head!
Can’t quite explain how satellites pretend to measure tropospheric temperatures without lowering thermometers on very long pieces of string, and can’t explain how the atmosphere cools at night.
Oh well, bumbling bobby only claims to be a “brain chemist”, nor a physicist.
I’ll be less worried by his assertion that certain gases are exempt from physical laws which apply to all other matter in the universe!
> There is absolutely no comparison between a radio antenna and an electron bond dipole.
Mr. Asshat, please stop leading your blockhead rants with pure denial.
Swenson,
“Cant quite explain how satellites pretend to measure tropospheric temperatures without lowering thermometers on very long pieces of string, and cant explain how the atmosphere cools at night.”
Satellites measure microwave, not infrared.
“Since 1978, microwave sounding units (MSUs) on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) polar-orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen. This measurement is related to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere.”
from a website with bad letters
And the surface cools at night because it is no longer heated by the Sun, and can cool by emitting radiation, or conduction, or convection.
“Ill be less worried by his assertion that certain gases are exempt from physical laws which apply to all other matter in the universe!”
And what physical laws are those.
All matter above absolute zero emitting Infrared is a generalization, not a law, and all matter does not emit the same radiation.
Bumbling bobby,
“Satellites measure microwave, not infrared.”
Radiation below visible red is infrared. Infra is a prefix meaning “below”.
All matter emits infrared radiation. There are no exceptions. All matter at the same temperature emits the same radiation spectrum.
As to physical laws –
“A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community.”
If you want to play silly semantic games, and claim infrared radiation is not infrared, or that physical laws are not physical laws, be my guest. If you refuse to describe the mythical GHE, that just shows how stupid you are. You don’t need help from me.
Swenson,
The electromagnetic spectrum is divided, from highest energy to lowest, its gamma, x-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwave, and radio waves.
and now this
“All matter emits infrared radiation. There are no exceptions. All matter at the same temperature emits the same radiation spectrum.”
Where did you get that bullshit?
Because different matters have different emissivity, so check out this site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_cube
“Leslie’s cube is a device used in the measurement or demonstration of the variations in thermal radiation emitted from different surfaces at the same temperature.”
That directly contradicts your bullshit.
And now this
“If you want to play silly semantic games, and claim infrared radiation is not infrared, or that physical laws are not physical laws, be my guest. If you refuse to describe the mythical GHE, that just shows how stupid you are. You dont need help from me.”
Which physical laws?
Bumbling bobby,
You are confused. Leslie’s cube demonstrates how surfaces at the same temperature emit different amounts of the same frequencies, depending on emissivity.
The surfaces on such a cube filed with boiling water are all nominally 100 C (as you will find with your hand or a contact thermometer), but an IR thermometer will indicate that different surfaces have different temperatures, due to the way IR thermometers are built.
The wavelength of radiation depends on temperature. The intensity may have nothing to do with wavelength, being dependent on emissivity. This may affect the rate at which a body cools, but the final temperature will not depend on emissivity. Objects of completely different emissivities embedded in ice at say -10 C, are all emitting the same wavelengths of photons, but their emissive intensities differ, even when embedded in ice!
Saying bullshit won’t turn fantasy into fact.
You ask which physical laws are physical laws. All of them, obviously. Can you name any physical laws which are not physical laws?
You obviously dont need my help to look ignorant and gullible.
Swenson,
Yes, it’s a full bucket of shit.
“All matter emits infrared radiation. There are no exceptions. All matter at the same temperature emits the same radiation spectrum.”
“You are confused. Leslies cube demonstrates how surfaces at the same temperature emit different amounts of the same frequencies, depending on emissivity.”
You see, you contradicted yourself, probably because you don’t know your shit.
The spectrums are different, even though they may be comprised of the same frequencies.
Differing amounts of the same frequencies are different spectrum.
Can’t quite keep up, can you?
bumbling bobby,
No, the spectrum (mix of frequencies) remains the same. You are talking about the total energy emitted per unit area.
Resorting to inanities like “Yes, its a full bucket of shit.” might not impress others with your grasp of physics.
You wrote “Differing amounts of the same frequencies are different spectrum.”
I refer you to what is commonly called the electromagnetic Intense or barely perceptible, the spectrum remains the same. A large neon sign emits more light than a small neon sign, but the emitted spectrum is the same.
But all this is irrelevant, isn’t it? You refuse to describe the mythical GHE. Your bucket of shit remains empty. I don’t blame you for not trying harder to fill it.
Carry on.
Swenson,
“A large neon sign emits more light than a small neon sign, but the emitted spectrum is the same.”
Yes, it’s the same spectrum, because it’s the same element, neon, doing the emitting.
It has a different spectrum than a fluorescent light, doesn’t it?
May 2024 was the strongest month so far of SC25, and the SSN reached a new peak, contrary to eben’s claims that we will not be getting a second peak.
Another of his claims was that the averages released at the end of the month are always less that the averages of the daily counts, because apparently observers tend to overcount spots. This month the average rose by 13 when the final figures cam out.
When you make up claims on the fly, you tend to be right about 50% of the time. When there is an agenda behind those claims, that figure drops below 50%.
ark…you can bad mouth Zharkova’s predictions all you want but I’ll bet you will be one of the main whiner’s if her predictions come true. I certainly don’t want to see them come true but I have read on the misery endured by people during peaks in the Little Ice Age and Zharkova’s predictions are based on a solar comparison to that era. She had done a great deal of research into sunspots and she has the expertise to interpret what they mean.
If she is right, cooling will begin in the mid-2020s and extend to about 2050. I hope that’s not the case but if she is right, LIA conditions won’t be fun and we’ll need all the fossil fuels we can find.
The irony is this. If she is right, and it cools, alarmists will claim that was predicted and that we must prepare for warming that is just around the bend. We have been hearing that since 1988, some 35 years, and I have yet to see evidence of it in my neck of the woods.
Last time I checked, eben was not Zharkova.
But as YOU wish to bring her up, she didn’t “interpret what they mean”.
She made her original prediction without reference to climate. Then when she realised she was getting attention from deniers, she started linking to other sources which supported the cooling scenario. She didn’t do any independent research on climate herself. And she has clearly indicated that she supports greenhouse theory.
And even she is predicting a drop to no further than temperatures of the 1970s. That does not go close to qualifying as a “little ice age”.
A few years ago I found you on Facebook. After making a typical anti-science post your friends were trying to tell you that there hadn’t been a proper winter in “your neck of the woods” for years. You didn’t try to denier that, but tried to fend it off with apologetics.
Twerpy doesn’t know Zharkova is my mom ???
I guess “Twerpy” must be your name for Zharkova.
Gordon,
From my perspective, theres a good chance of cooling starting at some point this century. We dont know if we are near the end of the warming cycle or at the middle, with 20-30 years left to go. No two cycles are the same.
We just have to wait and see.
Or at the beginning …
I’d like that.
Personally haven’t witnessed much, if any, warming here.
Sorry Ark, I meant Ant, who bases his nym on a keyboard. How original??!!
I’ve already told you that it is a play on the composer Antonin Dvorak, and the alternate Dvorak keyboard. But you are certainly not cultured enough to understand that.
What is unoriginal (and downright dumb) is using your own name.
Antonin, please stop presuming that Mr. Asshat is posting under his real name.
Yes, Antonin, obey!
Willard
Being that dumb would certainly match what we see of him here.
In any case, I found him under that name on Facebook a few years ago, and his friends were calling him Gordon.
Fair.
Mike Flynn seems to be interpreting his PSTering as commands. Weird.
Antonin,
Willard commanded “Antonin, please stop presuming”.
Obey!
Mike Flynn, please stop revealing that when you’re PSTering Team Science you intend to issue commands.
Antonin,
Willard commanded “Antonin, please stop presuming”.
Obey!
Mike Flynn, please stop wasting the only trick Graham D. Warner has left.
Sorry Ark, I meant Ant, who bases his nym on a keyboard. How original??!!
gb…”And I would say it seems to me, 150 or more on June will mean Valentina Zharkova can be disproven within 6 months”.
***
Don’t think so, science does not control the Sun. Whatever caused the Maunder and Dalton minima can only be attributed to the solar intensity received and to think it won’t happen again is wishful thinking. It may take 5 years or more to see a cooling.
Mind you, other things could affect solar intensity like orbital issues or clouds of interstellar gas or dust getting between Earth and Sun.
I don’t think volcanic activity can explain 400+ years of cooling. We’ve had several major volcanoes blow and the effect lasted a few years at most.
She has already been proven wrong for this cycle.
Her prediction: 93
Current Max: 128
Out of 13 predictions I am aware of, only three are further away from the current max than hers.
And the ones that get close will merely have fluked it. No one has a clue.
“No one has a clue.”
That’s a bit harsh. The IPCC has the odd clue, and said that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
That’s pretty cluey, in my opinion. Don’t you agree?
Any chance you’re using a bit of poetic licence there Mikey?
Change a word here, another one there, leave out the context.
Do you really care what I do?
I’m deeply touched. Thank you.
Admission by omission.
Whatever you say, Antonin.
Are you still refusing to describe the GHE? I don’t blame you – who likes being laughed at?
Carry on.
You go to “argument” when you lose, despite everyone here having answered your question at least once in the past.
Ant, no ONE has provided a viable description of the bogus GHE. All we get are a lot of blah-blah and beliefs. Typically, we’re provided with a long dissertation on how infrared is absorbed by some gases, but not others. Then the claim is made, “That’s the Greenhouse Effect”.
NO! They must show how gases absorbing infrared from Earth’s surface can then warm Earth’s surface.
That hasn’t been done….
Mike Flynn sends in the tag team.
Clint R
You have been given the GHE several times. You just reject it or make false claims that people don’t understand things (with zero evidence of such a claim).
I will state it again and you will reject it again and a few threads later state no one has explained it.
The GHE increases the temperature of the surface by providing a radiant barrier. The surface must emit much more energy to get the 240 W/m^2 to space (which are averaged measured values from satellites, something you reject).
I have provided you real measured values showing the effect but you reject them. It is not a possible task to convince a science denier of anything so you stating no one has shown the effect is a false claim.
The correct claim is you have been shown multiple times and you reject all the facts and come up with nonsense points like ice cubes boiling water and you repeat this endlessly although no one is making such a claim.
Sorry Norman, but you’re just stating your beliefs. Beliefs ain’t science.
Your “radiant barrier” is nothing more than the original “trapping infrared”. You haven’t described how that can raise Earth’s surface temperature. “Trapping” 15μ photons can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface. You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
You’re welcome to try again, but your effort will fail again. Then you will throw one of your childish tantrums.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Norman,
This is your description of the GHE?
“The GHE increases the temperature of the surface by providing a radiant barrier. The surface must emit much more energy to get the 240 W/m^2 to space (which are averaged measured values from satellites, something you reject).”
Complete nonsense, of course. You and your fellow buffoons simply refuse to accept that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and the surface cools each night.
Cooling does not cause a temperature rise, you fool. No increase of temperature.
Fourier, Kelvin, and many others used the rate of cooling of the Earth to try to calculate the age of the planet. I know you think that scientists like these were more stupid than you, and that is your right.
Your “description” is an attempt to explain something which neither you nor anybody else has managed to describe. Go on, just claim that the GHE increases the temperature of the surface whilst allowing the planet to cool for four and a half billion years! Oh, and allows the surface to cool each night – does the GHE stop working at night?
You’re not a fan of reality, are you?
Mike Flynn, please stop saying irrelevant stuff.
Clint R
I am correct in stating it is not possible to discuss science with a science denier (you, Gordon Robertson and Svenson are science deniers!).
YOUR SCINECE DENIAL: “You havent described how that can raise Earths surface temperature. Trapping 15μ photons can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface. Youre STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes”
Insulation of any type WILL raise the temperature of a heated object.
You have clear evidence of this with the air inside a car in summer sun. Or a house with insulation to keep it warm in the winder or wearing a coat in winter to keep warm. Insulation does not add heat to the objects. It is not a source of heat. But insulation will make a heated object warmer by restricting the loss of heat by any method (radiant, conduction or convection). I think in your case it is worse than science denial. You deny reality you can observe. A coat in winter, air in a car on a sunny day.
Maybe you do not understand the Earth surface is a heated surface. Solar energy is constantly heat some portion of it. New energy is added. The atmosphere acts as a radiant barrier requiring the Surface to heat up to the point where 240 W/m^2 average can leave.
The surface needs to reach a temperature that emits around 398 W/m^2 (on average) to get 240 W/m^2 through the radiant barrier.
It might help you if you reread a textbook on radiant physics and come back on the blog when you are not such a science denier.
At this time you contribute nothing but poorly thought out opinions and endless put-downs and insults to any who question the unsupported opinions you endlessly post on this blog.
Sorry Norman, but all that nonsense has been debunked before. You just keep throwing the same crap against the wall.
The science involves radiative physics and thermodynamics, neither of which you have sufficient knowledge of. You just keep ranting, with no understanding. A prime example is your claim that the surface emits 398 W/m² to sky, but sky only emits 240 W/m² to space. You’re trying to equate flux to energy, as you incompetently forget about 1LoT!
You can’t scientifically describe how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface. You just BELIEVE that can happen. That ain’t science.
Puffman, silly sock puppet, please stop goading.
Clint R
You are asking me to defend a point I have not made and do not agree with.
YOU: “You cant scientifically describe how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface. You just BELIEVE that can happen. That aint science.”
I would not need to. It is not a claim I am making. No I do not just believe it can happen. The Sun is the source of heating for the Earth’s surface. No Sun no heating (as seen on the poles in winter months with no Sun). GHG act as radiant insulation, they lower the amount of heat the surface loses.
I will link you to measured sources so you can deny them again as any good science denier must do. You will not even consider what reality and measured values show you. You will reject anything that goes against your Cult Belief system.
Here:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_665cf3f170ef7.png
It is clear what is going on. You deny what you see in favor of Cult Opinion.
The surface radiates between 400-600 W/m^2. It would lose that much if not for DWIR which makes the heat loss less in the range of 100-200 W/m^2 rather than the much higher rate of heat loss.
This allows the solar input to warm the surface to a higher temperature as the Sun will do with a car left in the summer sun.
“Puffman, silly sock puppet, please stop goading.”
Oooooooh! Goading! Is he using alien mind goading techniques, do you think? You were concerned about mind probes before.
Toughen up, precious. Show some intestinal fortitude – resist the goad! Show your manliness, and don’t be a girly-man!
[aw diddums]
Clint R
I also witnessed your very anti-science debate with Nate above. He attempts to educate you and correct your science denial but it is not possible.
You make weak points about albedo.\
You don’t like satellite measurements based on your speculation that polar orbits make it impossible to correctly measure albedo.
Well the ESRL measuring stations also measure albedo.
Here.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_665cf5c0e7ed5.png
Clint R
Another point you make that makes logical debate with you impossible.
YOU: ” A prime example is your claim that the surface emits 398 W/m to sky, but sky only emits 240 W/m to space. Youre trying to equate flux to energy, as you incompetently forget about 1LoT!”
No I am not equating flux to energy. I do understand the difference between a quantity of energy and a flux. Flux is a flow of energy, in this case. A good analogy for it is water flow. I do not confuse water flow with gallons of water. But the rate of water inflow and outflow will determine if a water tank gains or loses gallons of water.
The rate of energy inflow from the Sun averages 240 W/m^2 (it is not an actual measured value as the rate changes, it is a global average) and the outflow is 240 W/m^2. In this case the surface stored energy is not changing. But because of the insulating nature of GHG the surface must reach a higher temperature and radiate at 398 W/m^2 to get 240 W/m^2 through the atmosphere.
Just as in a hot car in the summer, it will reach a high enough temperature where the outflow of energy matches the input, the input is the same inside and out the car but the car air rises to a much higher temperature to achieve a balance with the inflow of solar energy. I do not understand how you accept a car air will get much hotter with the same solar input but can’t see similar process with GHE. Odd indeed. You will never get it. But you will continue to insult any and all who dare challenge any of your made up opinions. I noticed Nate requested evidence of your opinion on how albedo is measured. I also noticed you provided none at all. No evidence, no problem. You are a cult minded poster but only see your behavior in others. You can’t see that posting endless opinions whit zero supporting evidence is clearly cult minded activity. Nate is offering evidence, you offer zero. Why is that?
The old Norman is back — full of insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
And like gordon, his keyboard has diarrhea….
Puffman, silly sock puppet, please stop lulzing.
The electric dipole moment (p) of a molecule is the product of the magnitude of the charge (q) and the separation distance (d) between the centers of positive and negative charge, expressed as p=qd (vectors bolded).
A,
Are you trying to look intelligent? Here are a couple of ratios of specific heat –
Argon – 1.66, Carbon dioxide 1.29.
Argon has no electric dipole moment, being a monoatomic noble gas.
Argon at the same temperature as CO2 is emitting exactly the same wavelengths. A mixture of argon and CO2 cannot be separated by measuring the wavelengths emitted by its constituents.
Once again, all matter emits IR. Conversely, all matter absorbs IR which is sufficiently energetic.
There is no positive charge in such a dipole. The only charge is on the electrons in the bonding orbitals which are all negative charges.
I have been trying to convey my experience from the electrical/electronics fields in which we have a habit of referring to a less negative negative-charge as a relatively positive charge ***wrt*** a more negative charge. They are both negative charges but one is less negative than the other, hence relatively positive.
The only charge available to such a dipole are negative electron charges. The positive proton charges in the nucleus do not affect dipoles other than to cause one atom to be more electronegative..
As has been explained, the dipoles are a result of a difference in electronegativity between the constituent atoms. Linus Pauling, an expert on molecules, developed a scale of electronegativity.
According to Pauling, different atoms have different levels of electronegativity, the capacity of an atom to attract electrons to it. But what is meant by sharing electrons?
The Bohr model is still the basis of chemical bonding. Although the theory is now based in math, and we are told it cannot be visualized, there has to be a physical reality, despite what theorists tells us. In the Bohr model, electrons orbit a nucleus of protons and neutrons at a specific distance.
The math model based on Schrodinger’s wave equation, predicts a space in which electrons can be found about an atomic nucleus. That’s the key, the wave equation predicts orbitals about a nucleus based on where an electron will ***likely*** be found. It would make no sense if the electrons were found in a stationary cloud, especially one that is a cloud of probabilities.
How about a molecule? A molecule based on covalent bonds is said to share electrons, but how? Again, if you look at the results of the Schrodinger equation for two atoms (diatomic) molecule, the cloud extends in a cloud around both atoms. That does not represent the inner most electrons but electrons in the outer, valence shell (orbit).
Therefore, bonding molecules are said to orbit both atoms. But how does that relate to electronegativity? I don’t know but it must have something to do with the more positive nuclei. Don’t confuse that positivity with dipoles, it is unrelated.
If you have a CO2 molecule…
O=====C=====O
The O-atom has 2 more protons in the nucleus than carbon. That likely causes the orbiting bonding electrons to spend more time around the O-atom, making that end of the orbital more negative. It likely does that by elongating the bonding orbital to give it a more eccentric orbit. Therefore the bonding orbitals will be nothing like the cute ones shown in the diagram above. Rather it will likely resemble a planetary orbit with one end of the ellipse fatter than the other.
Since the charge involved is a negative electron charge, it means the electron will spend more time in the fatter part of the orbital, making that end of the orbit more negative than the other end around the C-atom.
That’s your dipole and it holds not the slightest resemblance to the definition which is incorrectly called a ‘moment’. A torque wrench produced a moment about a nut it is tightening.
Gordon Robertson,
“I have been trying to convey my experience from the electrical/electronics fields”
A degreed electrical engineer whom I know, and trust, says the following:
1/ Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a linear molecule (O=C=O) and, in its ground state, does not have a permanent dipole moment because the dipoles of the two C=O bonds cancel each other out.
2/ However, collisions with other molecules in the lower atmosphere result in a temporary vibrational dipole moment (such as the asymmetric stretch and bending modes), which allow the CO2 molecule to αbsorb and emit IR radiation.
3/ The electric field component of the IR radiation interacts with the oscillating dipole moment of the CO2 molecule, leading to energy αbsorpτion. This interaction causes the molecule to transition between different vibrational states, which is the “work” done by the electric field on the molecule.
4/ The original research leading to the understanding of molecular dipole moments was done by Peter Debye. His book Polar Molecules (1920) is a good reference.
His explanation makes much more sense don’t you think.
P.s.: Guess what the common practical unit of the dipole moment is.
The Debye!
“However, collisions with other molecules in the lower atmosphere result in a temporary vibrational dipole moment (such as the asymmetric stretch and bending modes), which allow the CO2 molecule to αbsorb and emit IR radiation.”
The CO2 molecule absorbs and emits IR quite nicely all by itself.
With regard to molecular “collisions”, maybe you could define a “collision” other than a convenient fiction – lies told to children, by people who don’t really understand what they are talking about.
I agree with Richard Feynman that all physical processes apart from gravity and nuclear processes, can be described using the following –
1. An electron moves from place to place.
2. A photon moves from place to place.
3. An electron absorbs and emits a photon.
Even before molecules can “collide”, they must be in motion. What gives a molecule motion? What keep a gas gaseous? If you (or your source) cannot explain these phenomena in terms of photons, electrons, and their interactions, then you simply do not know what you are talking about.
At least you are smart enough to refuse to describe the GHE! That’s a start, anyway.
Carry on.
Got it. Will you leave me alone now?
Just in case you were only pretending, Ill say again –
“However, collisions with other molecules in the lower atmosphere result in a temporary vibrational dipole moment (such as the asymmetric stretch and bending modes), which allow the CO2 molecule to αbsorb and emit IR radiation.”
The CO2 molecule absorbs and emits IR quite nicely all by itself.
With regard to molecular “collisions”, maybe you could define a “collision” other than a convenient fiction – lies told to children, by people who dont really understand what they are talking about.
I agree with Richard Feynman that all physical processes apart from gravity and nuclear processes, can be described using the following –
1. An electron moves from place to place.
2. A photon moves from place to place.
3. An electron absorbs and emits a photon.
Even before molecules can “collide”, they must be in motion. What gives a molecule motion? What keep a gas gaseous? If you (or your source) cannot explain these phenomena in terms of photons, electrons, and their interactions, then you simply do not know what you are talking about.
At least you are smart enough to refuse to describe the GHE! Thats a start, anyway.
Carry on.
Thanks for not disagreeing with me.
Eben says:
June 2, 2024 at 5:34 AM
Twerpy doesnt know Zharkova is my mom ???
Antonin Qwerty says:
June 2, 2024 at 6:02 AM
I guess Twerpy must be your name for Zharkova.
——————————————–===========
Could you possibly type a dumber response than this ???
Yes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1668616
Caution !!! – Visitors to my thread – do not step in the Willturd
Good advice for all threads too.
Eboy, Walter R. Hogle, please stop BMing.
Willturd
Once again the dachshund Eben reminds me of those shitty German neo-Nazis with their bald heads and SS runes on their necks, who can’t think of anything else but to insult normal people in their completely filthy language.
The turd is definitely in Eben’s rotten brain.
Binny,
What have you got against shitty German neo-Nazis with their bald heads and SS runes on their necks?
Don’t you believe in freedom.of speech? Are you anti-baldness for some reason?
How many shitty German neo-Nazis with their bald heads and SS runes on their necks do you actually know? None?
Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann are both a bit bald. Is that OK?
You’re a funny chap. Are you still convinced that more water vapour in the atmosphere would make dry places like Death Valley even hotter? I don’t believe so, but feel free to show that I am wrong.
Mike Flynn, Binny, please stop whining.
Willard, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The first heat wave of the year for Northern California is almost here with temps as high as 105F.
https://www.abc10.com/video/weather/weather-extras/the-first-heat-wave-of-the-year-for-northern-california-is-almost-here-with-temps-as-high-as-105/103-17051698-ee18-4788-9316-282979d7eedf
For the civilized world, that’s more than 40C.
Meantime, 1500 miles north, in Vancouver, Canada, I had to turn the furnace on this morning because it was too uncomfortable in the cold, damp weather.
Last year at the same time, we had a heat wave, which tapered off by summer. wee willy is a pitiful alarmist who has a heat wave in what is left of his brain, after it short circuited. He thinks the heat in his brain remnant is what is going on in the real world.
Mr. Asshat, please stop saying irrelevant stuff.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Good morning.
Yesterday I averaged
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CQoF9NsU9LaT4V9xWBxkO5HM8K6KjTtN/view
into
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view
According to Simpleton Hogle, this is ALL wrong and useless, as even USCRN’s hourly data doesn’t reflect reality.
I’m confused on the point you’re making.
Are you implying that I don’t understand what happens when you average a bunch of numbers?
Instead, I question what the values represent, and whether they have any physical meaning.
I would roughly say if light red line continues, NOAA first prediction was pretty close. And it crosses cycle SC 24 in about 1 year
If thick red continues it’s upwards bump for 4 to 5 months, the NOAA experiment prediction is pretty close, and assuming it doesn’t cross
SC for 2 years. I would needs June to be 150 or more and high in the later months.
And it seems in next 6 months, two months of +180, disproves Valentina Zharkova, but doesn’t necessary prove NOAA experimental prediction.
And light red line crosses SC 24 in about 6 months, proves Valentina Zharkova,
Also, NOAA experimental prediction could be correct, and we still could be in Solar Grand Minimum, though Valentina Zharkova prediction
of Solar grand Minimum seems like it’s not correct.
But it seems what sort of important in a Solar Grand Maximum is the solar max, and what sort important in Solar Grand Minimum is the solar min.
But in any case, if we could sort of predict them, that would be nice.
Binny averaging anything is humourous. He can’t understand that the Moon, keeping the same face pointed ar Earth cannot possibly rotate on a local axis. He does not understand that time is an invention of the human mind and cannot visualize a universe void of time.
Worst of all, when NOAA admits clearly that they use less than 1500 surface stations to create their database of surface temperatures, he raves that they have more than a 100,000 stations. He doesn’t begin to understand that they only use 1500 of them.
Mr. Asshat, please stop glossing over the fact that Walter R. Hogle’s “question” suffers from infinite regress.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Simpleton Hogle
” Im confused on the point youre making. ”
No wonder, Simpleton Hogle: whoever sets a trap must inevitably act in such a way that the targeted person does not notice it.
*
I am not AT ALL the source of all this professionally averaged data.
*
” Instead, I question what the values represent, and whether they have any physical meaning. ”
If, instead of arrogantly questioning, you would have asked about the sources I used for the graphs, I would have of course conveniently answered.
But as always, you don’t feel the need to ask and prefer to condescendingly state irrelevant things.
Nothing in these two graphs is based on my own calculations, Simpleton Hogle.
All data was calculated based on worldwide observations centralized at the world-renowned SILSO facility in Brussels, Belgium:
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-home (d c syndrome)
The sources
1. SSN daily
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-daily
2. SSN monthly
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-monthly
*
Therefore, instead of cowardly discrediting my work, I suggest you show some courage and ask SILSO exactly the same question:
” I question what the values represent, and whether they have any physical meaning. ”
*
My little finger tells me that you 100% certainly will lack the courage to ask the SILSO team – simply because you fear some harsh reply.
A reply which by the way you as usual would later on interpret as ‘insult’, woouldn’t you?
Your graphs show that you simply took daily sunspot number values and averaged them into monthly values.
All you showed is that you understand how to average numbers.
I am confused because you brought temperature data. Recording the number of dark spots on the sun is fundamentally different from measuring temperature.
Regarding my thoughts on sunspot measurements: The Sun’s rotation exposes different regions over time, impacting our ability in tracking sunspots and, therefore, our understanding of where we are in the solar cycle. We don’t have a comprehensive view of all sides of the Sun within a single month.
Simpleton Hogle
” Your graphs show that you simply took daily sunspot number values and averaged them into monthly values.
All you showed is that you understand how to average numbers. ”
This is a pure lie.
I repeat the text I wrote above:
Nothing in these two graphs is based on my own calculations, Simpleton Hogle.
All data was calculated based on worldwide observations centralized at the world-renowned SILSO facility in Brussels, Belgium:
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-home (d c syndrome)
The sources
1. SSN daily
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-daily
2. SSN monthly
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-monthly
*
I see that
-you refuse to admit that I didn’t average anything, and that the SILSO team did
– you never will have the courage to ask these people the same question:
” I question what the values represent, and whether they have any physical meaning. ”
You are a liar and a coward.
Simpleton Hogle (cntnd)
” I am confused because you brought temperature data. ”
?
*
” Regarding MY thoughts on sunspot measurements: The Suns rotation exposes different regions over time, impacting our ability in tracking sunspots and, therefore, our understanding of where we are in the solar cycle. We dont have a comprehensive view of all sides of the Sun within a single month. ”
(emphasis mine)
What I see is that you, like Robertson, are eager to give us your egotistical lay views on scientific topics rather than humbly looking at their professional source.
I wouldn’t wonder if you even dared to doubt the scientific value of SILSO concerning Sun’s behavior.
*
And you, Simpleton Hogle, name me (and lots of others) a monkey?
So what.
It fits perfectly your level of technical skills and scientific education, especially when looking at how you react to Robertson’s, Clint R’s and Flynnson’s daily nonsense.
Your original comment was not about the validity of the measurements, and you said you did average:
“Yesterday I averaged
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CQoF9NsU9LaT4V9xWBxkO5HM8K6KjTtN/view
into
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view”
It was only in your subsequent comment that you mentioned the validity of the sunspot counts, to which I responded.
You should recall your own arguments before accusing me of discrediting you or setting traps.
The number of sunspots are an indicator of how active the Sun’s magnetic fields are. But you really think the inability to observe all sides of the Sun, where many sunspots might exist, can simply be disregarded as a layman’s opinion.
Simpleton Hogle
You asked upthread (on May 30, 2024 at 2:15 PM) an outstandingly interesting question:
” Why dont you tell Arky and Entropic Man that they also lack the scientific competence you speak of? ”
*
The answer inevitably is as follows.
Look at Robertson’s utter nonsense above (re. lunar spin, time and NOAA’s 1500 stations).
Why don’t YOU tell Robertson that he lacks any technical skills and scientific competence in virtually all the areas he babbles about?
[ I know the answer, of course. ]
Binny,
“Why dont YOU tell Robertson . . . ”
Why should he?
Why don’t you admit that you are an idiot?
Carry on.
Still no description, Mike Flynn?
Tonga eruption increases chance of temporary surface temperature anomaly above 1.5 C
A cross plot of N I N O 3.4 pacific ocean temp and U A H L Trop with a detrend removing the long term warming in UAH and shift for the 4 to 5 month lag where UAH responds to ocean temperature change shows this warm event is not just E l N I N O. It came months too early, and duration is longer than the range of other major E L N I N O events. So the two times there is not high correlation are for the P I A N ATUB O Cooling and Tonga warming. I suspect this trend may endure for some extended time. It is absurd this is not the base case for this anomaly given the obvious difference between data and mechanism published in N A T U R E.
Sources and graphs welcome.
It does seem the HTE is still lingering. I thought it would be long gone, especially with the transitioning from El Niño to La Niña. The Polar Vortex has not fully recovered — now approaching Summer Solstice but wind speeds only about 70% of normal.
Will be interesting to see May UAH results.
Sources and graphs welcome.
Sorry Bindi, but this is about science.
You’d best stick with your astrology and cult crap.
Don’t try to divert and distort.
Sources and graphs welcome.
Well Bindi, if you aren’t the two-faced one. You divert from providing a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You distort when you claim ice can light a lightbulb.
Astrology, and your cult crap, go well with your tr0lling.
You don’t get along with science — too much reality for you….
Puffman, silly sock puppet, please stop trying to deflect from and distort Aaron’s point.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, the idiot Norman wrote –
“Insulation of any type WILL raise the temperature of a heated object.”
Fireman wear heavy insulation to prevent getting too hot. Liquid nitrogen is heavily insulated to keep it cool. And so on.
Heat a small cold rock in the Sun. You now have a heated object. Wrap the rock in as much insulation as you like.
Prove to everyone that you are an idiot by rushing round shouting “The rock is getting hotter!”.
You idiot, the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. An object on the surface gets hotter in daylight, and cools at night. You live in a bizarre cultist fantasy.
Carry on.
norman left out the crucial factor, that the heated body must have an internal heat source to maintain the heat. It is the heat source raising the temperature not the insulation.
The surface temperature of a body is dependent on the rate of heat dissipation. If you slow the dissipation down by adding an insulator, you slow the rate of heat dissipation and the temperature rises. However, if there is no internal heat generator, you can add all the insulation you want and the body will continue to cool.
As you have pointed out on several occasions, if you cover a dead body with blankets, it won’t get warmer.
Here’s Norman’s latest explanation of the GHE which he refuses to describe –
“The GHE works like insulation but of radiant energy not conduction. With the GHE the sky will not warm the ground at night but will slow the cooling rate. When you claim I am wrong at least attempt to follow my line of logic.”
He’s not wrong, the atmosphere prevents about 30% of the Sun’s radiation from even reaching the surface. Keeping the surface cooler, luckily. Otherwise, surface temperatures would exceed the boiling point of water, and we would all die! Temperatures on the Moon exceed 120 C, after the same exposure time to full sunlight.
In Norman’s twisted mind (as with other GHE cultists like bobdroege), reducing the amount of energy reaching the surface makes the surface hotter! Complete nonsense, of course – less sunlight results in colder temperatures.
Ongoing ignorance and gullibility.
Swenson
The 30% absorbed by the atmosphere does not just disappear.
So you think the glass windows of a car that absorb solar IR prevent the interior from getting warmer?
I can’t follow any of your logic. If you had more rational posts it could be possible to converse with you. As it stands you and Willard exchange hundreds of posts that go nowhere. Not really interested in exchanging hundreds of pointless posts with you.
You seem to think that the Earth’s surface continues to cool even while being heated by the Sun. You have super illogical points.
You cooling surface is almost ridiculously bad! In the winter months the surface is several degrees cooler than in summer months. Then it warms up and does not continue to cool.
Norman, you wrote –
“The 30% absorbed by the atmosphere does not just disappear.”
Who said it gets absorbed? If it does, what then? Who said the energy disappears?
It doesn’t reach the surface – if you think you are smart, tell everybody where it goes! Not to the surface, that’s for sure! Babbling about cars doesn’t help, you know.
Then you deny reality, and write –
“You seem to think that the Earths surface continues to cool even while being heated by the Sun. You have super illogical points.”
Well no, as I said, the surface warms in direct sunlight, cools in its absence at night.
If you refuse to accept that the Earth’s surface was once molten, and has cooled to its present temperature, that is your choice. Four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight seems to have resulted in cooling, not heating. Believe what you will.
Refuse to describe the mythical GHE if you wish. Not a single fact will change, and you will remain an ignorant and gullible GHE cultist, in denial of reality.
Carry on.
Swenson,
You call me out in a thread and misrepresent what I posted.
Par for the course for someone who doesn’t know his shit.
“In Normans twisted mind (as with other GHE cultists like bobdroege), reducing the amount of energy reaching the surface makes the surface hotter! Complete nonsense, of course less sunlight results in colder temperatures.”
I said adding CO2 to the atmosphere make the surface hotter.
Very little of the Sun’s energy is in the bands that CO2 absorb, so that does very little to reduce the amount of energy reaching the surface.
Braindead bobby,
“I said adding CO2 to the atmosphere make the surface hotter.”
Well no, it doesn’t. If it did, the Earth would not have cooled to its present temperature after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight.
Even Bindidon agrees with me, which is slightly unusual. He wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.” He followed up by writing –
“Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.
CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
It looks like your only supporters are other idiots who also refuse to describe the mythical GHE, and deny reality.
Are you aware that maximum temperatures on the Moon exceed those on Earth (after the same exposure times) – because the full radiation from sun reaches the surface, unlike Earth, where about 30% of the possible insolation doesn’t even reach the surface!
So no, you are just another ignorant and gullible GHE cultist.
Accept reality. No GHE.
Swenson,
“because the full radiation from sun reaches the surface,”
Not true, only about 90% of the Sun’s radiation reaches the surface of the Moon, some is reflected. Your statement would mean the Moon is a perfect blackbody.
You do know that the albedo of the Moon is less than the albedo of the Earth, so that is why the Moon gets hotter, also the Moon spins slower than the Earth giving more time to reach a higher temperature.
Also, the greenhouse effect would not stop a pool of molten earth from cooling. Anyway, who was there in the Hadean period to add CO2 to the atmosphere.
And by the time of the Cryogenian period, the Earth had cooled enough that the Earth was nearly completely covered with ice, almost to the equator. It has warmed since then, no longer cooling from its molten state that was due to the early and late bombardment periods as well as due to the collision of the object that became the Moon.
Also, the Earth is no longer cooling, see the graph at the top of the page.
Go ahead, keep taking your foot out of your mouth and stuffing the other one in.
We can call that the Swenson five step.
“Not true, only about 90% of the Suns radiation reaches the surface of the Moon, some is reflected.” You idiot, reflected by what? The surface of course! You probably mean absorbed.
Even the most cleverly manufactured surfaces on Earth cannot achieve lunar temperatures – after identical exposure times, of course. Not as much radiation reaches the surface!
You wrote –
“Also, the greenhouse effect would not stop a pool of molten earth from cooling. Anyway, who was there in the Hadean period to add CO2 to the atmosphere.” CO2 levels have been far higher in the past, even according to GHE cultists. H2O levels certainly have – before the first liquid water formed, all the H2O was in the form of gas. Still the surface cooled.
Now the “ice ball Earth” nonsense is just that. Even its proponents cannot offer any reasonable hypothesis for how such a miraculous event might occur – even less how it might reverse itself!
“Also, the Earth is no longer cooling, see the graph at the top of the page.”
No bobby, the graph at the top of the page records remotely sensed tropospheric temperatures, due to mankind’s waste heat generation.
The planet continues to cool, losing energy continuously at a rate of about 44 TW.
Carry on dreaming.
Swenson,
Yes, full bucket of shit.
“The planet continues to cool, losing energy continuously at a rate of about 44 TW.”
But the Earth receives 173,000 TW from the Sun.
How does that compare to 44 TW?
“You idiot, reflected by what? The surface of course! You probably mean absorbed.”
Roughly 90% absorbed, about 10% reflected, that’s why you can see the Moon in the sky, even during the day.
“No bobby, the graph at the top of the page records remotely sensed tropospheric temperatures, due to mankinds waste heat generation.”
Dr Spencer’s tropospheric measurements track nicely with others who are measuring actual surface temperatures.
You could try using a blackbody calculator to determine the temperature of something receiving 0.1 watts/meters squared.
Is that anywhere near the temperature of the surface?
Swenson,
“Now the ice ball Earth nonsense is just that. Even its proponents cannot offer any reasonable hypothesis for how such a miraculous event might occur even less how it might reverse itself!”
You don’t need to explain a “miraculous event” when you discover from the rocks, that a near global glaciation event took place.
No miracles needed.
You can put your hands on the evidence, take a trip to the Grand Canyon in the US.
There are other places like Scotland, and maybe Tasmania or other places in your penal colony.
Gordon Robertson
I did not leave out that insulation requires a heated object.
Here is what I stated: “Insulation does not add heat to the objects. It is not a source of heat. But insulation will make a heated object warmer by restricting the loss of heat by any method (radiant, conduction or convection). I think in your case it is worse than science denial. You deny reality you can observe. A coat in winter, air in a car on a sunny day.” (response was to Clint R)
In the case of the Earth Surface it is solar heated. It has a continuous input of energy from the Sun (at least parts of it).
Norman,
You wrote –
“In the case of the Earth Surface it is solar heated. It has a continuous input of energy from the Sun (at least parts of it).”
Only the surface is heated. The interior is still much hotter than even the hottest object on the surface which is heated by the sun.
Hence, heat flows from the interior through the surface, and is lost to space.
Any object on the surface which is heated by the Sun, loses all that heat during the night, as Fourier and others point out.
After four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the planet (and its surface) have cooled.
You don’t have to believe it, if you prefer your fantasies.
norman…”I do understand the difference between a quantity of energy and a flux. Flux is a flow of energy, in this case. A good analogy for it is water flow”.
***
You’ll find it is not tough discussing science with me if you avoid ad homs and insults and you are willing to debate honestly.
I agree with you that flux is a flow of energy, but more accurately it is not the energy itself but a representation of the energy. It’s a model for energy, if you like. Clint is the confused party. What else could flux be?
However, it cannot be applied freely to water flow because water is made up of individual molecules whereas a flux field refers more to electromagnetic and magnetic energies which have no flowing particles. To represent those energies for calculations, you need a model to which intensities and rates can be applied.
You could replace the molecules with vectors to create a vector field. The vector field is imaginary and the number of vectors crossing an area is the flux. Once again, the vector represents energy and so must the flux.
If it makes Clint happier, flux is not energy per se, but a representative of energy. In the same manner, a vector is not a force, but a mathematical entity representing a force. For example, in a freebody diagram, actual forces are replace by vectors. Obviously the vectors are not forces just as flux fields representing EM is not the actual energy. However, both fluxes and vectors represent energies.
ant…”A few years ago I found you on Facebook”.
***
I have never discussed science on Facebook. Wouldn’t waste my time on such a platform. I was on Facebook many years ago albeit briefly, to communicate with an old friend. Found the atmosphere far too quirky and I have not been back since.
binny…”Look at Robertsons utter nonsense above (re. lunar spin, time and NOAAs 1500 stations).
Why dont YOU tell Robertson that he lacks any technical skills and scientific competence in virtually all the areas he babbles about?”
***
Walter doesn’t have to tell me anything. He has his own ideas on how the universe works and I have no problem with him disagreeing with me, if he does. Thus far, we have been in agreement, but I won’t call him names if he disagrees, since Walter has demonstrated intelligence and a willingness to study science objectively.
I keep telling you that far greater minds than mine have been in agreement, or at least, I have agreed with them. For example, Newton stated that the Moon moves with a linear motion which is bent into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravity. He also stated the the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
You seem to be calling Newton stoopid by claiming that he also thought the Moon rotated on a local axis. He mentioned nothing about that obviously since his description above excluded local rotation. Unfortunately, the translator was not privy to such logic and believed a banana like Cassini.
Physicist David Bohm stated that humans invented time. Seems the rest, like Einstein, were misinformed as to the meaning of time. Einstein thought time was the hands on a clock. Maybe that’s why he had to work as a patent clerk.
NOAA stated openly that they use less than 1500 stations in their global surface temperature analysis. I guess you are calling them stoopid as well.
Seems to me that either NOAA, Bohm, and Newton are stoopid and you are not. Or, you are stoopid and they are not. Could we have a vote?
Mr. Asshat, please stop grooming our kid in a trenchcoat.
you are being disrespectful, my name, for you, is Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat. Try not to be so rude in the future.
Mr. Asshat, please stop ripping off your shirt.
Willard, please stop trolling.
That’s kindergarten stuff.
Mike Flynn, please stop fantasizing.
“Mike Flynn, please stop fantasizing.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop disrespecting PSTering conventions.
Binny is a monkey.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop acting like a homeschooled hillbilly.
–Boeing Starliner’s crewed launch abruptly halted, again
By Gianrigo Marletta with Issam Ahmed in Washington
Cape Canaveral (AFP) June 1, 2024
Boeing’s second attempt at launching a crew aboard its troubled Starliner spaceship was dramatically aborted Saturday with just minutes left on the countdown clock, yet another setback for a program that has faced years of delays.
With the astronauts strapped in and ready for liftoff, the test mission to the International Space Station was unexpectedly halted due to reasons that aren’t yet clear.–
https://www.spacedaily.com/
ark…”Guess what the common practical unit of the dipole moment is.
The Debye!”
***
And guess what the units are…coulomb-metres.
The coulomb is a measure of electron charge in this case and metres. So, you have a negative electron charge that is more negative than another electron charge separated in metres. Of course, that would be a fraction of a meter, a might small fraction.
The problem I have with you is your rushing off to authority figures without trying to understand or discuss what is being said. The Debye model supports my argument but you fail to grasp that and hold it up as if you have won something.
You rushed off to an engineer and he returned an answer that belies his understanding of molecules and how they work at the atomic level. You can tell him that for me.
Got it. Peter Debye is wrong, and you’re right.
Anything else?
A,
“Peter Debye is wrong, and youre right.”
If you say so.
P.s.: My original comment is here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1670775
Since you’ve moved the goalposts.
Did I say anywhere that Debye was wrong? Obviously you did not consult with him as an authority figure, he died in ’60s. So you consulted an engineer who does not understand molecules at the atomic level.
You don’t seem to grasp that everything is a competition to you and that you have to be right. When someone rebuts your theories, rather than defend them,you run off to authority figures.
If you are going to offer alarmist theories on Roy’s blog, you had better have a thick skin. You had also better have scientific proof of what you claim.
What you are claiming about electron bonds, as dipoles, is clearly wrong and I have explained why. You don’t rebut anything I say, you simply offer insults, ad homs, and authority figures to support your arguments.
I’m not claiming anything about “electron bonds, as dipoles“.
That’s your theory: “you have a negative electron charge that is more negative than another electron charge separated in metres“.
Or did you already forget!
“You don’t rebut anything I say, you simply offer insults, ad homs, and authority figures to support your arguments.”
I have rebutted everything” you have said. You simply deny all my answers based on your simplistic ideas.
You say authority figures, I say authoritative sources. Where are your sources?
“Obviously you did not consult with him as an authority figure, he died in ’60s.”
I consulted my cousin who received his Bachelor’s degree in EE in 1972. He worked for 10 years and then went back and got his Master’s degree.
Although I did consult Debye indirectly since as soon as my cousin suggested his book I proceeded to download it, hence the quote.
A,
“I consulted my cousin who received his Bachelors degree in EE in 1972. He worked for 10 years and then went back and got his Masters degree.”
Good for him!.
He refuses to describe the GHE too, doesnt he?
Clever guy.
My cousin couldn’t care less about your beloved GHE. He spent many years working at Schlumberger.
“My cousin couldnt care less about your beloved GHE”
As I said, clever guy. Doesn’t waste his time with mythical effects.
Unlike you. Or have you given up caring about the mythical GHE yourself?
Sure, but first, answer me this. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer shits little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?
“Sure, but first, answer me this.”
Sure what?
Are you actually silly enough to claim you can describe the GHE, but you are refusing to do so?
Why should I answer anything? If you refuse to describe the mythical GHE, that is your decision. Nothing to do with me.
You sound like just another ignorant and gullible GHE cultist, believing in something you refuse to describe.
Keep at it. Somebody might believe that the planet is heating up. When will the seas boil? Soon?
Fool.
> Why should I answer anything?
Mike Flynn, please stop reminding everyone that you’re a sociopath.
Willard, please stop trolling.
One tiny detail…
You say that a dipole is “a negative electron charge that is more negative than another electron charge separated in metres.”
But, from Peter Debye’s book Polar Molecules. Page 25:
So, the Debye model does not support your argument.
You probably meant some other Debye.
A,
What has any of this to do with a mythical GHE which you refuse to describe?
Nothing at all? Colour me unsurprised.
Carry on diverting.
Buy a clue
A,
What has any of this to do with a mythical GHE which you refuse to describe?
Nothing at all? Colour me unsurprised.
Carry on diverting.
yes…the figure claims a negative and positive charge, not a dipole in a molecule like CO2.
You have to differentiate between a proton with a positive charge, and electron with a negative charge, and two negative electron charges with different amounts of charge.
If I have a capacitor, and I charge one plate with electrons, the electron plate has a negative charge wrt to the non-charged side. In fact, the capacitor plate with the excess electrons is marked negative while the other plate is marked positive.
If you remove the capacitor from the power supply, without discharging it, the capacitor holds that charge, and can be used to temporarily offer a potential difference to momentarily drive a load.
That positive side is made up of a metal with the positive protons bound in the metal so they cannot move. Surrounding the positive nucleus is electron orbitals, however, the charges are claimed to balance making the metal neutral. That is it has no polarity. So, how can it suddenly become positive?
It can’t. It is still neutral but the other plate has a higher negative charge, therefore wrt to the neutral plate marked positive, it is relatively more negative. That makes the other plate relatively less negative hence relatively positive.
If you don’t get what I am saying you will never understand it. I have to now this stuff because I apply it all the times reading schematics and troubleshooting circuits. If I put my DVM negative probe on ground, and touch the base of a transistor that is a PNP, with its emitter grounded, I expect to see a negative reading of about 0.7 volts on the base.
That does not mean the ground has protons on it and the base has electrons on it. it means that the electrical potential related to electrons only, is higher on the base than at the grounded emitter.
What gets me is that your EE friend with the EE degree does not seem to understand this.
We are talking about molecular dipole moments: https://chemistrytalk.org/what-is-dipole-moment/
“We are talking about molecular dipole moments”
Why is that? No reason at all?
Idiot
Mike Flynn, please stop the sport commentary.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ark…”A degreed electrical engineer whom I know, and trust, says the following:
1/ Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a linear molecule (O=C=O) and, in its ground state, does not have a permanent dipole moment because the dipoles of the two C=O bonds cancel each other out”.
***
It does have a permanent dipole, one on either side of the C-atom, and I have explained how it is formed via electronegativity. No…the C=O dipoles do not cancel each other. They are comprised of bonding electrons that have nothing to do with each other.
***
“2/ However, collisions with other molecules in the lower atmosphere result in a temporary vibrational dipole moment (such as the asymmetric stretch and bending modes), which allow the CO2 molecule to αbsorb and emit IR radiation”.
bs. Such collisions are more likely to cause rotational motion. Vibration is due to different charge polarities but the charges are all negative charges from electrons.
Has your EE friend considered what happens when molecules collide? There is no elastic collision like when two snooker balls collide, there is a collision of electron orbits. What does that look like? More likely an electrostatic repulsion, a soft collision. Why should that change a bond length so it vibrates more or less?
If two gas molecules collided nucleus to nucleus there would be havoc. The electron fields would inter-mesh and some electrons might get dislodged. That would crate bazillions of ions, or even convert the gas molecule to a different atomic structure. Do you see reports of that happening in out atmosphere?
—
3/ The electric field component of the IR radiation interacts with the oscillating dipole moment of the CO2 molecule, leading to energy αbsorpτion. This interaction causes the molecule to transition between different vibrational states, which is the work done by the electric field on the molecule”.
***
More bs. Energy, IR and otherwise, can be absorbed only by bonding electrons. The molecule has no ability to ‘transition’ between different vibrational stats, it is the bonding electrons forming the molecule that transition.
———
“4/ The original research leading to the understanding of molecular dipole moments was done by Peter Debye. His book Polar Molecules (1920) is a good reference”.
The book appears to be actively protected by copywrite even though Debye has been dead since the 60s. How do you spell greed?
——
“His explanation makes much more sense dont you think”.
***
No, I don’t. He is offering typical pap that is taught these days that cannot see beyond the molecular level. The minute I see anyone referencing molecules in this context, I see someone who does not grasp the actuality.
There you go again offering opinions without any factual basis.
Of course the dipoles of the two C=O bonds cancel each other out, they are vectors pointing in opposite directions. Don’t you see that?
you are completely daft. They are not vector quantities, they are charge differentials of the same sign (negative) but of very slightly different levels. On top of that, they don’t act as vectors, they involve orbiting electrons where the electron spends more time near a more electronegative atom than a less electronegative atom.
How the heck can anyone use a vector to represent an electron orbital where the electron spends slightly more time at one end than the other? The concept of a dipole in this instance is so sketchy as to be questionable.
They say a picture is worth 1000 words: https://chemistrytalk.org/what-is-dipole-moment/
We are talking about <b<MOLECULAR GEOMETRY.
A,
“We are talking about <b<MOLECULAR GEOMETRY."
Why? Does it have something to do with the mythical GHE which you consistently refuse to describe?
Sure, but first, answer me this. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer shits little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?
“Sure, but first, answer me this. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff grass. Yet a deer shits little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?”
I don’t know. Why do you ask? Is it relevant to your persistent refusal to describe the GHE?
You are a strange chap.
ark…from your link…
“Dipole moments occur in any system in which there is a separation of positive and negative electrical charges; therefore, they can be found in both ionic and covalent bonds. A dipole moment is a result of unequal electron distribution, which occurs due to differences in electronegativity between chemically-bonded atoms (since electrons tend to move towards more electronegative atoms). Greater differences in electronegativity will consequently lead to larger dipole moments”.
***
Another contradictory comment from someone who fails to grasp the concept.
They begin by talking about positive and negative charges whereas there is no other charge than the negative charge on the electron. There are no protons in sight. The negative-positive reference is to more negative and less negative electron charges.
Electronegativity is about negative electron charges and no other charge.
The rest of the comment is correct and it is exactly what I have stated to you in several posts. You are just too stoopid to take it in, even when it is presented in an authority figure for you.
Why do you waste your time making a fuhl of yourself trying to defend your ravenous ego? The only reason I reply to an ijit like you is to set third parties straight about your alarmist bs.
I don’t care about different forms of doo doo but you seems to have an extraordinary interest in it. That explains your extraordinary interest in the pseudo-science behind alarmist climate change.
Alarmists tend to be obsessive about their religion and myopic about science.
> Why?
Mike Flynn, please stop interjecting without having read who wrote the first comment of the thread.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won’t come in.
I’m only trying to help you see the light.
my assumption are based on a lifetime spent studying electrons. I understand the little blighters better than most as is evidenced by your fumbling to infer a theory about them that is nonsense.
I’m surprised that after “a lifetime spent studying electrons ” you can’t visualize a Molecular Dipole Moment.
Here’s a diagram to get you started: https://chemistrytalk.org/what-is-dipole-moment/
A,
Maybe you could provide an irrelevant link multiple times. Would that help?
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to suggest that anything could help a crank like your sorry self.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Long established useful science with loads of confirming evidence.
For some unknown reason Gordon calls this “typical pap”.
troublshooting…
ark…
yes…the figure claims a negative and positive charge, not a dipole in a molecule like CO2.
You have to differentiate between a proton with a positive charge, and electron with a negative charge, and two negative electron charges with different amounts of charge.
If I have a capacitor, and I charge one plate with electrons, the electron plate has a negative charge wrt to the non-charged side. In fact, the capacitor plate with the excess electrons is marked negative while the other plate is marked positive.
If you remove the capacitor from the power supply, without discharging it, the capacitor holds that charge, and can be used to temporarily offer a potential difference to momentarily drive a load.
That positive side is made up of a metal with the positive protons bound in the metal so they cannot move. Surrounding the positive nucleus is electron orbitals, however, the charges are claimed to balance making the metal neutral. That is it has no polarity. So, how can it suddenly become positive?
It can’t. It is still neutral but the other plate has a higher negative charge, therefore wrt to the neutral plate marked positive, it is relatively more negative. That makes the other plate relatively less negative hence relatively positive.
What Is a Dipole Moment?: https://chemistrytalk.org/what-is-dipole-moment/
If you don’t get what I am saying you will never understand it. I have to know this stuff because I apply it all the time reading schematics and troubleshooting circuits. If I put my DVM negative probe on ground, and touch the base of a transistor that is a PNP, with its emitter grounded, I expect to see a negative reading of about 0.7 volts on the base.
That does not mean the ground has protons on it and the base has electrons on it. it means that the electrical potential related to electrons only, is higher on the base than at the grounded emitter.
What gets me is that your EE friend with the EE degree does not seem to understand this.
They say a picture is worth 1000 words…
What Is a Dipole Moment?: https://chemistrytalk.org/what-is-dipole-moment/
What Is a Dipole Moment?: https://chemistrytalk.org/what-is-dipole-moment/
A,
Who cares? Is it supposedly relevant to the mythical GHE, or are you trying to appear clever for some reason you are refusing to divulge?
Come on, share your knowledge. Why hide your light under a bushel?
[chortle]
Mike Flynn, please stop projecting your apathy onto other cranks like Mr. Asshat.
Arkady seems obsessed with molecular dipole moments, but refuses to say why.
He also refuses to describe the mythical GHE.
Or accept the reality that the Earth has cooled over the past four and half billion years, sunlight, CO2, H2O, and cultist prayers notwithstanding.
[laughing]
he is obsessed with alarmist science in general and fails to grasp the meaning behind any of it. Let’s not overload his fragile brain by introducing other myths like the GHE. It would be more interesting discussing other myths, like unicorns.
ark…”We are talking about <b<MOLECULAR GEOMETRY".
***
That's what I have been trying to explain to you but you have an obtuseness that prevents you absorbing it.
The basic geometry of any molecule is simple. There must be two atoms involved bonded by electron orbitals and hundreds in the case of a DNA molecule. Each atom is bonded to another via electron orbitals.
Quite simple actually, unless you want to complicate it by inventing black boxes to represent a molecule that have mysterious properties inside the box that no one can see, let alone verify.
If you want to learn about molecules you must learn this intimately. Each molecule must be represented by constituents atoms plus the bonding electrons. Later, when dealing with molecules after you have learned the structure re nucleii and electrons, you can disregard the internals and use diagrams like Lewis structures.
Unfortunately many people discussing molecules have no grounding in the basic geometry and they tend to look at a molecule as a macro unit without atoms and electrons. The problem there is describing molecules as vibrating when the vibration is actually due to the bonding electrons,
Mr. Asshat, please stop the silly semantic games.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard is a monkey.
Walter R.Hogle, please stop being a dumb brat.
I just have read
https://chemistrytalk.org/what-is-dipole-moment/
and can only say that Robertson once again shows not only his 360-degree incompetence but also his pathological tendency to negate the obvious whenever it does not fit his egomaniacal narrative.
Binny,
OK, but what has any of that to do with the GHE which you continuously refuse to describe?
You wrote –
“Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.
CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
Are dipole moments somehow related to what you wrote, or are you just trolling for some reason which you refuse to divulge?
All very mysterious.
… and the Flynnson stalker can’t stop boring with his pathological urge in distorting all discussion threads with his egomaniacal GHE blah blah.
Binny,
OK, but what has any of that to do with the GHE which you continuously refuse to describe?
You wrote
“I’m not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.
CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
Are dipole moments somehow related to what you wrote, or are you just trolling for some reason which you refuse to divulge?
All very mysterious.
Mike Flynn, please stop admitting that your search for a description of the greenhouse effect is irrelevant here.
Gordon Robertson,
[Me] I’ve rebutted all your opinions and included authoritative sources.
[You] “bs.” “More bs.” “Ask God.” “doo doo.” “obsessive.” “myopic.” “fragile brain.” “fails to grasp.” “you have an obtuseness.”
[Me] That about sums it up. Good talk.
Has anyone heard from Dr. Roy? I am getting withdrawal symptoms from the lack of monthly temperature anomalies.
Belay that. I got the months mixed up.
Nate: “𝙒𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙚𝙧, 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙪𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙖𝙣 𝙪𝙣𝙪𝙨𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙖 𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙥 𝙞𝙣 𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙖 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙖 𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙣𝙤𝙗𝙤𝙙𝙮 𝙥𝙖𝙮𝙨 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙣𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙗𝙡𝙚𝙢𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙖.
𝙒𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙖 𝙞𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙.
𝙎𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙬𝙨.”
As I mentioned to Ark and Binny, the true signal is always unknown. We assume that the data we collect represents it accurately.
Without knowing the correct values, making accurate adjustments is impossible. These adjustments are merely educated guesses.
Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude that all these adjustments do is propagate more variance into the series we’re attempting to correct.
walter, Are you okay with making Delhi’s observed high of 52.9 C on May 29th the official record then?
Is Mr. Sun showing off again?
The maximum theoretical temperature would be about 88C.
Such a show-off….
Puffman, silly sock puppet, please stop forgetting about the quadruple La Nina.
I have a few questions regarding the record high temperature recorded by your thermometer:
– Has the observation site been in the exact same location from the beginning of the observation period to the present?
– Has the environment surrounding the observation site remained unchanged from the start of the observation period to the present?
– Regarding calibration drift, how long had it been since the instrument that recorded the temperature was last calibrated?
If the answer to any of these questions is ‘no’ or ‘a long time,’ then my answer is no.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop JAQing off.
walter, First…you missed the point of my question. That’s probably my fault for assuming you’d heard the news. Second…let’s go down the branch you you brought up here now. We can come back to my point later. No. No. As of May 29th: Unsure, As of June 3rd: A few days ago. If you don’t think 52.9 C is the record high then what do think it is?
Bdgwx, I can’t tell you what the record high for Delhi is since you’ve admitted that the period of record is not homogeneous.
However, I do believe that heat waves in India are not unusual. Tony Heller has collected old newspapers describing severe heat waves in the 1930s, which I think provides valuable historical context.
It’s very possible that the 1930’s were warmer than today.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/30090056/1827504
Walter R. Hogle, please stop confusing Hyderabad with Delhi.
walter,
How do you know it was hotter in the 1930s if your conditions for acceptance of observations forces you to dismiss them just as equally as you do the observations of today?
And going back to my point…if you are so adamantly against adjustments then why not recognize the recent 52.9 C observations as the official record since that was the highest raw value observed throughout the city’s history?
“Walter R. Hogle, please stop JAQing off.”
Ooooooooh! Juvenile masturbation reference, is it?
Can you say “bum” as well?
Loser.
Mike Flynn, please stop being insanely absurd.
“Walter R. Hogle, please stop JAQing off.”
Ooooooooh! Juvenile masturbation reference, is it?
Can you say bum as well?
Loser.
Still one hour before you can get a beer, Mike.
Are your cravings still intense?
“Walter R. Hogle, please stop JAQing off.”
Ooooooooh! Juvenile masturbation reference, is it?
Can you say bum as well?
Loser.
You’re still shaking, Mike.
Do you drink every day?
“Walter R. Hogle, please stop JAQing off.”
Ooooooooh! Juvenile masturbation reference, is it?
Can you say bum as well?
Pathetic loser
Alright, Mike. I did what I could. You deserve your beer.
Here it is.
“Walter R. Hogle, please stop JAQing off.”
Ooooooooh! Juvenile masturbation reference, is it?
Can you say bum as well?
Pathetic loser. Stop masturbating so much.
Your question is silly, bdgwx. The adjustments are employed to attempt to correct the problems with the raw data.
I dont care if the adjustments lower or raise the raw value. Its the fact that theyre claimed to fix these inhomogeneities even though they dont.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop refusing to go where your own logic forces you to go, that makes you ne better than all the cranks here.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop failing to grasp that, by your logic, nothing is measurable, like ever.
walterrh03,
You’ve just stated the denialist’s prescribed perspective.
If you really are an engineer, you should be able to completely eviscerate my claims with ease.
Instead, all you’ve done is resort to ad hominem attacks, which only serve to make me look more credible.
walterrh03,
Why don’t you tell me what your educational background is so I know how to tailor my response to your comment.
The reason I ask about your educational background is that I’ve been accused by one of your cohorts of “talking down my nose” at him when I get too technical.
Associates of Science degree.
I earned it through remote learning provided by my local community college.
Your degree says little about you and your intellectual capabilities. There are people who cheat their way through university and get degrees. There are also people like Katherine Hayhoe with a PhD who say that we need to cut carbon emissions to achieve a ‘stable climate.’ Any person who has studied this subject, even a little bit, understands that it is nonsense.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop trying to compare yourself with scientists who err on the conservative side and from whom you are light years away as a communicator.
Degrees just signify dedication to a field. You can be a dense ijiot and have the most impressive credentials.
Tim Gorman is an electrical engineer, and he complimented my handling of metrology. Ark is another engineer who obviously disagrees with me, but has not provided an explanation for their stance.
Walter, Tim Gorman also thinks addition (+) and division (/) are equivalent operations, that sums are the same as averages, and that the derivative of x/n is 1. And when I point out that he is wrong on all points he defends his algebra mistakes vehemently by making yet more algebra mistakes. When I ask him to check his work using a computer algebra system he mocks them and says they are wrong. He calls NIST a heretic and refuses to accept the results that the NIST uncertainty machine calculator reports. Is this really someone you want endorsing you?
Seems to me that your issue is: because we don’t know the exact value of the variable we’re trying to measure, we shouldn’t bother.
Is that in the ballpark?
He doesn’t say any of that, bdgwx. What NIST computes depends on your inputs, btw. Garbage In = Garbage Out. Why do you always assume a Gaussian distribution?
I never said we shouldn’t bother measuring.
You are in the ballpark.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/177RUrop6iXycOP24gYbYMeh2aRIhwo8vrgyHwG-C4IE/edit?usp=sharing
Read Chapter 2 of Introduction to Modern Climate Change. By Andrew Dessler. Third Edition.
Ark, I had forgotten about Dessler. Thanks for the reminder. I always like a good laugh.
For some real humor, you might provide his description of the GHE.
Puffman, silly sock puppet, please stop lulzing, and think about how much money you could make in India if you could sell them your CO2 coolers…
walter: He doesnt say any of that, bdgwx.
Yes he does.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/03/unknown-uncertain-or-both/#comments
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/26/uncertain-uncertainties/#comment-3739807
walter: What NIST computes depends on your inputs
No offense, but duh. That’s how calculators work. That’s not the issue. He just flat out doesn’t accept the result because as he says it only works if the inputs are of the same thing which is just patently false. Literally not a single example in the user manual is of inputs of the same thing.
walter: Why do you always assume a Gaussian distribution?
I don’t and neither does NIST. Their calculator literally lets you pick any conceivable distribution you can think of.
PAUSE UPDATE: NO NEW ARTICLES ABOUT THE PAUSE AT WUWT FOR 11 MONTHS.
This continues to create a huge problem for climate deniers. It does not agree with their theories or unvalidated models. When will they admit they’re wrong?
Yeah Ark, those “climate deniers” are in a mess. Anyone that denies Earth has a climate is just denying reality. It’s the same for the cult that denies the sciences of radiative physics and thermodynamics — REALITY DENIERS!
And don’t forget about the astrologers with “unvalidated models” of “orbiting without spin”.
Speaking of anti-science, were you able to find Dessler’s description of the GHE? Maybe you’re in a pause….
Puffman, silly sock puppet, please stop trying to steal Mike Flynn’s job.
What if there was no greenhouse effect?
A,
If there was no greenhouse effect, nothing would change because there is no greenhouse effect.
What are you telling me for? It’s Dr Spencer’s post. Take it up with him.
“Youve just stated the denialists prescribed perspective.”
And you refuse absolutely to explain what you mean!
I don’t blame – you’d just look like an idiot.
Carry on.
“Youve just stated the denialis’s prescribed perspective.”
And you’re sure as hell refusing to explain what you mean, aren’t you?
I don’t blame you – you’d look like an idiot, wouldn’t you?
Mike Flynn, please stop obsessing over typos.
“You’ve just stated the denialist’s prescribed perspective.”
And you refuse absolutely to explain what you mean!
I dont blame youd just look like an idiot. Just like the idiotic Willar!
Carry on.
Ark was invited to provide Dessler’s description of the GHE, but tried to hide behind Spencer.
I’d be ashamed of Dessler also….
A,
“What are you telling me for? Its Dr Spencers post. Take it up with him.”
Ooooooh! Scuttling away like a cockroach, are you? Refuse to describe the mythical GHE, then try to blame Dr Spencer because you’ve been caught out?
That’s a bizarre sly appeal to authority, but it won’t work.
There is no GHE, you fool – it’s a myth. That’s why you refuse to describe it.
Don’t blame me because you’re a fool – take it up with Dr Spencer!
Any description of the greenhouse effect that you can report, Mike?
“Walter R. Hogle, please stop failing to grasp that, by your logic, nothing is measurable, like ever.”
That is the consistent theme of Walter’s posts.
Certainly, the mythical GHE is beyond Nate’s understanding.
That’s why he refuses to describe it!
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb.
Certainly, the mythical GHE is beyond Nates understanding.
Thats why he refuses to describe it!
Mike Flynn, please stop butchering your copypastas.
Certainly, the mythical GHE is beyond Nates understanding.
Thats why he refuses to describe it!
Still no description of the greenhouse effect, Mike?
Certainly, the mythical GHE is beyond Nates understanding.
Thats why he refuses to describe it!
So, thats all we can ever expect anymofre from Swenson: old, tired, irrelevant, debunked, talking points, repeated over and over?
Comparing to the informative, useful, fact-based, information that Mike Flynn occasionally posted 10 y ago, is quite revealing.
Obviously he has suffered significant loss of IQ over the period.
Quite sad.
We are still living in the best of times.
As world population grows above 8 billion people, we living in the best of times.
So, as compared to 40 years ago, when world population was lower, and as compared to, any time that human have been living.
There was no golden time, in some long ago past, nor was the pre-industrial era, which was better- and this includes any small place in the past- like say just Rome or you pick the small location, say in some small rural wonderland.
And there has been many decades [or centuries] in which we declared to be doomed [for various reasons}. And of the many, many prophets of doom, not one, would save us from something. Or they were all wrong- but many of these individuals were rewarded and were made famous from their wrong predictions.
But that was the past, what about the future?
gb…there is no future, just the same old, same old. Our only hope is that the human brain will continue on a path to greater awareness, which does not look promising given our colossal focus on self-image.
Self-image is self explanatory. Image means imaginary and that’s what we tend to be…over-bloated imaginary selves that we continue to feed at the expense of intelligence and awareness.
“gbthere is no future, just the same old, same old.”
That’s quite an ancient idea.
I hope you don’t think, it’s a fresh idea, or anything.
Test result indicate I am a libertarian, but lately I realize I am a true lefty- or I am a progressive as a habit. Or roughly, a space cadet.
“Our only hope is that the human brain will continue on a path to greater awareness, which does not look promising given our colossal focus on self-image.”
I am not sure the human brain is progressing very much, and I am open to idea/possibility that humans might have had a better brain in the past.
“Self-image is self explanatory. Image means imaginary and thats what we tend to beover-bloated imaginary selves that we continue to feed at the expense of intelligence and awareness.”
Well, self-image seems like a human thing, I would need find a space alien, in order to discover, something different.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Extreme heat in India has killed at least 77 people over the past 10 days, including dozens of poll workers, as voting wrapped up in the worlds largest general election.
India has endured a scorching summer with a part of the capital of Delhi recording the countrys highest-ever temperature of 49.9 degrees Celsius (121.8 degrees Fahrenheit) on Tuesday last week as voters have hit the polls over a six-week election.
At least 33 poll workers died in a single day in Indias most populous state of Uttar Pradesh, the states chief election officer, Navdeep Rinwa, told reporters Sunday. Their families will receive $18,000 each in compensation, he said.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/02/india/india-heatwave-poll-worker-deaths-intl-hnk/index.html
Kids in trench coats might wonder – but do we know if the workers were exactly at the same place at all times? How do we really measure deaths? Can we ever be sure of anything?
Willard,
You don’t understand my position at all.
walter…wee willy is a true trohl. His purpose here is not to understand, it is to disrupt intelligent thought processes from skeptics. You see, alarmist twits have this notion that they can win the battle by making skeptics look dumb. What they actually reveal is how dumb they are.
Mr. Asshat, please stop grooming Walter R. Hogle.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Loser.
Mike Flynn,
You should not sleep in the ditch.
“You should not sleep in the ditch.”
Still can’t get yourself banned? How sad is that?
Loser.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Go clean yourself in the bathroom, Mike.
Even in country with 4 times the population of US, and smaller land area and average temperature 12 C warmer, still, more people die from the cold than the hot.
Walter R. Hogle, please stop being a smarmy brat, and please saying stuff, gb.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Good morning.
I hate to be that guy Willard, but according to the contrarians who refuse to accept adjustments of any kind we have to report it as 52.9 C since that was the raw value observed. They won’t let us report the lower value of 49.9 C because it was adjusted down 3 C due to the investigation that found it was biased too high.
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-says-delhis-record-529-celsius-temperature-last-week-was-wrong-by-3-c-2024-06-01/
Dang bdgwx, your effort to spread alarmism failed.
Maybe you could search the Internet and try again.
Or, learn some science — entirely your choice….
bdgwx, please stop trying to suggest that we can measure anything, at least until we have video footage of Walter R. Hogle building a standard birdhouse, about 4-6″ square at the base, and 6-12″ deep.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I wonder how many of these sensor errors we’ve had?
And I wonder if NOAA has a way of fudging the sat data before UAH receives it? The sats are owned by NOAA.
Mr. Asshat, please stop lying.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop lying.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Loser.
You still haven’t got your coffee, Mike, yet you’re still jittery.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop lying.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Loser.
You won’t have a beer by acting like a junky, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It’s weather, wee willy, just weather. It varies. When you have alarmist eco-weenies peddling a meme that we are all going to hell in a hand-basket, they will use any weather extremes to prop up their lies.
Mr. Asshat, please stop your pure denial of climate trends.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop your pure denial of climate trends.”
No wonder you refuse to say what you mean. You’d just look like the idiot you are!
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Name someone who denies it.
Loser.
Still early, Mike.
Coffee?
PM
Mr. Asshat, please stop your pure denial of climate trends.
No wonder you refuse to say what you mean. Youd just look like the idiot you are!
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Name someone who denies it.
Or just say something irrelevant and stupid.
Loser.
> PM
Please stop lying, Mike.
It’s 10:00 AM where you are.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
“Please stop lying, Mike.
Its 10:00 AM where you are.”
You idiot. Are really stupid enough to believe I use a static IP address?
You really have no clue, do you? You are obviously more gullible than I thought.
Go on, who do you think I am, and where am I? You refuse to say, now you know I’m laughing at you!
Loser.
[I really didnt think he’d be that clueless]
Please stop ranting, Mike, and enjoy your boomer coffee, two sugars and two creams.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Please stop lying, Mike.
Its 10:00 AM where you are.”
You idiot. Are really stupid enough to believe I use a static IP address?
You really have no clue, do you? You are obviously more gullible than I thought.
Go on, who do you think I am, and where am I? You refuse to say, now you know Im laughing at you!
Loser.
[I really didn’t think hed be that clueless]
That coffee sure got you going, Mike!
Refill?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Please stop lying, Mike.
It’s 10:00 AM where you are.”
You idiot. Are really stupid enough to believe I use a static IP address?
You really have no clue, do you? You are obviously more gullible than I thought.
Go on, who do you think I am, and where am I? You refuse to say, now you know I’m laughing at you!
Loser.
[I really didnt think he’d be that clueless]
You should go see a doctor for these amnesic episodes, Mike.
*Poors another coffee, gives creams and sugars.*
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Please stop lying, Mike.
Its 10:00 AM where you are.”
You idiot. Are really stupid enough to believe I use a static IP address?
You really have no clue, do you? You are obviously more gullible than I thought.
Go on, who do you think I am, and where am I? You refuse to say, now you know I’m laughing at you!
Loser.
[I really didn’t think hed be that clueless]
Time to calm down all that excitement, Mike.
Here’s another beer.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Please stop lying, Mike.
Its 10:00 AM where you are.”
You idiot. Are really stupid enough to believe Ithat use a static IP address?
You really have no clue, do you? You are obviously more gullible than I thought.
Go on, who do you think I am, and where am I? You refuse to say, now you know Im laughing at you!
Loser.
[I really didnt think he’d be that clueless]
Two beers is enough for the day.
Go home, Mike. Get some sleep.
Two beers is enough for the day.
Go home, Mike. Get some sleep.
Good idea, Mike.
Keep repeating you that until you get into your bed.
Good idea, Mike.
Keep repeating you that until you get into your bed.
ark…”What are you telling me for? Its Dr Spencers post. Take it up with him”.
***
Roy admits it is a thought experiment.
He adds something important which you won’t hear from alarmists…
“The cold air in contact with the warming ground would also begin to warm by thermal conduction. Convective air currents would transport this heat upward, gradually warming the atmosphere from the bottom up. Importantly, this dry convection will result in a vertical temperature profile that falls off by 9.8 deg. C for every kilometer rise in altitude, which is the so-called adiabatic lapse rate. This is because rising warm air parcels cool as they expand at the lower air pressures aloft, and the air that sinks in response to all of that rising air must warm at the same rate by compression”.
This is important because Shula points out that the surface cools 260 times faster due to conduction/convection than by radiation. As Roy points out, that rising air cools naturally due to expansion into lower pressure air above. Therefore most of the surface heat loss is dissipated naturally in the atmosphere.
Antarctica is adding ice.
One could say, Antarctica is not “suppose to” melt much, as compared to Greenland, but Greenland’s ice sheet is not melting much.
And sea levels aren’t rising much- though one blame it, on the added ice of Antarctica.
Globally glacial melting is a mixed bag.
But apparently our cold ocean is warming a tiny amount, and that seems as quite definitive of there being some global warming- and would cause the sea level to rise a tiny amount.
And obviously a cold ocean is why we in an Ice Age. And other proof
is having one polar ice sheet {and we have two}.
gb…may be a few more years before land glaciers stabilize following the Little Ice Age. The Mer de Glace glacier in France extended several miles down a valley during the LIA, wiping out long established farms and villages in its way. Since 1850, it has been receding and who knows how far back it will recede.
Polar expert, Duncan Wingham, who is an alarmist, commented on Antarctic glaciers, claiming it is far too cold in Antarctica for glaciers to melt. It stands to reason that Antarctica is colder than the Arctic for the simple reason the immense landmass is surrounded by oceans where as the Arctic landmass generally surrounds the ocean.
The stations at the South Pole have recorded temps between -14 and -81C. The North Pole can rise above 0C even in winter and that is due to the ocean currents. The average temperature in Antarctica is always below 0C.
The oceans are a very thin film of water on a large molten blob.
It’s not surprising that it’s impossible for oceans and deep lakes to freeze right through. Even ice caps are heated from below. Here’s a sample –
“The Antarctic continent is underlain by subglacial lakes. Despite the fact that they are overlain by several kilometres of ice, these lakes are interconnected and water flows from lake to lake.”
Gee, who’d have thought that liquid and frozen water are heated from below! Not climate scientists, obviously. Not terribly attached to reality – some of them seem to believe in a GHE. What is the GHE? Nobody knows – climate scientists refuse to describe the GHE, because they are scared somebody will find fault with their descriptions, and laugh uproariously at their silliness!
All good fun – people call themselves climate scientists so they can get paid to do nothing useful, while refusing to accept responsibility for anything at all. Like a sheltered workshop, for the highly educated, but otherwise useless.
Only joking, maybe.
and of course, the polar ice cap ‘warms’ the ocean.. lol
— Gordon Robertson says:
June 3, 2024 at 6:40 PM
gbmay be a few more years before land glaciers stabilize following the Little Ice Age. The Mer de Glace glacier in France extended several miles down a valley during the LIA, wiping out long established farms and villages in its way. Since 1850, it has been receding and who knows how far back it will recede.–
I wondered why the glacial ice wasn’t mined. So googled:
–Department of Natural Resources
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Fact Sheet: Glacier Ice Harvesting in Alaska
Can glacier ice be harvested?
Yes, because glacier ice is water occurring in a natural state,
glacier ice harvesters can apply for either a water right or a
temporary water use permit to get authorization to harvest
glacier ice. Glacier ice is currently harvested from
tidewater-calving glaciers in Alaska.
When is permission required?
When you harvest a significant amount of glacier ice, a
permit is needed from the Department of Natural
Resources. If you harvest a significant amount of glacier ice
without a permit, you are guilty of a misdemeanor
(AS 46.15.180).–
https://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/cdn/pdf/factsheets/glacier-ice-harvesting-in-alaska.pdf
ark…”The reason I ask about your educational background is that Ive been accused by one of your cohorts of talking down my nose at him when I get too technical”.
***
You have demonstrated that your technical acumen is slim to none. I explained about electronegativity and its relationship with electrons, which agreed with an article you posted, and still you ranted about an incorrect analysis by an engineering friend.
I have the opposite problem with you, I cannot get you to be technical. You keep braying about molecules that have properties produced by electrons and you simply don’t get it that molecules are two or more atoms bonded by electrons. The vibration you go on about are in electron bonds.
That’s why I asked if you are a locomotive engineer because most engineers (applied science) would have covered basic chemistry in first year and physical chemistry in 2nd year.
https://www.acs.org/careers/chemical-sciences/areas/physical-chemistry.html
Physical chemistry is a prerequisite in 1st year engineering because 1st year is a general introduction to engineering. Some students will go on to chemical engineering, metallurgical engineering, etc. and 1st year is to help students decide which branch of engineering to follow.
Does not sound to me like you have studied any basic chemistry. If you had, you’d be able to debate me one on one and you’d know about electrons and electron bonds in molecules. Rather than discuss that, you offer only ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority.
Gordon Robertson
I have studied Chemistry and you display a total lack of understanding of the topic. You just make up stuff you think sounds good and ignore anything that you choose not to like.
My opinion is you have never studied Chemistry and just read up on it on some blog out there.
I have explained what is vibrating in a molecule but you just reject it because you don’t like it.
The vibration is a combination of the electron bond (you are correct on that one) but also the nuclei of the atoms within the molecule are in motion. Moving closer together and then further apart. The only function of the bonding is to act like a spring tension that pulls the nuclei back as they are moving away from each other.
Your Chemistry knowledge is very weak. On Ionic bonds, in your limited understanding of Chemistry you falsely believe a Sodium Ion is just less negative than the Chloride Ion. This defies logic. If the Sodium Ion was not actually positive (I gave you a link which shows it is. I guess you just reject what you want to, crackpot science at its worst!), just less negative (as you conclude for no real reason except your ignorance of Chemistry).
If you have any actual electrical engineering then you would know that even if less negative two negatives will never stick together, they will repel. If Sodium Ion was still a negative charge, just lesser than the Chloride the two would NEVER form a strong ionic bond! The two ions would always repel. You act like the positive charge of the protons do nothing. Crazy ideas you have in that ignorant mind of yours! Without the positive charge of the protons the electrons do not hold together to make an atom. They would just repel each other. The positive charge holds the electrons close to the nucleus to create and atom. Removing electrons from the atom takes a lot of energy.
Here look at this and get it right. Your made up version is vomit!
http://www.kentchemistry.com/links/bonding/IE.htm
“I have studied Chemistry . . . “.
Did Chemistry study you? Did she come to the conclusion that you are an idiot?
Only joking, you still refuse to describe the GHE, so I suppose you can use the excuse that you were busy studying Chemistry.
You wrote an “explanation” of what you refuse to describe – “The GHE works like insulation but of radiant energy . . . “. Did you have to study a lot of Chemistry to come up with something as silly as that? Maybe you believe you can use the mythical GHE to insulate liquid nitrogen, and keep it really cold!
You really are gullible and ignorant, aren’t you?
Mike Flynn,
Have you found a description of the greenhouse effect yet?
Weird Wee Willy,
Why would I bother wasting time trying to find something that obviously doesn’t exist?
Would you? Only joking, you’re the sort of dimwit who believes the GHE exists, but can’t find anybody who can describe it. You can’t do any better than “not cooling, slower cooling”, which is pretty silly, isn’t it?
No, Willard. If a GHE description existed, some GHE cultist would have produced it by now.
You must be dreaming again.
Yet you are the one sleeping, Mike.
Dream bigly.
Yet you are the one sleeping, Mike.
Dream bigly.
“Physical chemistry is a prerequisite in 1st year engineering”
Wrong. Not even ChemE’s take PChem in the first year.
“1st year is to help students decide which branch of engineering to follow”
Every Engineer I’ve ever met, and I’ve met hundreds, knew which area he/she wanted to go into by the time they graduated high school.
Stop embarrassing yourself!
Gordon,
“Physical chemistry is a prerequisite in 1st year engineering because 1st year is a general introduction to engineering.”
A course in Physical Chemistry is two semesters for Chemistry majors, usually in their third year, as it requires 3 semesters of Calculus and one semester of Differential Equations.
re a recent post about Andrew Dessler. I find the resemblance between Dessler, Gavin Schmidt, and Michael Mann to be uncanny. The fact they all think alike is even more uncanny.
Are they all balding, bearded, bumbling buffoons, perhaps?
Who knows?
Mr. Asshat, please stop being so jealuz.
Are they all balding, bearded, bumbling buffoons, perhaps?
Who knows? Maybe Willard does? Do they utter juvenile nonsense like “jealuz”, or “forcings”?
Mike Flynn, please stop imagining that everybody looks like you.
Idiot
Mike Flynn, please stop imagining that anyone likes you.
No. What can you do about it?
Nothing, that’s what!
Willard, please stop trolling.
I certainly can’t grow your hair back, Mike.
“I certainly cant grow your hair back, Mike.”
You cant really do anything to me at all, can you?
Your comment shows that your powers of clairvoyance need a bit of upgrading. What hair needs growing back, fool?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike, Mike,
It would be easy for me to do something about “it” –
*I* could like you.
Why don’t you give anyone reasons to like you?
Wonky Wee Willy,
“Why dont you give anyone reasons to like you?”
Why should I?
Since when do you need any reason to do anything, Mike?
Sweet dreams.
“Since when do you need any reason to do anything, Mike?
Sweet dreams.”
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Or is it Pee-wee Herman?
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
Or is it Pee-wee Herman?
ark…”Gordon Robertson,
[Me] Ive rebutted all your opinions and included authoritative sources.
[You] bs. More bs. Ask God. doo doo. obsessive. myopic. fragile brain. fails to grasp. you have an obtuseness.”
***
You are far too immature to be an engineer. Seriously childish how you zero in one one or two words and fail to respond to the thrust of my points.
I am onto you. You are playing the same game as Clint. When you lack the ability to respond scientifically, you hide behind a red herring comment.
These are games played by children. When one is one-upped, he responds with a red-herring comment like, ‘my dad could beat up your dad’.
Mr. Asshat, please stop mentioning fallacies you do not understand.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You just look like the loser you are.
[guffaw]
Mike Flynn, please stop making yourself sure that you will lose your PSTering privilege for next month.
“Mike Flynn, please stop making yourself sure that you will lose your PSTering privilege for next month.”
Still cant get yourself banned? How pathetic is that! Even pretending you are in charge of anything on this blog doesn’t seem to be annoying anybody.
What a pathetic loser you are – even your description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling” shows mental deterioration.
[chuckling]
Mike Flynn, please stop excusing your incompetence with your sociopathy.
“Mike Flynn, please stop making yourself sure that you will lose your PSTering privilege for next month.”
Still cant get yourself banned? How pathetic is that! Even pretending you are in charge of anything on this blog doesnt seem to be annoying anybody.
What a pathetic loser you are even your description of the GHE not cooling, slower cooling shows mental deterioration.
[quiet chuckling]
Why do you keep posting the same lousy responses, Mike?
They bring your position to a halt.
Wistful Wee Willy,
I do as I wish, whether you care or not. Here –
“Mike Flynn, please stop making yourself sure that you will lose your PSTering privilege for next month.”
Still can’t get yourself banned? How pathetic is that! Even pretending you are in charge of anything on this blog doesnt seem to be annoying anybody.
What a pathetic loser you are even your description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling” shows mental deterioration.
[more quiet chuckling]
Why do you wish to bring your position to a halt, Mike Flynn?
Sociopaths are supposed to be intelligent.
Wistful Wee Willy,
I do as I wish, whether you care or not. Here
“Mike Flynn, please stop making yourself sure that you will lose your PSTering privilege for next month.”
Still cant get yourself banned? How pathetic is that! Even pretending you are in charge of anything on this blog doesn’t seem to be annoying anybody.
What a pathetic loser you are even your description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling” shows mental deterioration.
[more quiet chuckling]
Are you sure you really are doing as you wish, Mike?
Wistful Wee Willy,
I do as I wish, whether you care or not. Here –
“Mike Flynn, please stop making yourself sure that you will lose your PSTering privilege for next month.”
Still can’t get yourself banned? How pathetic is that! Even pretending you are in charge of anything on this blog doesnt seem to be annoying anybody.
What a loser you are even your description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling” shows mental deterioration.
[more quiet chuckling]
Sleep well, Mike.
Sleep well, Mike.
Mea culpa, Fetterman: I was wrong about Senator and his illness
By Social Links for Glenn H. Reynolds
Published June 3, 2024, 5:26 p.m. ET
https://nypost.com/2024/06/03/opinion/the-more-fetterman-recovers-the-less-hes-with-the-left/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“Its time for me to do something that pundits seldom do: Flat out admit I was wrong.
This is a rarity in the commentating world. But boy, was I.
Here goes: I was wrong about Sen. John Fetterman.
Writing in The Post on Valentines Day in 2023, I opined that Pennsylvanias new US Senator lacked the mental and physical abilities needed to serve.”
How could he make such a mistake.
What senator needs mental and physical abilities?
Well here, isolated tribe gets the internet:
–A remote tribe was given the internet for the first time heres how its gone
Also linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“Marubo leader, Enoque Marubo (all Marubo use the same surname), 40, who was instrumental in bringing Starlink to his people, said a big issue in the early days was people not hunting and growing food because they were stuck on their phone.
He said: In the village, if you dont hunt, fish and plant, you dont eat.”
https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/03/arrival-internet-impacted-a-remote-amazon-tribe-20962811/?ico=related-posts
It seems to me they could lose a little weight.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
PHOENIX (AP) Parts of California, Nevada and Arizona are expected to bake this week as the first heat wave of the season arrives with triple-digit temperatures forecast for areas including Phoenix, which last summer saw a record 31 straight days of at least 110 degrees Fahrenheit (43.3 Celsius).
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/united-states/southwest-us-to-bake-in-first-heat-wave-of-season-and-records-may-fall/article_57ba02c2-5d96-50bc-86e5-8aa314c26079.html
Norman claims to have studied chemistry but he cannot uderstand how charges work.
“I have explained what is vibrating in a molecule but you just reject it because you dont like it.
The vibration is a combination of the electron bond (you are correct on that one) but also the nuclei of the atoms within the molecule are in motion. Moving closer together and then further apart. The only function of the bonding is to act like a spring tension that pulls the nuclei back as they are moving away from each other”.
***
The first problem with Norman’s view is that all covalent molecules feature atoms that vibrate slightly when they come within 6 atomic radii of each other. Same in solids like pure copper. The copper atoms all vibrate and if you add heat they vibrate even more, Add enough heat, like from an acetylene torch and the vibrate so hard the copper melts.
Remember what we’re talking about here, CO2 is claimed to vibrate therefore it can absorb and emit IR but N2 an O2 can’t, according to alarmists. In real life N2 vibrates just fine and can absorb and emit IR fine, just not as much as CO2. However, the number of N2 molecules compared to CO2 molecules balances things out so that N2 has significant IR absorp.tion and emission.
Ergo, Norman’s theory of molecular vibration fails to explain that.
Another problem is that protons in the nucleus and inner electrons cannot affect bond vibration. Only the valence/bonding electrons can affect that vibration. It’s safe to say that Norman, who claims to have studied chemistry, was either skipping classes or completely misunderstood what was being taught.
I need to repeat…molecules are atoms bonded by valence electrons which are outer shell electrons. The vibration we are talking about is vibration in those electron bonds.
One of Norman’s authority figures, Al Gore, had a similar problem. He learned basic climate science from Dr. Roger Revelle, likely a first year course, and glibly set himself up as an expert in climate science. When Revelle published a book with Fred Singer which cautioned the public not to read too much into alarmist claims, Gore went ballistic, claiming that Revelle was senile.
I think it’s safe to say that alarmist climate scientists and advocates suffer the same problem. They lack the ability to reason and to understand basic science.
Mr. Asshat, please stop lying –
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-note-about-roger-revelle-julian.html
As if anybody cares for your mad opinions!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Have you found a description of the greenhouse effect yet?
Weird Wee Willy,
Why would I bother wasting time trying to find something that obviously doesnt exist?
Would you? Only joking, youre the sort of dimwit who believes the GHE exists, but cant find anybody who can describe it. You cant do any better than “not cooling, slower cooling”, which is pretty silly, isnt it?
No, Willard. If a GHE description existed, some GHE cultist would have produced it by now.
You must be dreaming again.
Still no description of the greenhouse effect, Mike Flynn?
Must suck to be you.
“Still no description of the greenhouse effect, Mike Flynn?”
Yes, that would appear to be the case.
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, of course.
[laughing at would-be troll]
I’ll go with what you say, Mike, and you say that you have no description of the greenhouse effect.
After all these years, must suck to be you.
“Ill go with what you say, Mike, and you say that you have no description of the greenhouse effect.”
Nor has anybody else. It’s a myth.
Feel free to waste your time looking for a GHE description.
No need for me to search for what obviously exists, Mike.
Why would I do that – because a silly sock puppet demands it?
Good morning, btw.
No need for me to search for what obviously exists, Mike.
Why would I do that because a silly sock puppet demands it?
Good morning, btw.
norman….”Your Chemistry knowledge is very weak. On Ionic bonds, in your limited understanding of Chemistry you falsely believe a Sodium Ion is just less negative than the Chloride Ion. This defies logic. If the Sodium Ion was not actually positive (I gave you a link which shows it is. I guess you just reject what you want to, crackpot science at its worst!), just less negative (as you conclude for no real reason except your ignorance of Chemistry).
If you have any actual electrical engineering then you would know that even if less negative two negatives will never stick together, they will repel. If Sodium Ion was still a negative charge, just lesser than the Chloride the two would NEVER form a strong ionic bond! The two ions would always repel. You act like the positive charge of the protons do nothing”.
***
Norman exposes more of his junior high school understanding of science.
A sodium atom has 11 electron but only one in its outer shell. That is its normal condition. If you remove that electron, does that make it positive? It still has 10 electrons orbiting the nucleus. So, if you have 11 negative charges and you remove one does that create a proton with a positive charge?
Remember, bonding involves the outer shell electrons whether they are shared or donated. If you bring two atoms close to form a bond, there is a repulsion between proton charges in the nucleus of each atom. There will also be an attraction between the electrons and the protons, but Bohr’s stipulation was that the electrons must remain in their respective orbitals and that stipulation has been carried over into atoms with more than one electron.
Sodium can form an ionic bond with chlorine to form NaCl, common table salt. Let’s look at the chlorine atom.
Chlorine has 17 electrons. In it’s outer orbital it has 3p5 electrons and it needs 6 to complete the orbital. If another atom could just donate an electron, it would make chlorine very happy since that would give it the requisite 6 electrons to make the atom stable.
Sodium has that electron and if it donates it, the outer previous shell, which is a 2p6 orbital is complete. So, both Na and Cl form a happy union. It is not explained by any such theory why the atoms want to bond
What does it mean to donate an electron? Remember, all the electrons must still reside in orbits and if sodium donates an electron it somehow means it shares an orbital. However, it’s way to cute to suggest sodium gives its electron away just like that. Why should it and why does chlorine want it?
If sodium donates it’s electron and chlorine gains it, then sodium has 1 less electron while chlorine has one more. Sodium is said then to be a positive ion while chlorine becomes a negative ion. How does that set up a positive charge like a proton and a negative charge like an electron. It clearly does not work that way.
What we are talking about is net positive or negative charge which is quite different than an actual positive and negative charge.
If I charge a capacitor plate with electrons of certain negative charge and another capacitor with half as many electrons hence half the charge, that makes the plate with the lesser charge positive wrt the plate with the greater charge. Those plates will not attract each other.
You cannot attract negative charges with other negative charges and that’s all ions have are negative charges. So, we need another explanation for why positive ions can form ionic bonds with negative ions.
The overall picture is the balance between positive charges on the nucleus and negative charges in the orbiting electrons. If they are equal, with the charges being the same size, the atom is electrostatically balanced. If sodium loses an electron, it now has 5 electrons and 6 protons, giving it a net positive charge. That still does not explain why an atom with a net positive charge is bonded to one with a net negative charge.
If they are attracted to each other due to electrostatic difference, how does that work?The electrons must orbit, so where is the charge difference stored? Where is its centre? This is not at all like a magnets.
In other words, the bonding cannot be explained using electrostatic balance alone. If I bring a sodium atom with an extra electron close to a chlorine atom needing an electron, why is there any reaction at all? Why dos the sodium electron ant to leave the sodium atom and jump into a hole in the chlorine atom?
The answer is that no one knows. It has a lot to do with bond energies and how close the atoms are to each other but in the end, I don’t think anyone has the answer.
“I dont think anyone has the answer.”
I agree. I’ve seen the results of someone not realising what happens if sodium and water are mixed in a bucket. I’ve also experienced chlorine gas exposure.
On the other hand, common salt is just chlorine and sodium combined – for reasons which generally resolve to “because they do”!
About as weird as gases like hydrogen and oxygen combining to form water – without which we wouldn’t be here!
Or helium – remains liquid at temperatures where hydrogen solidified, becoming a superfluid!
QED explains why this may be so, and until someone comes up with a better alternative hypothesis (as consistent with QED theory in other areas), it’s good enough for me.
Close enough for Government work.
Gordon,
“If I bring a sodium atom with an extra electron close to a chlorine atom needing an electron, why is there any reaction at all?”
Because the atoms are in a lower energy state with their orbital shells filled.
An Na+ ion with the outermost shell filled with 8 electrons, and a Cl- ion with the outermost shell filled, are more stable or less reactive than a neutral Na atom and a neutral Cl atom.
“The electrons must orbit,”
Not really, electrons do not orbit the nucleus like a miniature solar system.
“Because the atoms are in a lower energy state with their orbital shells filled.”
That’s like saying that you are stupid because you’re an idiot.
You have no clue, have you?
Swenson,
That’s why mixing sodium metal with chlorine gas is an exothermic reaction.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Sacramento_City_College/SCC%3A_CHEM_330_-_Adventures_in_Chemistry_(Alviar-Agnew)/04%3A_Chemical_Bonds/4.03%3A_The_Reaction_of_Sodium_with_Chlorine#:~:text=If%20sodium%20metal%20and%20chlorine%20gas%20mix%20under,great%20amount%20of%20light%20and%20heat%20is%20released.
I read
‘Because the atoms are in a lower energy state with their orbital shells filled.’
*
Flynnson caught in a deep soliloquy:
” That’s like saying that you are stupid because you’re an idiot.
You have no clue, have you? “
Norman
Robertson is an absolutely ignorant braggart who discredits and denigrates everything he doesn’t understand and hence dislikes.
Lunar spin, viruses, Ukraine war, time, Einstein vs. Newton, GPS, temperature time series, anomalies, global weather station inventories, operating systems, programming languages etc etc etc.
*
The best is his thorough ignorance about Newton.
He discredits and denigrates Einstein for his results which supposedly challenge Newton’s, although they usually represent only tiny changes from the old values, such as the precession of the perihelion of the planets or – even more ridiculous – the bending of the rays of light from stars near the sun, which Robertson dares to call a nonsense.
But… it was even predicted by Newton in his treatise ‘Opticks’ (1704).
Einstein’s value based on his gravity laws on only twice the value obtained when using Newton’s laws.
*
Here is what Newton wrote at the end of his treatise:
” When I made the foregoing Observations, I design’d to repeat most of them with more care and exactness, and to make some new ones for determining the manner how the Rays of Light are bent in their passage by Bodies, for making the Fringes of Colours with the dark lines between them. But I was then interrupted, and cannot now think of taking these things into farther Consideration. And since I have not finish’d this part of my Design, I shall conclude with proposing only some Queries, in order to a farther search to be made by others. ”
Query 1.
” Do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance, and by their action bend its Rays; and is not this action (caeteris paribus) strongest at the least distance? ”
{ In Newton’s times, light particles were assumed to have a mass. }
*
In 1801, Johann Georg von Soldner published a computation of starlight bending by Earth (!) and by the Sun, using Newton’s laws.
See appendix of the interesting article
Johann Georg yon Soldner and the Gravitational Bending of Light, with an English Translation of His Essay on It Published in 1801
Stanley L. Jaki (1978)
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/7828760/mod_resource/content/1/Jaki-1978-on-Soldner.pdf
{ The ‘detail’ about Einstein’s first calculation in 1911 giving the same value as Newton’s and revised in 1915 is really funny, however. }
Saying “Because the atoms are in a lower energy state with their orbital shells filled., followed by “Thats why mixing sodium metal with chlorine gas is an exothermic reaction.” is completely meaningless.
That’s why your idiocy makes you appear stupid.
Swenson,
Perhaps the subject is too advanced for you.
Bumbling bobby,
“Perhaps the subject is too advanced for you.”
What subject would that be, fool? Of course, you will refuse to say!
That’s because you are a dimwitted GHE cultist. Maybe you could refuse to describe the GHE as well – would that show how clever you are, do you think?
[derisive snorting]
Swenson,
The topic would be Chemistry, which you don’t know very much about.
The topic would be Chemistry, which you dont know very much about.
OK, bobby.
[derisive chortling]
Thanks for the flattery.
[snigger]
Mike Flynn,
Good night.
Gordon Robertson
What?? You are goofy!
YOU: “One of Normans authority figures, Al Gore, had a similar problem. He learned basic climate science from Dr. Roger Revelle, likely a first year course, and glibly set himself up as an expert in climate science.”
Where do you come up with that? I have never been a fan of Al Gore and I believe he is a fanatic. I will stick to evidence based science.
Gordon Robertson
I have studied Chemistry quite well and understand the concepts. You fail miserably and will not adjust your nonsense points.
Molecular vibrations are the result of nuclei of the atoms making up the molecule moving closer and farther apart. The bonding electrons act as tension that as the nuclei move apart the bond stretches and tends to pull them together. You don’t understand Chemistry and put down people who correct you. I have given you many links helping you understand what you don’t. You are a complete science denier so you reject it all.
There is a whole branch of Chemistry you ignore that is based upon dipoles and molecular vibration that is called IR Spectroscopy. You never learned this branch and you are so ignorant of real science that when it is given to you you just reject it all!
Norman,
Is this why you refuse to describe the GHE?
Comment misplaced:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1671214
norman…yet most textbooks and papers you read bring the molecular vibrations down to the electronegativity of the constituent atoms.
If you have two nitrogen atoms bonded into an N2 molecule, the positive/negative proton/electron interaction will definitely produce vibration. However, N2 cannot form a dipole because the electronegativity is equal on either end of the bond.
It’s not clear to me why a dipole should make a difference when it comes to absorbing and emitting IR. I have never seen the reason adequately explained. I still think the absorbing/emission of IR comes down to the properties of the bonding orbital.
N2 will absorb and emit IR but at a lower level than CO2. However, N2 makes up 78% of the atmosphere whereas CO2 makes up only 0.04%. When you take the net radiation related to both gases, the sheer abundance of N2 makes its effect closer to CO2.
In other words, alarmist propaganda is wrong.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Its not clear to me why a dipole should make a difference when it comes to absorbing and emitting IR. I have never seen the reason adequately explained.”
IR is part of the EMR band of energy. EMR is a vibration of electric and magnetic fields that require no medium to move through. Self contained electric/magnetic disturbance that move through space. Alternating electric and magnetic fields.
A dipole is an actual positive (net) and negative (net) charged region is space. When the Plus and Minus ends vibrate they create both a magnetic and electric vibrating field which becomes IR and leaves the vibrating molecule removing energy upon emission and the vibrating molecule goes to a ground state vibration which does not emit energy (like and electron in ground state).
I do not know where you got the N2 is about equal to CO2 emission. CO2 would emit around 34 up to 68 W/m^2 depending upon the Water Vapor present since some of the emission bands overlap.
If you look at HITRAN N2 emits billions of times less IR than CO2.
Nitrogen can emit in the atmosphere under multiple molecular interactions in the higher energy of the Upper Atmosphere. I have read the report and it does not make claims of massive N2 IR emission.
Here is a link to the HITRAN tool. You can look at the results yourself. You can do atmospheric abundance plot. Looks like CO2 is still over a million times more contribution of IR. Make your own plots and see.
https://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
“If you look at HITRAN N2 emits billions of times less IR than CO2.”
At the same temperature, it emits precisely the same wavelengths as CO2. You cannot distinguish CO2 from nitrogen by measuring the frequency of emitted radiation.
You are thinking about excitation, or possibly spectroscopy, where light interacts with a specimen of the gas.
Feel free to believe what you want. Refuse to describe the GHE if you wish.
You still look like an idiot.
Swenson
You make unsupported and wrong statements.
YOU: “At the same temperature, it emits precisely the same wavelengths as CO2. You cannot distinguish CO2 from nitrogen by measuring the frequency of emitted radiation.”
Your post is total and complete garbage! Why do you think you need to post false statements that you just make up is known only to you.
Spectroscopy is the very branch of science that determines unknown compounds based upon the different wavelengths emitted by different materails.
Not sure who you are tying to convince or maybe you just want to display the fact you don’t know what you are talking about, at all, but want everyone on the blog to know this about you.
Swenson is living in la-la land again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sensor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SClbn4VNqjs
“Self-Constrained Climate Sensitivity by Greenhouse Effect | CO2 Blocking of Radiation”
RLH,
Cant be bothered watching the movie.
There is no “climate sensitivity”.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations.
Only fanatical GHE cultists believe that climate impscts weather. Nutters all.
“Cant be bothered watching the movie.”
Sure thing.
Don’t tell you were that silly!
Aaaaargh!
Don’t tell me you were that silly!
Bugger!
swenson…as a fellow skeptic I can assure you it is well worth watching. Zhong proves that raising CO2 levels to 9000 ppmv will barely cause any warming. In other words, GHE kaput.
RLH demonstrates his ignorance of radiative physics and thermodynamics. He found another link he can’t udnerstand. The link continues the scam by beleiveing that CO2 absorbing infrared means that CO2 is “heating the planet”. That would mean that EVERYTHING that absorbs infrared would be heating the planet — even bananas and strawberries.
RLH is ignorant of radiative physics and thermodynamics.
He’s not alone….
Take it up with the author, not me.
“Take it up with the author, not me.”
So you post nonsense you refuse to defend. Very persuasive?
No wonder you refuse to describe the GHE.
Take responsibility for your incompetence, RLH. That’s the start of learning. You realize how ignorant you are, and then you try to improve. Cultists believe they know it all, so they can’t learn.
Is it nonsense?
Of course it is. What are you talking about?
Richard…now that you have Clint’s disapproval you can be sure you are on the right track. He is suddenly attacking everyone, skeptics and alarmists alike. BTW…I regard you as being somewhat skeptical of the catastrophic global warming theory.
The movie was very interesting. I had estimated from a similar graph that the effect of CO2 was about 7% at absorbing surface radiation. I can live with Zhong’s less than 10%. Much better than the 22.5% of Arrhenius that is currently used by the IPCC.
BTW…Zhong points out that Tyndall thought the absorbing effect of CO2 would be about 5%.
I still like the prediction of the Ideal Gas Law and the thermal diffusivity equation that limits CO2 at 0.04% to a pithy 0.06C warming for every 1C warming of the atmosphere.
There is no climate sensitivity.
An entire science profession says you’re a liar.
How it started…
Stephen P Anderson wrote:
“15% of voters have seen 2000mules.”
How it’s going…
Publisher of ‘2,000 Mules’ election conspiracy theory film issues apology
Dinesh D’Souza is a scumbag liar.
A,
“Dinesh DSouza is a scumbag liar.”
OK, and . . . ?
Mike Flynn, please stop implying that you don’t mind being a liar and a scumbag.
“please stop implying”
Or what? Going to hit me with your handbag? Pout at me?
[laughing]
Better than that, Mike –
I’m gonna serve you your morning coffee.
“Better than that, Mike
Im gonna serve you your morning coffee.”
That’s right, Mike.
With creams and sugars.
“Thats right, Mike.
With creams and sugars.”
There you go, Mike.
There you go, Mike.
Have you watched 2000 Mules? It offers overwhelming evidence of ballot stuffing. D’Souza apologized for one incident and there were thousands of them.
This reaction to 2000 Mules is typical of the politically-correct who go to great lengths to suppress opposition. And it’s typical of you (Ark) who goes to great lengths to misrepresent the truth. I have revealed your bs on several occasions and you have failed to scientifically rebut my claims. Rather, you have resorted to ad homs, insults, and authority figures.
Mr. Asshat, please stop saying stuff, only you buys into what this pink sheet has to sell –
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SALM/
It may be to scammy for the scam capital of the world, the Vancouver Stock Exchange.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop saying stuff . . . ”
Or you’ll poke yourself in the eye with a red-not needle.
That should fix him!
Still destroying Graham D. Warner’s toy, Mike Flynn?
Still destroying Graham D. Warners toy, Mike Flynn?
“It offers overwhelming evidence of ballot stuffing. DSouza apologized for one incident and there were thousands of them.”
Oh?
https://apnews.com/article/georgia-elections-true-vote-ballot-stuffing-199113b47bc2df79c63fdf007cd23115
“Conservative group tells judge it has no evidence to back its claims of Georgia ballot stuffing”
“True the Votes assertions were relied upon heavily for 2000 Mules, a widely debunked film by conservative pundit and filmmaker Dinesh DSouza. A State Election Board investigation found that surveillance camera footage that the film claimed showed ballot stuffing actually showed people submitting ballots for themselves and family members who lived with them, which is allowed under Georgia law.”
Ark,
I read the reference by Andrew Dessler. The only relevant topic in Chapter 2 for my argument is his discussion on temperature anomalies and the comparison of satellite vs. surface measurements. So, here’s my response:
Mr. Dessler argues that the satellite and surface data independently confirm each other’s accuracy. This is peculiar because he himself pointed out the flaws in both data series on pages 19 and 20. However, he dismisses these sources of systematic bias as if they are trivial and unimportant, when in fact, they are very significant:
“One way to gain confidence in the satellite and surface thermometer records is to compare them; this is done in Figure 2.4. The excellent agreement between these two independent temperature measurements provides strong confirmation of the reality of the warming of the climate seen in both data sets.”
On page 17, Mr. Dessler claims that a single thermometer is sufficient to monitor the climate of a region, and that only 100 thermometers would be needed for an accurate global average.
Andrew Dessler appears to think one-dimensionally. He conflates statistical variability with real-world variability, essentially assuming that all uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels out. And he never addresses measurement uncertainty in this chapter.
Ark, you are completely misunderstanding my position. You keep ignoring the fact that this field of science assumes the data collected is representative of the true signal we are trying to track.
> he dismisses these sources of systematic bias
Walter R. Hogle, please stop using these words, they do not mean what you make them mean.
“please stop using these words”
Obey! Or suffer Willard’s punishment!
[snigger]
Mike Flynn, please stop destroying your PSTs.
Mike Flynn, please stop destroying your PSTs.
Exactly.
Exactly.
“assumes the data collected is representative of the true signal we are trying to track”
Isn’t that the basic premise of every data collection endeavor regardless of field of science?
Further, I wouldn’t say that we “assume,” but rather make every effort to collect only representative data.
Give me an example from your own work experience where you set out to collect data that wasn’t representative of the parameter you were trying to track. That would be wasteful, no?
All Page 17 says is, first, that anomalies are [more] consistent over wide spatial distributions than temperatures, and second, two independent methods of measurement are better than one. Makes sense.
I don’t know what you mean by “all uncertainty is random, Gaussian”
Uncertainty is a subjective aspect of our own knowledge. It is our lack of knowledge that creates uncertainty. We reduce uncertainty by increasing our knowledge, therefore information has value because of its capacity to reduce uncertainty.
You may be talking about natural variability, which is certainly random.
“Give me an example from your own work experience where you set out to collect data that wasnt representative of the parameter you were trying to track. That would be wasteful, no?”
You own a restaurant and you are collecting customer reviews left on Google because you believe they are representative of overall customer satisfaction. However, these reviews may not accurately reflect this. The reviews are from individuals who choose to leave them, and there’s a possibility that some may be insincere or from fake bot accounts.
Also, the reviews are likely biased toward people who are more tech-savvy. Older customers, who are not familiar with navigating the internet, are less likely to leave reviews compared to younger customers.
“All Page 17 says is, first, that anomalies are [more] consistent over wide spatial distributions than temperatures, and second, two independent methods of measurement are better than one. Makes sense.”
Look at Dessler’s Figure 2.1. The graphs are similar, but the data points differ. Why is that? When you normalize the data points onto a common baseline, they can significantly diverge from each other. So, which one is correct?
Each series has its own significant problems, as Dessler noted. So how reliable are they as independent tests?
“You may be talking about natural variability, which is certainly random.”
It is deterministic, as I showed with my example.
Okay.
I don’t know about collecting data on customer satisfaction surveys. I meant physical data.
Here’s a real world example:
I have an underground reservoir that is 10,000 feet (~3,000 meters) below the surface. I plan to use it to store natural gas during the summer when I can buy it cheap and sell it in the winter when prices are high. I want to know how much total gas I can store in it and how fast I can inject and withdraw from it. I know it covers an area of 30 square miles. What data do I need?
I want to know the rock storage, the permeability, and the risk of my precious commodity leaking out. All my efforts will go into gathering the representative data for each of the critical variables. Everything else is wasted effort and money.
“Look at Dessler’s Figure 2.1”
The objective in Chapter 2 is to answer the question Is the Climate Changing? To that end the anomalies in figure 2b speak clearly, no?
You say that natural variability is deterministic. I don’t think I fully agree. The phases of the Moon are deterministic, ENSO cycles not so much.
A,
You wrote –
“Heres a real world example:” No it’s not, is it? You don’t have an underground reservoir at all.
You don’t “fully agree” that natural variability is deterministic, but you refuse to say how much you do agree – typical, so you can deny saying anything definite.
The IPCC states that the atmosphere is chaotic – fully deterministic with a sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
I can see why you refuse to describe the GHE – you would have to say something definite, and that would never do, would it?
ark…”The objective in Chapter 2 is to answer the question Is the Climate Changing?”
***
Is what climate changing? We have several climates within 500 miles of us, not to mention the rain forest climate in the Vancouver area.
Right now, here in Vancouver, the weather is the same as usual for early June, cloudy with spots of sunlight and wet. Nothing I would call a change in climate.
If anything I notice the Sun feels hotter when sitting in it. That is subjective and likely based on climate change in my body.
ark…”I wouldnt say that we assume, but rather make every effort to collect only representative data”.
***
Is it representative?
The surface temperature data is the same data designed to predict weather. The sat data used by UAH was designed for weather as well, not climate predictions. It was Roy and John from UAH who approached NOAA to retrieve the data which had been moth-balled. In 1979, no one had any interest in global temperatures or climate change.
Two a day thermometer readings were fine for local weather prediction but now they are being used to suggest a global temperature. Where is any attempt being made to monitor local climate by averaging the weather in those areas? All I have seen alarmists present are vague suggestions based on certain criteria like severe weather events.
> I dont know about collecting data on customer satisfaction surveys.
I do. It works the same as any other measurement. Statistical tests allow to establish the reliability of the raters and to spot outliers. Depending upon the task at hand, these outliers can be filtered out as noise, or selected as signal.
One can test these tests too, of course. But one can’t compare with
with an objective value that we could use to “verify” our measurements. The same as with thermometers, really. Except that we have a better idea of how the climate works than how people think. There are models for specific cognitive tasks, but not for preference in general. Except for stuff like Cambridge Analytica, perhaps.
“Depending upon the task at hand, these outliers can be filtered out as noise, or selected as signal.”
Just like experts examining historical weather data in order to predict the future.
Discard what you dont like, keep what you want, and create new data to fit with what you kept, in order to look more impressive.
Extremes exist. They are generally called record occurrences.
Fiddling around with weather data tells you precisely nothing about weather to come.
Climate scientists haven’t the faintest notion what they are trying to do. Some claim that a GHE exists, but they refuse to describe it, to avoid looking completely stupid.
That’s why you refuse to describe the GHE, isn’t it? Fear of being laughed at!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Have you found a description of the greenhouse effect yet?
Which greenhouse effect are you talking about?
Yours – “not cooling, slower cooling”?
You are really just being stupid , arent you? The GHE is mythical, and you know it. Thats why you and other idiots keep trying to convince rational people that cooling is warming!
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…”He discredits and denigrates Einstein for his results which supposedly challenge Newtons…”
***
Einstein’s theories do not challenge those of Newton. As Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock stated, Einstein’s relativity theory is not even a theory but a collection of thought experiments.
A key component of Einstein’s relativity theory is time. He defined time in one paper as ‘the hands on a clock’. I can understand in a way because circa 1905, time was still regarded as a quaint notion and I don’t think much effort was made to understand what it is.
Today, we (at least, some of us) know time is a construct of the human mind but in the day of Einstein, psychology was in its infancy and people thought in an entirely different manner. For example, will power was a big deal and people were rated on that, which in many cases is nothing more than sheer stubbornness and a rigid mind. When Freud tried to introduce the notion that we are in fact subject to the whims of unconscious process, he was hooted down mercilessly.
Time had no universal meaning in those days since most clocks were set locally. Trains running through British towns were set according to London time, delivered by train conductors. If there was such a phenomenon as time, why could people not tune into it locally and have their clocks all set to the same time?
Universal time had it’s beginning in 1884 when Greenwich Mean Time was invented. It was not till much later that UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) was invented and here’s a note about it….
“UTC was adjusted several times until 1972, when leap seconds were introduced to keep UTC in line with the Earth’s rotation, which is not entirely even, and less exact than atomic clocks”.
This tells you how much Einstein messed up by presuming time is the hands on a clock. Leap seconds had to be added to the human invention of time to “keep UTC in line with the Earth’s rotation”.
Come on folks, this is not too difficult to understand. Like the sundials of old, time is still based on the Earth’s rotation.
***there is no other time!!!***
Einstein screwed up by presuming time is an independent phenomenon.
—–
Re Newton….
“Query 1.
Do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance, and by their action bend its Rays; and is not this action (caeteris paribus) strongest at the least distance?
***
To be fair to Newton, he knew nothing about electromagnetic energy and its relationship to electrons in atoms. He did not even know about atoms, let lone electonics.
It is far more likely that light is bent by a charged body like the Sun. We know light is bent by objects but as a wave. It is due to the different wavelengths in light that such a refraction occurs.
Einstein was not talking about this. He was talking about time and space forming a matrix that replaces gravitational force…sheer nonsense.
Einsteins theories do not challenge those of Newton.
Newton’s mechanics are a good approximation to Einstein’s for low velocities and masses. At high velocities and masses, Einstein’s predictions differ radically from Newton’s. Einstein’s predictions accounted for the precession of Mercury, already known of before Einstein, and have since been confirmed to an accuracy of 1 in 10^-11.
Newton’s mathematics of conic sections are not contradicted by Einstein, if that’s any comfort.
Okay, I have the first draught of my Chrome extension running. I am now officially retard-free. I’ll tidy it up and put a bare-bones version on the repository ASAP, probably Sunday. It will be really bare-bones to start with: Just a couple of hard-coded names. The following cautions apply:
1. You’ll have to actually add it to your browser, and for now it’ll have to be a Chromium-based browser. That includes Chrome, Brave, Edge etc.
2. It’s ONLY client-side. Les nuls will still be able to spam your posts with worthless replies, and visitors will still see them.
3. It’s really easy to cheat. Les nuls can just keep changing their user name every post. I can’t stop that on the client-side.